Sri S.sasidhar Reddy

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Present: S. Sasidhar Reddy, Chairman, MACT-cum-

Principal District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District.

Monday, the 7th day of April, 2025.

M.V.O.P.No.466 of 2023

Between:

1. Kapa Mohini, W/o.Kapa Keshaba Rao, Aged 53 years, Occ: Housewife,

2. Kapa Keshaba Rao, S/o.late K.Jagan Nayakalu, Aged 52 years, Occ: Nil,

3. Kappa Basudev, S/o.Kapa Keshaba Rao, Aged 21 years, Occ: Nil,

All are R/o.H.No.5-31, Indira Nagar, Thurkayamjal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State. … Petitioners AND

1. T.S.R.T.C., represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad-500020 (RTC Bus bearing No.TS 08Z 7657 of Karimnagar Depot)

2. M.Laxman, S/o.Vaman, Aged: 36 years, Occ: RTC Driver, R/o.H.No.4-48, Housing Board Colony, Karimnagar Rural, Karimnagar district-505001, Telangana State. … Respondents

This petition came before me on 18.03.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Venkateshwarlu, counsel for petitioners and Sri P.Suresh

Kumar, counsel for respondent No.1, respondent No.2 set exparte, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

AWARD

1. This is a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

PDJ, RRD

M.V.O.P.No.466/2023

Dated: 07.04.2025

Page No. 2 of 10

2. The case of the petitioners is that, (i) the petitioners are the parents and brother of late Kappa Bhimudu. He was aged 22 years and was working as a welder with Nirvana Industrial India Pvt.,Ltd., and earning Rs.22,000/- per month. He was contributing his entire earnings for the welfare of the petitioners.

(ii) That on 01.07.2023, after completing his work Bheemudu along with his friend Tarakesh were proceeding on the motorcycle of Bheemudu bearing

No.TS 08JE 1204 from Turkapally towards Alwal. When they reached near

NISA, Hakimpet, the 2nd respondent driving TSRTC Bus bearing No.TS 08Z 7657 at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner collided against the motorcycle of Bheemudu while trying to overtake a car. As a result of the said collision, Bheemudu and Tarakesh sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

(iii) That the police of Alwal Police Station registered case in

Cr.No.399/2023 under Sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the 2nd respondent.

(iv) That because of the accident, the petitioners lost a valued family member and his support.

(v) That the 1st respondent is the owner of the TSRTC Bus bearing

No.TS 08Z 7657 and the 2nd respondent is in the employment of the 2nd respondent and the therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of realization to the petitioners.

PDJ, RRD

M.V.O.P.No.466/2023

Dated: 07.04.2025

Page No. 3 of 10

3. The 1st respondents filed counter denying the allegations in the petition.

4. The 2nd respondent did not appear despite service of notice and was set exparte.

5. Basing on the pleadings, this court framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the accident that occurred on 01.07.2023 at about 19.50 hours near NISA, Hakimpet occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R2 of RTC Bus bearing No.TS 08Z 7657?

(2) Whether late Kappa Bhimudu sustained injuries in the said accident and died due to the said injuries? (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, what is the quantum of the compensation and from which of the respondents?

(4) To what relief?

6. The petitioners, in support of their case, examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A11 and Exs.C1 & C2. The 1st respondent examined the 2nd respondent as RW1.

7. Heard learned counsel for petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

8. ISSUE No.1: It is the case of the petitioners that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent of TSRTC bus bearing No.TS 08Z 7657. In support of the same, the petitioners examined

PW1 and marked Ex.A1- certified copy of FIR, Ex.A3- certified copy of Charge

Sheet and Ex.A5- certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report and they also examined PW2 as an eye-witness. However, PW2 is not cited as an eye- witness in the charge sheet. PW2 deposed that he knows the eye-witnesses.

