Smt.S.Sreevani

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Present: SMT. S. SREEVANI,

XIV Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Thursday the 24th day of April, 2019.

O.S.No. 435 of 2011

Between:

1. Sri M. Tharun

2. Smt. T. Sasirekha

3. Sri B. Nagavushan Reddy

4. Sri E.Sai Kumar Reddy

5. Smt. C.Sudheshna

6. Smt. K. Rahamma

Plaintiff No. 1 to 6 are rep., by their GPA Holder Sri Chandupatla Janga Reddy, S/o. Jagga Reddy …Plaintiff No.1 to 6

And

1. Sri Habeeb Omer Bin Jamelale

2. Sri Habeeb Ali

3. Sri Habeeb Mohd

4. Smt. Sultana Begum

5. Sri Krishna Reddy @ Kishan Reddy

6. Smt. K. Sulochana

...Defendant No.1 to 6

This suit having come before me on 18 th day of March, 2019 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri V. Srinivas, Counsel for Plaintiffs ; Sri Suhel Al Dayani, Counsel for Defendant No.2, 3, & 4 ; Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, Counsel for Defendant No.6 ; Defendant No.1 was set exparte on 24.1.2014 ; Defendant No.5 was set exparte on 19.03.2012 and upon perusal of the material papers on record having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

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

1. This is a suit filed by plaintiffs against defendants for declaration of title of plaintiffs over the schedule property and to direct the defendant No.1 to 5 to execute registered Rectification Deed by rectifying the Western boundary as land of

Ghouse Mia and Narasimha Reddy and Southern boundary as land of Vendors in

Sy.No.898//P and also to declare the sale deed bearing No.3593/2006 as void and also consequential relief of Perpetual Injunction.

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Brief averments of the plaint are that, all the plaintiffs has purchased 5 Acres of land in total in Sy.No.73, 74, 88 and 89 situated at Sardarnagar Village,

Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from defendant No.1 to 4 through defendant No.5 who is GPA Holder of defendant No.1 to 4. One Balraj and

Chinmilla Narsamma has sold land an extent of Ac.3-30 guntas in favour of

Rangaiah in Sy.No. 73 and 89 through registered sale deed and also sold land an extent of Ac.0-32 guntas in Sy.No.89 through registered sale deed in fvour of S.

Rajanaiah. Said Rangaiah has also purchased land an extent of Ac.2-18 guntas in

Sy.No.74 and 88 through registered Sale Deed from one Narsimhulu and E. Kanti

Yadaiah. Said S. Rangaiaha has together acquired land an extent of Ac.7-00 gts.

S. Rangaiah has also sold land to an extent of Ac.0-25 guntas in Sy.No.74, Ac. 0- 32 guntas in Sy.No.89, in total Ac.1-17 guntas in favour of Khaleed Abdullah Bihaq through registered sale deed and further sold land an extent of Ac.5-23 guntas through registered sale deed in favour of Khaleed Abdullah Bihaq. Subsequently,

Khaleed Abdullah Bihaq has sold Ac.0-02 guntas in Sy.No.72, Ac.1-28 guntas in

Sy.No.74, Ac.0-14 guntas in Sy.No.88 and Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.89, all together

Ac.3-04 guntas in favour of defendant No.1 through registered sale deed and

Khaleed Abdullah Bihaq has also sold Ac.1-06 guntas in Sy.No. 73, Ac.0-16 guntas in Sy.No.74, Ac.2-14 guntas in Sy.No.89, all together Ac.3-36 guntas in favour of

Habeeb Hussain Bin Jamaal Lal through registered sale deed dt. 28.8.1995. Said

Habeeb Hussain Bin Jamaal Lal was died leaving behind his three sons i.e., defendant No.1 to 3 and wife i.e., D4 as his legal heirs. The names of defendant

No.1 to 4 has mutated in revenue records. Subsequently, defendant No.1 to 4 in collusion with defendant No.5 brought into existence of Agreement of Sale cum

GPA for land an extent of Ac.7-00 gts, though they do not have marketable title of

Ac.2-00 gts, out of Ac.7-00 gts. All the plaintiffs are resident of USA and they got purchased the property through their GPA Holder. Plaintiffs filed an application

before Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwaram to mutate their names for the land

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

an extent of Ac.5-00 gts, but the MRO has mutated their names for the land only

Ac.1-07 guntas in Sy.No.89, Ac. 1-006 guntas in Sy.No.73, Ac.0-04 guntas in

Sy.No.74 and rejected mutation of remaining in respect of land an extent of Ac.2-25 guntas stating that, there is already a sale deed in favour of defendant No.6 for land an extent of Ac.2-00 gts and there is no such land to mutate the names of plaintiffs in revenue records. On enquiry, plaintiffs came to know that defendant No.5 mischievously and fraudulently has brought into existence of sale deed in favour of defendant No.6 who is none other than his wife to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts just 4 or 5 days prior to execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiffs, as D5 has knowledge that there is no land an extent of Ac.7-00 gts and the available land is only Ac.5-00 gts on the ground. After purchasing the land plaintiff has erected fencing around the land and they are in possession, but the plaintiffs has noticed that D5 has deliberately annexed a plan to the sale deed by excluding the North West Part of land out of Ac.7-00 gts and he has described western boundary erroneously as land of Vendor in Sy.No.73 and Narasimha Reddy in Sy.No.89 instead of land of Ghouse

Mia and Narasimha Reddy and land in Sy.No.88. Similarly the southern boundary was described as land of D. Narasimha Reddy and others instead of vendor land in

Sy.No.88 and 89. Therefore, defendants are liable to rectify the boundaries of plaintiffs land in sale deeds. Plaintiffs further submitted that, defendant NO.5 who is

GPA Holder of defendant No.1 to 4 has refused to execute Rectification Deed and also refused to cancel the sale deed of D6 with dishonest intention and to deprive the rights of the plaintiffs over their land. Therefore, plaintiffs has filed this suit to declare their title over Ac.5-00 of land and also direct the defendant No.1 to 5 to execute Rectification Deed by mentioning correct boundaries and to declare the sale deed of defendant No.6 as null and void.