PDJ, RRD

M.V.O.P.No.466/2023

Dated: 07.04.2025

Page No. 4 of 10

9. Though the 1st respondent denied the accident and examined the 2nd respondent as RW1 in support of their case, but the 2nd respondent did not appear and file his counter and did not state his version of the event. Further, the contention of the 1st respondent is that Bheemudu had driven into the lane in which the bus was proceeding, which is contrary to the police investigation.

Moreover, it is also to be noted that in the counter of the 1st respondent, the plea that Bheemudu caused the accident was not taken.

10. The MVI report Ex.A5 shows that the front right side of the Bus was damaged. This damage can occur if Bheemudu drove onto the lane in which the bus was travelling or if the Bus drove onto the lane Bheemudu was travelling. The persons who can best say what had occurred are Bheemudu, who is unfortunately not with us now, the 2nd respondent and the persons cited as eye witnesses in Ex.A3. The eye witnesses have not been examined by the petitioners in this case. 2nd respondent did not file his counter even though he had received notice in this case. The 1st respondent did not take the plea that

Bheemudu drove his motorcycle onto the lane in which the Bus was travelling and collided against the Bus.

11. The collision was a head on collision. If, indeed, Bheemudu had driven onto the lane of the bus and had caused the accident, then the 2nd respondent would have filed a protest before the police for being charged with the responsibility for causing the accident. But the 2nd respondent admitted on the stand that he did not file any protest against his being implicated as the accused in the criminal case registered in respect of the accident. In so far as the petitioners’ evidence is concerned, they did examine PW2 as eye witness,

PDJ, RRD

M.V.O.P.No.466/2023

Dated: 07.04.2025

Page No. 5 of 10 though as noted, he is not cited as such in Ex.A3. Further the police record

Ex.A1, A3 & A5 all show that the accident was caused by the TSRTC Bus bearing number TS 08 Z 7657. RW1 admitted that he was driving the Bus on the date of accident. Therefore, this court is inclined to believe that the accident occurred when the Bus went onto the lane in which Bheemudu was travelling on his Motor Cycle.

12. In these circumstances, the evidence of RW1 cannot be accepted and the evidence of the petitioners has to be accepted and it has to be held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent of TSRTC Bus bearing No.TS 08Z 7657.

13. ISSUE No.2: In support of their claim that Bheemudu sustained injuries in the accident and died as a result of the said injuries, the petitioners relied upon Ex.A2 – certified copy of Inquest Report and Ex.A4 – certified copy of

Postmortem Examination Report apart from Exs.A1 and A3. These documents show that Bheemudu sustained injuries in the accident and died as a result of the said injuries.

14. ISSUE No.3: It is the case of the petitioners that Bheemudu was aged 22 years and he was working as a welder with PW3 and was earning

Rs.22,000/- per month. In support of their case, the petitioners examined

PW3 as an employer of Bheemudu and also marked Ex.A6 – Salary

Certificate and Exs.A8 to A11 – Certificate of Incorporation of company, copy of Pan card of PW3, copy of Labour Registration and GST Registration respectively and also Ex.C1 – Attendant Cards and Ex.C2 – Payment

PDJ, RRD

M.V.O.P.No.466/2023

Dated: 07.04.2025

Page No. 6 of 10

Vouchers. In this regard, it is to be noted that though PW3 stated that he is running an industry and Bheemudu was working under him and he also admitted that he is an income tax assessee and the salaries paid have to be accounted for, but no record or accounts of salaries paid are filed. When PW3 was first examined, he did not produce any record of employment of

Bheemudu and later he was recalled and further examined. Then he produced some attendance cards and payment vouchers. According to PW3,

Bheemudu was employed for about one year prior to the incorporation of the company. There will be details of employment for one year available with

PW3. However, said record was not produced. In those circumstances, it cannot be accepted that Bheemudu was employed by PW3 and paying

Rs.22,000/- per month.

15. In these circumstances, the minimum wages fixed by the Department of

Labour, Government of Telangana1 for an unskilled labourer during the relevant period has to be is taken, which is Rs.12,309/- per month.

16. In so far as the age of Bheemudu is concerned, the petitioners have filed the original Driving Licence of Bheemudu. But, apart from that, they did not file any material in support of their claim that Bheemudu was aged 22 years. As per the Driving Licence, the date of birth of Bheemudu is 09.06.1996. As per the inquest and postmortem reports, Exs.A2 and A4 respectively, the age is 27 years. Therefore, the age can be taken as 27 years. Following the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National 1 https://labour.telangana.gov.in/MinRatesWages.do

PDJ, RRD

M.V.O.P.No.466/2023

Dated: 07.04.2025

Page No. 7 of 10

Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others [(2017) 16 SCC 680], 40% has to be added towards future prospects. This comes to

Rs.4,923.6/- (Rs.12,309 X 40%), which is rounded off to Rs.4,924/-. The total monthly income comes to Rs.17,233/- (Rs.12,309 + 4,924/-). Since

Bheemudu was a bachelor fifty percent has to be deducted towards personal expenses. This comes to Rs.8616.5 Ps., which is rounded off to Rs.8617/-.

After reducing the above amount the contribution to the family comes to

Rs.8,616/-. Since the age is taken as 27 years, the applicable multiplier is ‘17’.

Therefore, the loss of dependency is Rs.17,57,664/- (8616 X 12 X 17).

17. Following the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others [(2017) 16 SCC 680] that the conventional heads should be enhanced in every three years at the rate of 10%, the following amounts can be awarded under standard heads - Rs.48,400/- towards ‘loss of consortium’,

Rs.18,150/- towards ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.18,150/- towards ‘funeral expenses’.

18.In all, the just compensation that can be awarded to the petitioners is Rs. 18,42,364/-, which is enumerated as follows:-

Loss of dependency Rs. 17,57,664/-

Loss of consortium Rs. 48,400/-

Loss of estate Rs. 18,150/-

Funeral expenses Rs. 18,150/-

PDJ, RRD

M.V.O.P.No.466/2023

Dated: 07.04.2025

Page No. 8 of 10

19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supe Dei (smt) and others v. National

Insurance Company Limited [(2009) 4 SCC 513] confirming the judgment in

Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd [(2001) 2 SCC 9] held that in motor accident cases interest at 9% is appropriate. Hon’ble Supreme Court in (1) Anjani Singh v Saluddin [(2014) 15 SCC 582], (2) Syed Sadiq v United

India Insurance Co. Ltd [(2014) 2 SCC 735] and (3)Chanderi Singh v Jaspal

Singh [(2015) 11 SCC 703] following the judgment in Municipal Corporation of

Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and others [(2011) 14

SCC 481] held that 9% interest can be awarded from the date of filing of the claim till date of realization. Therefore, respectfully following the rulings of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, 9% interest per annum can be awarded from the date

of filing of the claim till the date of realization.

20. Since the accident was caused by the 2nd respondent and the vehicle is owned by the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent drove the vehicle in the employment of the 1st respondent, both the 1st and 2nd respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation to the petitioners.

21. ISSUE No.4: In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs directing the respondents No. 1 & 2 to jointly and severally pay the petitioners a sum of Rs.18,42,364/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs, Forty

Two Thousand, Three Hundred and Sixty Four only) towards compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim till date of realization. The petitioners are entitled to equal shares in the compensation, costs and interest. Upon deposit, the petitioners are each permitted to

PDJ, RRD

M.V.O.P.No.466/2023

Dated: 07.04.2025

Page No. 9 of 10 withdraw Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and the remaining amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit for a period of one year. Since the petitioners were granted court fee exemption at the time of filing the petition, the petitioners shall pay the court fee of Rs.34,360/- on the award amount within 15 days from the date of the order. If the petitioners fail to pay the court fees the same shall be recovered from the decree amount. The Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.