3. Defendant No. 1 and 5 were set exparte. Defendant No.6 filed written statement and defendant No.2, 3 and 4 adopted the written statement of defendant

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

No.6. In the written statement defendant No.6 stating that there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit and in fact, MRO rejected the mutation application in the year 2008, as such plaintiffs are liable to file the suit after rejection of mutation by MRO and cause of action was invented by the plaintiffs for filing the suit. It is further submitted that, plaintiffs are claiming title through defendant No.1 to 4 and now they cannot say that there is no marketable title in favour of defendant

No.1 to 4 to execute registered sale deeds. D6 further submitted that she is absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts in

Sy.No.74 and she purchased the same for a valid consideration from defendant

No.1 to 4 through their GPA Holder i.e., defendant No.5 and since the date of purchase, she is in possession of the property. Even the name of defendant No.6 was entered in revenue records and her name was mutated in revenue records.

She further submitted that, her sale deed is earlier to the sale transaction of plaintiffs, as such they cannot seek any relief against her. She further submitted that, plaintiffs are not entitled for any injunction against her and under the guise of present suit, plaintiffs are trying to dispossess her from Ac.2-00 gts of land in

Sy.No.74 and at last prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed on 01.07.2015 :-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title to the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for direction to direct D1 to D5

to execute Rectification Deed and to rectify the sale deed

dt.23.3.2006?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that the sale deed dated 18.3.2006 as null and void?

4. To what relief?

5. To substantiate the contentions of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 himself is examined as PW1 and he reiterated the contents of the plaint and also got marked

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Ex.A-1 to A-31. Plaintiffs also examined PW2 who is GPA Holder of plaintiffs and he reiterated the contents of the plaint and also got marked Ex.A-32 to A-37. To disprove the contention of the plaintiffs, defendant No.6 herself is examined as

DW1 and she reiterated the contents of the her written statement and DW1 further deposed that she has alienated her Ac.2-00 gts to one G. Ramesh and Ch. Prakash to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts each through registered sale deed in the year 2015.

Ex.B-1 to B-9 are marked through DW1.

ISSUE NO. 1 :-

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title to the suit schedule property?

7. This issue has been framed as the plaintiffs has claimed their title over the schedule property and also submitted that and as the defendant No.6 has obtained valid sale deed in her favour for the land an extent of Ac.2-00 gts with the collusion of defendant No.5. On perusing the evidence of PW1 he has deposed that plaintiff

No.1 to 4 has purchased suit schedule property i.e., land an extent of Ac.5-00 gts in total in Sy.No. 73, 74 and 89 situated at Sardarnagar Village, Maheshwaram

Mandal.

8. According to plaintiffs, they have purchased property from defendant No. 1 to 4 through their GPA Holder i.e., defendant No.5. To substantiate their contention, plaintiffs has got marked Ex.A1 to A6 through which plaintiffs has purchased property. According to plaintiffs, defendant No.5 got agreement of sale cum GPA from defendant No.1 to 4 and D5 has executed Ex.A1 to A6 in their favour. Plaintiffs has also filed certified copy of GPA of D5 and all the link documents which shows that predecessor in title of schedule property is having valid title over the petition schedule property. Counsel for defendant No.6 has cross examined PW1 and even at the time of cross examination, there is no dispute in connection with

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Ex.A1 to A6. Defendant No.6 never disputed Ex.A1 to A6 and in fact D6 also claiming that she has purchased the property from defendant No.1 to 4 who are vendors of plaintiffs also. Only the dispute about Ex.A1 to A6 is that some boundaries are wrongly mentioned in sale deeds. Defendant No.6 never disputed the land purchased by plaintiff to an extent of 5 Acres. It is always contention of defendant No.6 that, her vendor is having 7 Acres of land, out of which plaintiffs has purchased 5 Acres of land. Therefore, it is clear that plaintiffs has purchased 5

Acres of land in total in Sy.No.73, 74 and 89. Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of their title for land an extent of Ac.5-00 gts i.e., suit schedule property.

Thus, this issue has to be decided in favour of plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO. 2 :-

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for direction to direct D1 to D5 to execute Rectification Deed and to rectify the sale deed dt.23.3.2006?

9. This issue has been framed, as the plaintiffs has pleaded in the plaint that defendant No.5 has wrongly mentioned the boundaries for the schedule property in

Ex. A1 to A6. On perusing the plaint averments, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that, D5 has mischievously annexed a plan to the sale deed by excluding the North

West Part of land out of Ac.7-00 gts and he has described western boundary erroneously as land of Vendor in Sy.No.73 and Narasimha Reddy in Sy.No.89 instead of land of Ghouse Mia and Narasimha Reddy and land in Sy.No.88.

Similarly the southern boundary was described as land of D. Narasimha Reddy and others instead of vendor land in Sy.No.88 and 89.

10. Now, coming to the evidence of PW1, he has reiterated the contents of the plaint as well as correction of boundaries of the property. Counsel for defendant

No.6 has cross examined PW1 and at the time of cross examination, PW1 has deposed that the suit land is bounded by North : Land of Ramulu & others, South :

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Land of Narsimha Reddy & others, East : Land of Balaiah and West: Land of

Vendor. PW1 has further admitted that above boundaries are mentioned in Ex.A1 to A6 and also in the suit schedule. Now, coming to the contention of the plaintiffs, he has stated that D5 has wrongly mentioned the boundaries of the land of Vendor in Sy.No.73 and Narsimha Reddy in Sy.No.89 instead of land of Ghouse Mia and

Narsimha Reddy. But, as per the evidence of PW1, he has admitted that the western boundary for his land is the land of his vendor. Now, plaintiffs has to prove that land of Ghouse Mia and land of Narsimha Reddy in Sy.No.88 is situated towards Western side boundary of 5 Acres land which was purchased by plaintiffs.