NOTE: The compensation amount awarded shall be deposited through NEFT or RTGS to the account of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy, Savings Account

No.43832047115 of SBI, Ranga Reddy Court Complex with IFSC

Code.SBIN0021100.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7 th day of April, 2025.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1 : Kapa Mohini RW1 : M.Laxman PW2 : Omshree PW3 : Joseph Magnath Augustine

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.A1 : CC of FIR

PDJ, RRD

M.V.O.P.No.466/2023

Dated: 07.04.2025

Page No. 10 of 10

Ex.A2 : CC of Inquest Report dt:02.07.2023

Ex.A3 : CC of Charge Sheet

Ex.A4 : CC of Postmortem Report of Kappa Bhimudu dt:02.07.2023

Ex.A5 : CC of MVI Report

Ex.A6 : Salary Certificate of deceased Kappa Bhimudu issued by Nirvana Industrial India Private Limited dt:01.08.2023

Ex.A7 : Driving Licence of Kappa Bhimudu

Ex.A8 : Certificate of Incorporation of Nirvana Industrial India Private Limited

Ex.A9 : Copy of Pan Card

Ex.A10: Copy of Labour Registration

Ex.A11: GST Registration

Ex.C1 : Attendance Cards of deceased Kappa Bheemudu for the months of March, April and May, 2023 (3 in number) issued by PW3

Ex.C2 : Payment Vouchers of deceased Kappa Bheemudu for the months of March, April and May, 2023 (3 in number) issued by PW3

FOR RESPONDENTS: NIL

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Ranga Reddy District

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: S.Sasidhar Reddy,

Principal District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District.

Thursday, the 10th day of April, 2025.

Tr.O.P. No. 99 of 2024

Between:

G.Prashanth Reddy, S/o.late G.Nagam Reddy alias Girni Buchapathi Reddy alias Pala Buchapathi alias Nagam Raju alias Bixapathy Reddy, Aged 47 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.H.No.10-4-114 & 115, New 10-4-331, Altaf Nagar, Bairamalguda, Lingojiguda, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, 500079. … Petitioner

AND

1.Gangireddy Nelamma, W/o. late G.Nagam Reddy alias Girni Buchapathi Reddy alias Pala Buchapathi alias Nagam Raju alias Bixapathy Reddy, Aged about 75 years, Occ: Housewife,

2.Gangireddy Chandra Shekar Reddy, S/o.late G.Nagam Reddy alias Girni Buchapathi Reddy alias Pala Buchapathi alias Nagam Raju alias Bixapathy Reddy, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Ration Dealer cum Business,

3.Gangireddy Bhasker Reddy, S/o. late G.Nagam Reddy alias Girni Buchapathi Reddy alias Pala Buchapathi alias Nagam Raju alias Bixapathy Reddy, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Govt.Employee,

4.G.Praveena Rani, W/o.P.Sudhakar Reddy, D/o.late G.Nagam Reddy, Aged 55 years, occ: Housewife, R/o.Plot No.60, East Sai Nagar, Near Sai Baba Temple, Allwyn Colony, Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana – 500072.

5.G.Pradeepa, W/o.Yasam Rajinikanth, D/o.late G.Nagam Reddy, Aged 52 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.6-181, Near Appa Temple, Old Malajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State, 500047.

6.Gangaireddy Darmender Reddy, S/o. late G.Nagam Reddy alias Girni Buchapathi Reddy alias Pala Buchapathi alias Nagam Raju alias Bixapathy Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business,

Respondents No. 1 to 3 & 6 are residing at H.No.10-4-114 & 115, New 10-4-331, Altafnagar, Bairamalguda, Lingojiguda, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State, 500079.

PDJ, RRD

Tr.O.P.No.99 of 2024

Dated: 10.04.2025

2

7.Gorintla Rama Linga Raju, S/o.G.Achutha Rama Raju, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot No.108, Siddhartha Nagar, Behind Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State, 500038.

8.Gorintla Krishna Chaitanya, S/o.G.Rama Linga Raju, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot No.108, Siddhartha Nagar, Behind Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State, 500038.

9.Talla Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o.T.Veera Reddy, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-27/1, Near Water Tank, Poodur Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State – 501401.

10.P.Prahalad, S/o.P.Madhusudhan, Represented by SS Ventures, Aged 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.3-6-209, Flat No.108, Maruthi Residency, Street No.15, Near Vasavi School, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State, 500029. … Respondents

This petition came before me on 01.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Krishna Mohan, counsel for petitioner and Sri T.Narsimha Reddy, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, Sri M.purushothama Charyulu, counsel for respondents No.7 & 8, Sri K.Nagaraju, counsel for respondent No.9, other respondents did not appear, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

1.This is an application under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2.The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner filed

O.S.No.1459/2018 against the respondents before the VIII Additional

District Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. That the trial

court is adjourning the case without any reason. That petitioner filed an

PDJ, RRD

Tr.O.P.No.99 of 2024

Dated: 10.04.2025

3

application for impleading defendants No.9 and 10. Then, defendants

No.1 to 3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908. That the said applications are still pending. Though the petitioner completed his arguments, the trial court is not deciding his application and not disposing of the IAs. That the petitioner is a handicapped person. The 1st defendant is aged 85 years and the 9th defendant is not hale and healthy. Though the petitioner is pressing the matter, the trial court is not taking up the matter and adjourning the same on flimsy grounds. Therefore, the suit has to be transferred to any other court.

3. The respondents No.1 to 3, respondents No.7 & 8 and respondent

No.1 filed their respective counters denying the allegations in the petition and contending that the petitioner had filed an application for impleading certain defendants, but did not file neat copy. Then he filed neat copy by adding certain paragraphs, which were not permitted while the petition under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C was allowed. Therefore, the plaint was returned. The petitioner has not resubmitted the neat copy of the plaint till date. That without carrying out the amendment the respondents are not able to file their written statements and since application under Order

VII Rule 11 C.P.C is pending, the other IAs are not being taken up.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Heard learned counsels appearing for respective respondents.

PDJ, RRD

Tr.O.P.No.99 of 2024

Dated: 10.04.2025

4

5. Upon considering the material on record, point for consideration is:

“Whether O.S.No.1459/2018 on the file of VIII

Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar has to be transferred?”

6.POINT: In this case the petitioner makes allegations against the trial court that the trial court is not taking up the matter and adjourning it on various flimsy grounds at the request of the respondents. The respondents would contend that the petitioner himself had not complied with the orders of the court by filing neat copy after impleading respondents No.9 & 10 and further the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C is pending. The petitioner also admits that the application under

Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C is pending. However, the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he had not file the amended neat copy of the plaint despite several opportunities. Thus, the petitioner also contributed for the delay in the suit and consequently, the petitioner cannot make allegations against the trial court attributing delay. In the circumstances, the petitioner failed to make out any case for transfer of the suit.

7. In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 10 th day of April, 2025.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Copy to:

VIII Additional District Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

PDJ, RRD

Tr.O.P.No.99 of 2024

Dated: 10.04.2025

5

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: S.Sasidhar Reddy,

Principal District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District.