But, on perusing the cross examination of PW1, he has clearly admitted that the land of his vendor is western boundary to the schedule property and he also admitted that said western boundary was mentioned in Ex.A1 to A6. That means as admitted by PW1 western boundary of the schedule property is land of his Vendor and the same was mentioned in documents of plaintiffs i.e., Ex.A1 to A6. Though plaintiffs has claimed in the plaint that the western boundary for his land is land of

Ghouse Mia and Narsimha Reddy for 5 Acres land, but PW1 has admitted that western boundary of property is only land of his vendor. In these circumstances, there is heavy burden on the plaintiffs to prove that the land of Ghouse Mia and land of Narsimha Reddy is situated towards western side of 5 acres of land.

Plaintiffs neither chose to examine Ghouse Mia nor Narimha Reddy to prove that the land of these persons is situated towards western boundary of land of the plaintiffs and even no scrap of paper was filed by plaintiffs to prove that western boundary for the schedule property is land of Ghouse Mia and land of Narsimha

Reddy. At this juncture, counsel for plaintiffs has argued that defendant No.6 i.e.,

DW1 admitted in her cross examination that there is no objection for her to rectify the boundaries of plaintiffs land. However, there is no specific suggestion put to

DW1 about western side boundary. A simple suggestion was put to DW1, for which

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

she deposed that she is not having any objection for correction of boundary of the land purchased by plaintiffs will not give any right to plaintiffs to change boundaries of his land. It is an established law that plaintiffs should not depend on the weakness of the defendants case and the plaintiffs has to establish their contention.

But, as seen from the evidence of PW1, he himself has admitted that the land of his vendor is situated towards western side of the land of plaintiffs and said boundary was mentioned in Ex.A1 to A6. In these circumstances, plaintiffs cannot claim that defendant No.5 has wrongly mentioned the western side of the boundary of schedule property, is the land of vendor in Sy.No.73 and land of Narsimha Reddy instead of land of Ghouse Mia and Narsimha Reddy. Therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for any rectification of the western side boundary.

11. However, there is no specific suggestion put to DW1 about even southern side boundary. But, as seen from the evidence of PW1, he himself has admitted that the land of Narsimha Reddy is situated towards southern side of the land of plaintiffs and said boundary was mentioned in Ex.A1 to A6. In these circumstances, plaintiffs cannot claim that defendant No.5 has wrongly mentioned the southern side of the boundary of schedule property, as the land of Narsimha Reddy and others in

Sy.No.89 instead of vendors land in Sy.No.88 and 89. Therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for any rectification of the southern side boundary.

12. The counsel for plaintiffs relied on four citations reported in (2004) 21 AIC 788, (2004) 1 AP LJ 36 (DNC), (2005) 554 AIR 505 (All) and AIR 1954 Nagpur 323.

The plaintiff has relied on these citations to show that the boundaries can be rectified when the purchaser has purchased the land with specific boundary.

However, in the present suit there is no dispute about purchase of land by plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs has to establish that the boundaries in Ex.A1 to A6 were wrongly described, but plaintiffs failed to establish the same.

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for rectification deed to rectify the western and southern boundaries of the land. Thus, this issue has been decided against the plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO. 3 :-

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that the sale deed dated 18.3.2006 as null and void?

13. This issue has been framed, as the plaintiffs has claimed that defendant

No.5 with the collusion of D6 has brought into existence of sale deed of defendant

No.6 i.e., Ex.A7 just 4 or 5 days for sale transaction between plaintiffs and D5.

Admittedly, Ex.A7 is prior to Ex.A1 to A6 sale deeds. In fact, plaintiffs should take every care while getting execution of Ex.A1 to A6 and should see that their vendors are having proper title and possession over the schedule property. However, it is argument of counsel for plaintiffs that though the vendors of plaintiffs are not having

Ac.7-00 gts of land physically, but D5 has executed Ex.A1 to A6 for land an extent of Ac.5-00 gts and Ex.A7 for the land an extent of Ac.2-00 gts, in order to deceive the plaintiffs. Defendant No.6 was cross examined by plaintiff counsel on this aspect and tried to elicit that DW1 do not know the total extent of land and defendant No.5 played a vital role to brought on Ex.A7 into existence. As seen from the cross examination of DW1, she has also admitted that her husband only verified the details of the land purchased by her and she do not know extent of land held by each defendant No.1 to 4 in survey numbers. By cross examining DW1, counsel for plaintiff has tried to elicit that Ex.A7 is a sham and nominal document and she is not having any right over the property and in fact there is no land as mentioned in Ex.A7 and it is a created document. However, though the witness has deposed that only her husband has looked into the mater but, she clearly deposed that she is having 2 acres of land and she denied about non-existence of 2 acres of land and her husband executed sale deed in respect of 2 acres of land, which is not at all in existence. Therefore, though DW1 has shown her innocence about details

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

of land, but strongly deposed before court about existence of 2 acres of land which was purchased by her.

14. On perusing the cross examination of PW1, he deposed before court that his vendor is having Ac.7-00 gts of land and also deposed that they have purchased suit land and his vendor remained with Ac.2-00 gts of land. It is a clear admission made by PW1 at the time of cross examination even he further deposed there is title over Ac.7-00 gts of land belongs to their vendor, at the time of purchase of land by them. In fact, suit was brought into existence, because according to plaintiffs the revenue authorities has refused to mutate the entire land of 5 acres in revenue records in the name of plaintiffs. Even plaintiffs has filed Ex.A25 to A29 to prove that the entire land of 5 acres was not mutated in the name of plaintiffs. At the time of arguments, counsel for plaintiff has argued that entire extent of 5 Acres land was not mutated in their names in revenue records, because basing on Ex.A7, the name of D6 was mutated in revenue records for an extent of Ac.2-00 gts of land and as per revenue records, the name of D1 to D4 were mutated in revenue records only for Ac.5-00 gts of land. For proving the same, plaintiffs has also got marked Ex.A34 and A35 and as per these documents, total extent of Ac.7-00 gts of land was not mutated in the name of vendor of plaintiffs and only there is Ac.4-84 guntas in total.