Tuesday, the 8th day of April, 2025

G.O.P.No. 17 of 2025

Between: Sriperambudur Rajesh Kumar, S/o.Sriperambudur Ashok Kumar, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Employee, R/o.Flat No.7805, 8th Floor, Tower-7, Vasavi Srinilayam, RTC Colony, Chinthalkunta, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, 500074. … Petitioner

AND All concerned. … Respondents

This petition came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Sudhakar, counsel for petitioner and no objections received, upon hearing learned counsel for petitioner and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

ORDER

1.This is an application under Sections 7, 10 & 29 of Guardians and

Wards Act, 1890.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is the father of the minors Archita and Karthik. The petitioner and his wife Vijamara Srilatha

Devi had jointly purchased the petition schedule property consisting of

House bearing No.3-408/2 in Plot No.135, Sy.Nos.16 and 18, admeasuring 120 Sq.Yrds or 100.38 Sq.Mtrs., having plinth area of 725

Sq.Fts., with R.C.C roof, situated at Block No.5, R.N.Reddy Nagar,

Meerpet Village, balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with boundaries –

North : Plot No.136, South : Plot No.134, East : 25’-0” Wide Road and

West : Plot No.102. The wife of the petitioner and mother of the minors

Vijamara Srilatha Devi passed away intestate on 31.05.2022 due to

PDJ, RRD

GWOP No.17 of 2025

Dt. 08.04.2025

Page 2 cancer leaving behind the petitioner and the minors as her heirs. The petitioner spent huge amount for the treatment of his wife and incurred huge debts. The petitioner is in financial distress and he requires financial support for the education of minors. Therefore, the petitioner intends to sell the petition schedule property.

3. Paper publication was issued. No objectors came forward.

4. The petitioner, in support of his case, examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A12.

5.Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

6.Upon considering the material on record, the point for consideration is:- “Whether the proposed sale is for the evident benefit

of the minors or for the necessities of the minors?

7.POINT: It is the case of the petitioner that the petition and his wife Srilatha Devi were the joint owners of the petition schedule property.

That after the death of his wife intestate due to cancer, the petitioner and the minors inherited the half share of Srilatha Devi. It is the further case of the petitioner that he incurred huge debts because of the cancer treatment of his wife and now he is in financial distress and not in a position to bear the educational expenses of the minors. In the circumstances stated, the proposed sale is for the necessities of the minors and can be permitted.

PDJ, RRD

GWOP No.17 of 2025

Dt. 08.04.2025

Page 3

8.In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to sell the petition schedule property. The petitioner shall sell the petition schedule property at the highest price possible above the prevailing market value within six months from the date of order. The petitioner shall utilize the sale proceeds for payment of the admission and tuition fee and other educational expenses of the minors. If within six months from the date of sale the admission could not be finalized, the sale proceeds shall be deposited in the name of the minors. After completing admission process, if any sale proceeds are left over, they shall be deposited in the name of the minors in a fixed deposit. Petitioner shall account for the sale proceeds by filing accounts every six months until the minors attain age of majority.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8 th day of April, 2025.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNSSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:

PW1 : Sriperambudur Rajesh Kumar NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER

:Death Certificate of late V.Srilatha Devi dt:21.07.2022 Ex.A1

Ex.A2:Family Member Certificate dt:21.07.2022

C.C of Sale Deed dt:1507/2007 dt:21.11.2007 Ex.A3:(Original is produced by the petitioner and compared with the original)

PDJ, RRD

GWOP No.17 of 2025

Dt. 08.04.2025

Page 4

Ex.A4:Date of Birth Certificate of minor S.Archita dt:09.10.2007

Ex.A5:Date of Birth Certificate of minor S.Karthik dt:18.07.2014

Ex.A6:Bonafide Certificate of minor S.Archita

Ex.A7:Bonafide Certificate of minor S.Karthik

Ex.A8:Encumbrance Certificate dt:10.03.2025

Ex.A9 : Aadhar Card of petitioner

Ex.A10 : Aadhar Card of minor S.Archita : Aadhar Card of minor S.Karthik Ex.A11

Ex.A12 : Aadhar Card of deceased :

FOR RESPONDENTS: NIL

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PDJ, RRD

GWOP No.17 of 2025

Dt. 08.04.2025

Page 5

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: S.Sasidhar Reddy,

Principal District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District.