On perusing Ex.A36 and A-37 which are applications filed by defendant No.5 before

Revenue Authorities with a prayer to mutated their extent of land in his name as

GPA Holder of defendant No.1 to 4 for land in Sy.No.73, 74, 89 and 88. That means, even defendant No.5 is having knowledge about extent of land, but total extent of land not mutated in revenue records in favour of defendant No.1 to 4. As such, he has filed application before revenue authorities under Ex.A-36 and A-37.

Now the plaintiffs has to establish that only because of Ex.A7, the revenue authorities has refused to enter the entire 5 acres of land in the names of plaintiffs.

Though, the plaintiffs has filed Ex.A1 to A7, but no document was filed by plaintiffs

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

to prove that revenue authorities has refused to mutate their names for the land of 5 acres in the name of plaintiff No.1 to 6. Except, oral evidence by the plaintiffs, no document was filed by plaitniffs to show that revenue authorities has refused to mutate the names of plaintiffs no.1 to 6 in revenue records for total extent of 5 acres of land.

15. Moreover, though plaintiff has claimed that there is no 7 acres of land actually possessed by their vendor, but the plaintiffs has derived their title for 5 acres of land basing on the document of their predecessor in title. Plaintiffs cannot blow hot and cold at a time. Plaintiffs relied on the documents of predecessor in title. Even for a while it is presumed that, though 7 acres of land was recorded on predecessors in title on papers and there is no 7 acres of land on ground, then it is the burden of the plaintiffs to establish the same by conducting survey of entire extent of land or by way of any other mode. Except a oral evidence and contents of the plaint that there is no extent of 7 acres of land in favour of their predecessor in title on ground, no documents and evidence was filed by plaintiff before court to believe the version of the plaintiffs. Though DW1 has admitted that she is not having nay objection for rectification of boundaries that itself is not sufficient for the plaintiffs to prove that there is no 2 acres of land more particularly when DW1 has deposed that she is having 2 acres of land. Moreover, as admitted by PW1, he has clearly stated that their vendor is having 7 acres of land and there is no title dispute as on the date of purchasing the property and more particularly he has further admitted that after purchasing the land by them for land an extent of 5 acres, their vendor remained with 2 acres of land. In these circumstances, plaintiffs cannot claim that their predecessor in title are having only 5 acres of land physically and not 7 acres of land. Only with a oral contention that the revenue authorities has refused to mutate their names for the land an extent of 5 acres, the plaintiffs cannot simply take a plea that the document of defendant No.6 is totally null and void and

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

the document of D6 is came into their way for mutation of their names in revenue records. Therefore, plaintiffs has failed to establish that Ex.A7 i.e., document of D6 as null and void. Hence, plaintiff are not entitled for declaration that the sale deed

dated 18.3.2006 belong to defendant No.6 as null and void. Thus, this issue has

been decided against the plaintiffs.

16. Plaintiffs has also pleaded in the plaint for the relief of perpetual injunction.

However, no additional issue has been framed. But, the party has led the evidence in total basing on the averments of the plaint and written statement. Hence,this court framed the following additional issue :-

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction, as prayed for?

17. On perusing the averments of the plaint, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that they are in physical possession of 5 acres of land, but D5 and his henchmen tried to interfere into the schedule property. On perusing the cross examination of

DW1, she clearly admitted that the plaintiffs has raised fencing around the land for an extent of 5 acres and they are in possession of property and the documents filed by plaintiffs i.e., their title deeds are also establish that plaintiffs are in physical possession of 5 acres of land I.e, suit schedule property. Now it is the contention of plaintiffs that D5 along with their henchmen are trying to interfere into the schedule property. According to PW1, he is not present at that time and as on the date filing of the suit. However, GPA Holder i.e., PW2 is taking care of schedule property and

PW2 has also deposed that defendant No.5 and his henchmen are trying to interfere into the physical possession of plaintiffs over the schedule property. As

DW1 has also admitted that plaintiffs are in possession of 5 acres of land in schedule property, they are entitled for perpetual injunction. Thus, this additional issue has to be decided in favour of plaintiffs.

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Issue No.4: To what relief?

15. In view of the findings given in Issue No.1 to 3 and additional issue, suit of the plaintiffs has to be partly decreed.

IN THE RESULT, suit of the plaintiffs partly decreed that the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title for the schedule property and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their henchmen from interfering into the physical possession of plaintiffs, over the suit schedule property, in any manner.

Further, plaintiffs are not entitled for Rectification Deed to rectify the

Western side and Southern side boundaries of the suit schedule property as claimed by them and also not entitled for cancellation of Sale Deed of defendant

No.6. But, in the circumstances, no costs.

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

by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of April, 2019.

XIV Addl. District & Sessions Judge , Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS : FOR DEFENDANTS :

PW1 : E. Sai Kumar Reddy DW1 : Smt.K.Sulochana PW2 : Chandupatla Janga Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS :

Ex. A1 : CC of Sale Deed Doct.No.3880/2006 dated 23.03.2006 Ex. A2 : CC of Sale Deed Doct.No.3881/2006 dated 23.03.2006 Ex. A3 : CC of Sale Deed Doct.No.3882/2006 dated 23.03.2006 Ex. A4 : CC of Sale Deed Doct.No.3883/2006 dated 23.03.2006 Ex. A5 : CC of Sale Deed Doct.No.3884/2006 dated 23.03.2006 Ex. A6 : CC of Sale Deed Doct.No.3885/2006 dated 23.03.2006 Ex. A7 : CC of Sale Deed Doct.No.3593/2006 dated 18.03.2006

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

FOR PLAINTIFFS :

Ex. A8 : Mutation Proceedings dated 17.6.2008 Ex. A9 : General Power of Attorney dated 15.10.2010 Ex.A10: General Power of Attorney dated 12.10.2010

Ex.A11: General Power of Attorney dated 15.10.2010 Ex.A12: General Power of Attorney dated 15.10.2010 Ex.A13: Special Power of Attorney dated 21.10.2010 Ex.A14: Special Power of Attorney dated 03.10.2010 Ex.A15: Photographs with CD (4 in nos.)

Ex.A16: Original Sale Deed Doct.No.280/1982 dated 26.03.1982 Ex.A17: Original Sale Deed Doct.No.422/1986 dated 14.03.1986 Ex.A18: Original Sale Deed Doct.No.55/1986 dated 08.01.1986 Ex.A19: Original Sale Deed Doct.No.1225/1986 dated 26.07.1986 Ex.A20: Original Sale Deed Doct.No.339/1982 dated 24.04.1986

Ex.A21: Original Sale Deed Doct.No.156/1995 dated 28.8.1995 Ex.A22: Original Sale Deed Doct.No.155/1995 dated 28.8.1995 Ex.A23: Original Agreementof Sale cum GPA Doct.No.4522/2005 dt.30.8.2005 Ex.A24: Pattadar Passbook Patta No.140 in the name of Smt.Kethipally Radamma issued by RDO, R.R.District East Division Ex.A25: Pattadar Passbook Patta No.155 in the name of Sri Beeram issued by RDO, R.R.District East Division Ex.A26: Pattadar Passbook Patta No.159 in the name of Mandaniya Tarun issued by RDO, R.R.District East Divison

Ex.A27: Pattadar Passbook Patta No.141 in the name of Sri Edavally Sai Kumar Reddy issued by RDO, R.R.District East Division Ex.A28: Pattadar Passbook Patta No.188 in the name of Smt.Thotakura Seshirekha issued by RDO, R.R.District East Division Ex.A29: Pattadar Passbook Patta No.138 in the name of Smt.Chandupatla Sudeshanamma issued by RDO, R.R.District East Division Ex.A30: Pattadar Passbook Patta No.187 in the name of Sri Abib Hussain Bin Jameela issued by RDO, R.R.District East Division Ex.A31: Pattadar Passbook Patta No.188 in the name of Sri Abib Omar Bin

Ex.A32: Extract of Electoral Roll of D5 Ex.A33: Extract of Electoral Roll of D6 Ex.A34: ROR Proceedings No.3215/2013 dated 17.9.2003 Ex.A35: ROR Proceedings No.3216/2013 dated 17.9.2003 Ex.A36: True copy application dt. 7.1.2011 vide No.B/3485/2016 Ex.A37: True copy application dt. 7.1.2011 vide No.B/3486/2016

FOR DEFENDANTS :

Ex. B1 : CC of ASGPA Doct.No.4522/2005 dated 30.8.2005 Ex. B2 : CC of Sale Deed Doct.No.3593/2006 dated 18.3.2006 Ex. B3 : Mutation Proceedings dt. 17.6.2008 vide Proc.No.B/1731/2008 Ex. B4 : ROR Extract Ex. B5 : CC of Pahani for the year 2009-09 Ex. B6 : CC of Pahani for the year 2009-10

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

FOR DEFENDANTS :

Ex. B7 : CC of Pahani for the year 1427 (2017-18) Ex. B8 : CC of Sale Deed Doct.No.15210/2015 dated 22.7.2015 Ex. B9 : CC of Sale Deed Doct.No.15211/2015 dated 22.7.2015

XIV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

1

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. S.SREEVANI

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated on this the 13 th day of February, 2019

O.S. No. 1705 of 2005

BETWEEN:-

1. T.Kistaiah S/o. Sailu (Died per LRs plaintiff no.6 to 8)

2. T.Mallesh S/o. T.Jangaiah, Aged about 50yrs, Occ: Employee,

3. T.Nandu S/o. T.Jangaiah, Aged about 48yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee, Both are R/o.H.no. 18-5-876, Laldarwaza, Mekalbanda, Hyderabad.

4. T.Srisailam, S/o.T.Jangaiah, Aged about 48yrs, Occ: Employee, R/o. Uppuguda, Hyderabad.

5. T.Narsinga Rao, S/o. T.Jangaiah, Aged about 30yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee,

6. T.Yadamma W/o.Late T.Kistaiah, Aged about 60yrs, Occ: Housewfie, R/o. Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

7. E.Lingamma W/o. E.Jagdishwar Prasad, Aged about 45yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o.h.no. B-15/11, DAE Colony, ECIL, Secunderabad.

8. A.Padma W/o. A.Raju, R/o. H.no. 18-09-279, Jagdishwar Temple, Keshawgiri, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. .…. Plaintiffs

AND

1. T.Venkatesham, S/o. Sailu, (Died per LRs Defendant no.7 to 9)

2. T.Satyanarayana S/o. Muthaiah, Aged about 50yrs, Occ: Employee, 2

R/o. Government ITI, Sanga Reddy, (Died per LRs Defendants no. 10 to 15)

3. T.Prakash, S/o. Muthaiah, Aged about 45yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.no. 18-5-467, Near Nallapochamma Temple, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad.

4. T.Chandra Mohan, S/o.Muthaiah, Aged about 40yrs, Occ: Employee, R/o. H.no. 18-5-467, Near Nallapochamma Temple, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad.