Tuesday, the 8th day of April, 2025

G.O.P.No. 8 of 2025

Between:

Smt.Kowkuntla Priyanka, W/o.late K.Ashwanth Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.14-109/1/G1, Maruthi Residency, Gaddiannaram, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. … Petitioner

AND All concerned. … Respondents

This petition came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Chitti Babu, counsel for petitioner and no objections received, upon hearing learned counsel for petitioners and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

ORDER

1.This is an application under Sections, 7 to 10 & 29 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is the mother of the minor Vedya. The husband of the petitioner and father of the minor

K.Ashwanth Reddy passed away on 04.02.2023 intestate in an accident leaving behind the petitioner and the minor as his heirs. That during his life time Ashwanth Reddy had purchased the petition schedule property consisting of semi-finished flat No.402 in fourth floor of ‘Keerthi

Residency’ having plinth area of 1215 sq.ft., including common area and car parking area of 100 sq.ft., in stilt floor, together with undivided share of land admeasuring 51.26 sq.yds., out of 416 sq.yds., on land bearing plot No.148 in Sy.No.59/D (old Sy.No.59 part), situated at Ward No.8,

PDJ, RRD

GWOP No.8 of 2025

Dt. 08.04.2025

Page 2

Block No.7, Dwarakanagar, Karmanghat village, Saroornagar Revenue

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with boundaries – East : Corridor &

Staircase, West : Open to sky, North : Open to sky and South : Open to sky. That after the death of her husband the petitioner and the minor inherited the petition schedule property. The petitioner has no independent source of income and she is in financial distress. Therefore, the petitioner intends to sell the petition schedule property for the education and welfare of minor.

3. Paper publication was issued. No objectors came forward.

4. The petitioner, in support of her case, examined herself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5.

5.Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

6.Upon considering the material on record, the point for consideration is:- “Whether the proposed sale is for the evident benefit

of the minors or for the necessities of the minor?

7.POINT: The petitioner as PW1 deposed that she incurred debts to a tune of Rs.20,00,000/- and she intends to sell the property to discharge the debts. In the circumstances, if the debts are not discharged, the creditors will attach the petition schedule property and the minor may be saddled with debts, which will not be to the benefit of the minor. Hence, the proposed sale is for the benefit of the minor. In the circumstances, the sale can be permitted.

PDJ, RRD

GWOP No.8 of 2025

Dt. 08.04.2025

Page 3

8.In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to sell the petition schedule property. Petitioner shall sell the petition schedule property at the highest price possible above the prevailing market value within six months of the date of order. The petitioner shall deposit the share of the minor in the sale proceeds in Fixed Deposit in the name of the minor and file proof of the same within two weeks of date of sale. The petitioner shall discharge the debts and file proof of the same

before the court within six months from the date of the sale. The minors

share in the sale proceeds shall be utilized for the education and welfare of minor or for purchasing any immovable property in the name of the minor. Petitioner shall account for the sale proceeds by filing accounts every six months until the minor attains age of majority.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8 th day of April, 2025.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNSSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:

PW1 : Smt.Kowkuntla Priyanka NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER

C.C of Sale Deed Doc.No.6465/2019 dt:24.06.2019 :(Original is produced by the petitioner and compared with the Ex.A1 original)

Ex.A2:Death Certificate of K.Ashwanth Reddy dt:14.02.2023

PDJ, RRD

GWOP No.8 of 2025

Dt. 08.04.2025

Page 4

Ex.A3:Xerox copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner

Ex.A4:Xerox copy of Aadhar Card of minor daughter

Ex.A5:Encumbrance Certificate :

FOR RESPONDENTS: NIL

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PDJ, RRD

GWOP No.8 of 2025

Dt. 08.04.2025

Page 5

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: S.Sasidhar Reddy,

Principal District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District.