5. T.Pawan Kumar S/o. Muthaiah, (died per LRs defendants no. 16 to 18)

6. T.Ashok S/o. Komaraiah, Aged about 35yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Balapur village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

7. Talari Sathamma W/o.Late T.Venkatesham, Aged about 62yrs, Occ: Household,

8. T.Srisailam, S/o.Late T.Venkatesham, Aged about 40yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee,

9. T.Balamani W/o. Babu Rao, D/o.Late T.Venkatesham, Aged about 45yrs, Occ: Household,

Defendants no. 7 to 9 are R/o.Balapur (v), Saroornagar (M), R.R.District.

10. A.Lalitha W/o.Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 56yrs, Occ: Housewife

11. A.Shravan Kumar, S/o.Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 40yrs, Occ: Business,

12. A.Arun Kumar S/o.Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 36yrs, Occ: Business,

13. A.Praveen Kumar, S/o.Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 33yrs, Occ: Business, Defendants no. 10 to 13 are R/o. H.no. 4-294/1, Sarvodayanagar, Meerpet X Roads, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

14. K.Srilatha W/o. Sudhakar, Aged about 34yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Chintalbasthi, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

3

15. N.Shivakala W/o. N.Devender, Aged about 30yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Jillelguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District. Impleaded as per Orders in IA no. 1331 of 2013

Dt. 28.10.2014)

16. Urmila W/o. Late T.Pwan Kumar

17. Lokesh S/o. Late Pwan Kumar, Aged about yrs, Occ: Student,

18. Umesh S/o.Late T.Pwan Kumar, Aged about yrs, Occ: Student, defendants no.16 to 18 are impleaded as per orders in IA no. 339 of 19.04.2004. (impleaded as per orders in IA no. 399 of 2015

dt. 19.04.2017). ….. Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of M/s.P.Praveen Kumar, Advocate for the

Plaintiff and Sri. B.D.Raju Advocate for Defendants

no.1 to 5, Sri. J.Bhaskar Goud, Advocate for

Defendant no. 6, M/s. C.Radhakrishna, Advocate for

Defendants no.10 to 15 and having stood over for

consideration till this day, this Court delivered the

following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant for partition of property.

2)The brief facts of the plaint are that one Talari Sailu was the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.2-19gts in

Sy.no. 64/A, situated at Balapur village, Saroornagar Mandal,

R.R.District. Talari Sailu has acquired the property from his father by name Talari Chennaiah. After the death of Talari Sailu, his four sons by name T.Muthaiah, T.Jangaiah, T.Kistaiah, T.Venkatesham have become the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property.

Plaintiffs no.2 to 5 are sons of Jangaiah and Defendants no. 2 to 5 are 4 the sons of Muthaiah. After the death of Sailu, four sons of Sailu have become absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and the same was entered into revenue records. Defendants no.2 to 5 have settled at different places, as such, they have given incharge of the property to defendant no.1. After the death of Jangaiah, his sons plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 have given incharge of the property to plaintiff no.1.

Defendants no.1 to 5 with the collusion of defendant no.6 have created unregistered document dt. 25.04.1980 and falsely got revenue proceedings under 13B of ROR and entered the name of Defendant no.6 in revenue record for the suit schedule property. Defendant no.6 has filed suit vide OS no. 225 of 2001 on the file of Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, wherein the names of plaintiffs no.1 to 5 are also included. Infact, the plaintiffs no.1 to 5 never signed on any Vakalath but defendant no.5 by name T. Pawan kumar with the collusion of Defendant no.6 has intentionally filed suit without knowledge of plaintiffs and without their signatures on Vakalath lhas filed petition under Order I rule 10 of CPC which was got dismissed for default subsequently. Infact, the defendant no.6 has filed a false suit against some third parties who are not concerned to the suit schedule property. After knowing the same, the plaintiffs have approached MRO, Saroornagar Mandal on 18.01.2006 for rectification of illegal entries for the suit schedule property and after enquiry, MRO, Saroornagar has deleted the name of Defendant no.6 from the Revenue Records. Then defendant no.6 has approached RDO against order of MRO and RDO has granted interim suspension orders against orders of MRO. The pahanies which were filed by the plaintiff are clearly establishing that they are having the equal share for the suit 5 schedule property and the plaintiff along with defendant no.1 is entitled for 1/4th share each and plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 with defendants no.2 to 5 are entitled for 1/4th share each in the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed this suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property.

3) Defendants no.1 to 5 filed written statement denying the contents of the plaint and further contended that the plaintiffs and defendants have entered into a memorandum of understanding dt.

30.11.2004 authorizing the defendant no.5 to clear off all the litigation and disputes in respect of the suit schedule property. Accordingly defendant no.5 has incurred huge amount to engage counsel in OS no.

225 of 2001 on the file of Prl.Jr. Civil Judge, R.R.District which was filed by the defendant no.6 herein and plaintiffs herein. The plaintiffs in collusion with defendant no.6, by suppressing the said fact, has filed the present suit for partition. At last prayed to dismiss the suit.

4)Defendants no. 6 filed written statement denying the contents of the plaint though admitted the ownership of Talari Sailu and after the death of Talari Sailu, plaintiff no.1 and father of defendants no.2 to 5 Muthaiah, T.Venkatesham and the father of plaintiffs no.2 to 5 i.e.,

Jangaiah have become owners of the suit schedule property. The defendant no.6 further submitted that out of total extent of suit schedule property, plaintiff no.1, defendant no.1 and father of plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 and father of defendants no. 2 to 5 have jointly sold an area of

Ac.14.12gts to Pannala Peddi Reddy and others and an extent of Ac.1- 00gts of land to Kontham Narsimha Reddy and his brothers and 6 remaining extent of Ac.1-19gts to the defendant no.6 under unregistered sale deed dt. 25.04.1980 and the same was regularized and validated under Sec.5-A of AP Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass

Book Act 1971 by the MRO, Saroornagar Vide proceedings dt.