Tuesday, the 8th day of April, 2025

G.O.P.No. 18 of 2025

Between:

Smt.Banuri Spandana, W/o.late Banuri Karunakar Reddy, Aged about 35 years, occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.1-173, Jaithwaram Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Originally residing at H.No.3-143/13, Shivahills, Almasguda Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-500058. … Petitioner

AND All concerned. … Respondents

This petition came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Sudhakar, counsel for petitioner and no objections received, upon hearing learned counsel for petitioners and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

ORDER

1.This is an application under Sections 7, 10 & 29 of Guardians and

Wards Act, 1890.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner and the minors

Banuri Sahithi and Banuri Rohan Reddy are the wife and children of late

Banuri Karunakar Reddy. During his life time Banuri Karunakar Reddy acquired the petition schedule property consisting of agricultural land in

Sy.No.177/^B admeasuring 2-36 guntas, Sy.No.255/^B admeasuring

Ac.2-27 guntas and Sy.No.256/^A2 admeasuring Ac.2-20 guntas, total admeasuring Ac.8-03 guntas, situated at Pulimamidi Village, Kandukur

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with boundaries – North : Neighbours agriculture land, South : Road, East : Neighbours agriculture land and

PDJ, RRD

GWOP No.13 of 2025

Dt. 24.03.2025

Page 2

West : Neighbours agriculture land. He also purchased a total extent of

Ac.3-24 guntas in Sy.Nos.177/^C2, 255/^C & 256/^A3/2 in the name of the petitioner. He passed away intestate on 23.10.2019 leaving behind the petitioner and minors as his legal heirs. After the death of her husband, the petitioner applied for the pattedar pass book and the patta was issued in the name of the petitioner for the total extent of land. The petitioner has no independent source of income and she is in financial distress. Therefore, the petitioner intends to sell the petition schedule property for the education and welfare of minors.

3. Paper publication was issued. No objectors came forward.

4. The petitioner, in support of her case, examined herself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A11.

5.Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

6.Upon considering the material on record, the point for consideration is:- “Whether the proposed sale is for the evident benefit

of the minors or for the necessities of the minors?

7.POINT: It is the case of the petitioner that she is in financial distress and she intends to sell the petition schedule property for the education and welfare of the minor. It is her further case that the petition schedule property is not fetching any income. Hence, the proposed sale is for the necessities of the minors. In the circumstances, the sale can be permitted.

PDJ, RRD

GWOP No.13 of 2025

Dt. 24.03.2025

Page 3

8.In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to sell the petition schedule property. Petitioner shall sell the petition schedule property at the highest price possible above the prevailing market value within six months of the date of order. The petitioner shall deposit the shares of the minors in the sale proceeds in Fixed Deposit in the name of the minors and file proof of the same within two weeks of date of sale. The sale proceeds shall be utilized for the education and welfare of minors or for purchasing any immovable property in the name of the minors. Petitioner shall account for the sale proceeds by filing accounts every six months until the minors attain age of majority.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8 th day of April, 2025.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNSSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:

PW1 : Smt.Banuri Spandana NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER

:Online copy of Pass Book vide No.T05110040839 Ex.A1

Ex.A2:Online copy of ROR dt:17.02.2025

Ex.A3:Death Certificate of Banuri Karunakar Reddy dt:23.10.2019

Ex.A4:Bonafide Certificate of minor Banuri Sahithi

PDJ, RRD

GWOP No.13 of 2025

Dt. 24.03.2025

Page 4

Ex.A5:Bonafide Certificate of minor Banuri Rohan Reddy

Ex.A6:Online Encumbrance Certificate dt:15.02.2025

Ex.A7:Aadhar Card of petitioner

Ex.A8:Aadhar Card of minoe B.Sahithi

Ex.A9:Aadhar Card of minor B.Rohan Reddy

Ex.A10:Aadhar Card of late B.Karunakar Reddy :

FOR RESPONDENTS: NIL

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PDJ, RRD

GWOP No.13 of 2025

Dt. 24.03.2025

Page 5