06.03.2000 in file No. B/11/98 and it was also implemented in the revenue records for the year 1999 – 2000 onwards as per the procedure, by giving sub number as 64/A admeasuring Ac.1-19gts in the name of Defendant no.6 and the defendant no.6 is in possession of the same. The defendant no.6 has also obtained pattedar pass books and title deeds in respect of Ac.1-19gts and the plaintiff knows the same.

The defendant no.6 further submits that he has filed a suit in OS no. 225 of 2001 on the file of Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, R.R.District for perpetual injunction against Pannala Rajamalla Reddy and others and the same is pending. The plaintiffs and defendants no.1 to 5 have filed Interim application to implead them as parties in said OS no. 225 of 2001 and said Interim Application was dismissed. In the year 1980, the plaintiff no.1, father of plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 and defendants no.2 to 5 have sold the suit schedule property by receiving Rs.12,000/- towards sale consideration. The plaintiffs and defendants no.1 to 5 by colluding with each other to extract money have filed this false suit. Further, the plaintiffs are not in possession of even an inch of land and the pahanies clearly shows the possession of defendant no.6 and the cause of action is fictitious and created for the purpose of this case and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not sufficient and at last prayed to dismiss the suit.

5)Defendant no.13 filed written statement and Defendants no.

10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 filed adoption memo adopting the written 7 statement of Defendant no.13. Defendant no.13 filed written statement and admitted the contents mentioned in the plaint to the extent of acquisition i.e., from ancestors and denied that husband of defendant no.10 and the father of defendants no.11 to 15 have colluded with defendant no.6 and that they supported defendant no.6 in creating false and fabricate ddocuments for the purpose of making him to enter his name in revenue records. The defendants no. 10 to 15 further contended that neither them nor defendant no.2 have refused for partition of the suit schedule property.

6)Basing on the above pleadings, following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the defendant no.6 purchased Ac.1-19gts of land from plaintiff no.1 and others as prayed in the plaint?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

7)During the course of trial, plaintiff no.3 examined himself as

PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A14 in support of his contention, he got examined PW2.

8)Heard both sides. Perused the material placed on record.

9)ISSUEs no. 1 and 2: These issues were framed as the plaintiff has pleaded that they are entitled for share in the suit schedule property and on the other hand, Defendant no.6 has claimed that he has purchased Ac.1-19gts of land from the father of the plaintiff and others long back and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. To substantiate his contention, the plaintiff no.3 examined himself as PW1 8 and he reiterated the contents of his plaint. The plaintiff has also got marked Ex.A1 to A14. The plaintiff has also examined PW2 and according to him, T.Sailu was the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.2-19gts of land in Sy.no. 64/A situated at Balapur village, Saroornagar mandal and after death of T.Sailu, his four sons by name Muthaiah, Jangaiah, Kistaiah and Venkatesham have become absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff and defendants are in possession of the property and they have inherited the property from their father. After the death of Muthaiah, the sons of Muthaiah i.e., Defendants no. 2 to 5 have settled at different places and gave incharge of the property to defendant no.1. Likewise, after the death of Jangaiah, his sons i.e., plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 have given incharge to plaintiff no.1. Adjacent lands of the suit schedule property were converted into plots. The defendants no.1 to 5 in collusion with defendant no.6 have created a false unregistered sale deed and also got mutated the name of defendant no.6 in the Revenue Records. Infact, the defendant no.6 is noway concerned with the suit schedule property.

10)On perusing the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and even the contention of defendant no.6 who is contesting party, it is prima-facie clear that the suit schedule property originally belongs to one Chennaiah and from Chennaiah, his son Talari Sailu purchased the property. Now parties before this court are Grand sons of Talari Sailu as plaintiff no.1 died and defendant no.1 died.

11)At this juncture, it is the contention of the defendant no.6 that he has purchased Ac.1-09gts of land out of suit schedule property and 9 his name was also entered into revenue records. The contents of the written statement filed by defendant no.6 itself shows that he has not purchased property through a registered sale deed and it is only an unregistered sale deed. However, it is further contention of defendant no.6 that after he purchased, his name was entered into revenue records by following 13B proceedings.

12)At this juncture, it is the contention of plaintiffs that when they came to know about entering the name of defendant no.6 in the revenue records, they have approached MRO for cancellation of name of Defendant no.6 from the revenue records, i.e., to delete the name of defendant no.6 for the suit schedule property from the revenue records and accordingly, the name of Defendant no.6 was deleted from the revenue records.

13)It is also admitted by both the parties that after deleting the name of defendant no.6, defendant no.6 has preferred preferred an appeal before RDO. At the time of filing written statement, it is the contention of the defendant no.6 that he has preferred appear before

RDO and it is pending.

14)The counsel for defendant no.6 has cross examined PW1 and though tried to elicit that there is a land to an extent of Ac.16-19gts in Sy.no. 64/A pertaining to family of plaintiff and defendant and Ac.14- 00gts was sold out of said land. PW1 has also admitted the same. He further deposed that he does not know whether any registered sale deeds were executed in respect of said property or not. He further deposed that as they are not disputing the sale transactions pertaining 10 to Ac.14-00gts of land they have not included the same in the suit schedule property. At the time of cross examination, PW1 clearly deposed before court that he came to know that Defendant no.6 has created the some documents, as such, he has included the defendant no.6 in the suit proceedings. When a suggestion was putforth to PW1 that the father of PW1 and his brothers have sold Ac.1-19g of land on 25.04.1980 to defendant no.6, PW1 has categorically denied the same.

Therefore, though the counsel for defendant no.6 has cross examined

PW1, but no fruitful purpose was served in favour of defendant no.6.

Likewise, though counsel for defendant no.6 has cross examined PW2, no fruitful purpose was served in favour of defendant no.6.

15)As defendant no.6 has taken a plea that he has purchased the suit schedule property from the father of PW1 and his brothers, it is heavy burden on the shoulders of defendant no.6 to prove his contention. However, defendant no.6 has not appeared before court to disprove the contention of plaintiff to substantiate his contention. Except denying sale transaction claimed by the defendant no.6, there are no other disputes between the parties. Therefore, Defendant no.6 has to establish that he has purchased Ac.1-19gt of land in Sy.no. 64/A from father of PW1 and his brother. But as I already stated above, defendant no.6 has not chosen to prove his contention by producing either oral or documentary evidence.

16) PW1 has also filed Ex.A13 which is order of District

Collector, R.R.district and this order came into existence when defendant no.6 lhas preferred an appeal against the order of RDO and 11 as per Ex.A13 the District Collector has clearly observed the error committed by MRO by entering the name of defendant no.6 in the revenue records. Ex.A14 is the copy of order in WP no. 6154 of 2010 and the Hon’ble High Court has passed this order in a petition filed by

Defendant no.6 against plaintiff herein and also against District Collector and Revenue authorities, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has clearly observed that the MRO has committed mistake in exercising his jurisdiction under Sec.5 of the Act and also presumed the existence of several aspects in favour of the petitioner (Defendant no.6). The

Hon’ble High Court has passed order against the petitioner therein and

defendant no.6 herein. Therefore, though the defendant no.6 has claimed that he has purchased property from father of PW1 and his brothers through unregistered sale deed and his name was also entered in the Revenue Records, but after due enquiry, the district collector has negativated the order of MRO by entering the name of defendant no.6 in the revenue records. Therefore, the defendant no.6 cannot claim that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

Hence what ever the defence taken by defendant no.6 is not sustainable.

17)On the other hand, it is the admitted fact that the Great

Grand Father of plaintiffs and defendants was the original owner of the property and from him Sailu who is his son succeeded the property.

From Sailu, his sons Muthaiah, Jangaiah, Kistaiah and Venkatesham have succeeded the property. Admittedly, the plaintiff and defendants are legal heirs of above said four persons. As such, the plaintiff and defendants are entitled for share in the suit schedule property as legal 12 heirs of Muthaiah, Jangaiah, Kistaiah and Venkatesham and Sailu.

Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for the partition of the suit schedule property. These issues are decided in favour of plaintiff.

18) In the result, this suit is decreed without costs by allotting ¼th share to Plaintiff no.1 and ¼th share to plaintiffs no.2 to 5 each out of the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court

on this the 13th day of February, 2019.

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1 : T.Nandu None PW2 : T.Babu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Pahani for the year 2002 - 2003 Ex.A2: Pahani for the year 2003 - 04 Ex.A3: Memo dt. 24.08.2006 Ex.A4: Petition filed before MRO dt. 18.01.2006 Ex.A5: Suspension orders by Revenue Court dt. 21.11.2006 Ex.A6: Pahani for the year 1955 - 58 Ex.A7: Pahani for the year 1961 - 62 Ex.A8: Pahani for the year 1962-63 Ex.A9: Vasool Bhakf to the year 1957 Ex.A10: Sethwar of the suit schedule property Ex.A11: Market Value Certificate Ex.A12: Registered Lr to RDO dt. 01.05.2006 Ex.A13: CC of orders in D5/1538/2008 Ex.A14: CC of order in Writ Petition no. 6154 of 2010

FOR DEFENDANT: Nil

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

13 13.02.2019

Notice affixed on notice board.

Judgment pronounced (Vide separate judgment)

In the result, this suit is decreed without costs by allotting ¼th share to

Plaintiff no.1 and ¼th share to plaintiffs no.2 to 5 each out of the suit schedule property..

VII ASCJ

14 15

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. S.SREEVANI

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Dated on this the 13th day of February, 2019

O.S. No. 1705 of 2005

BETWEEN:-

1. T.Kistaiah S/o. Sailu (Died per LRs plaintiff no.6 to 8)

2. T.Mallesh S/o. T.Jangaiah, Aged about 50yrs, Occ: Employee,

3. T.Nandu S/o. T.Jangaiah, Aged about 48yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee, Both are R/o.H.no. 18-5-876, Laldarwaza, Mekalbanda, Hyderabad.

4. T.Srisailam, S/o.T.Jangaiah, Aged about 48yrs, Occ: Employee, R/o. Uppuguda, Hyderabad.

5. T.Narsinga Rao, S/o. T.Jangaiah, Aged about 30yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee,

6. T.Yadamma W/o.Late T.Kistaiah, Aged about 60yrs, Occ: Housewfie, R/o. Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

7. E.Lingamma W/o. E.Jagdishwar Prasad, Aged about 45yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o.h.no. B-15/11, DAE Colony, ECIL, Secunderabad.

8. A.Padma W/o. A.Raju, R/o. H.no. 18-09-279, Jagdishwar Temple, Keshawgiri, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. .…. Plaintiffs

AND

1. T.Venkatesham, S/o. Sailu, (Died per LRs Defendant no.7 to 9)

2. T.Satyanarayana S/o. Muthaiah, Aged about 50yrs, Occ: Employee, R/o. Government ITI, Sanga Reddy, (Died per LRs Defendants no. 10 to 15)

3. T.Prakash, S/o. Muthaiah, Aged about 45yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. H.no. 18-5-467, Near Nallapochamma Temple, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad.

16

4. T.Chandra Mohan, S/o.Muthaiah, Aged about 40yrs, Occ: Employee, R/o. H.no. 18-5-467, Near Nallapochamma Temple, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad.

5. T.Pawan Kumar S/o. Muthaiah, (died per LRs defendants no. 16 to 18)

6. T.Ashok S/o. Komaraiah, Aged about 35yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Balapur village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

7. Talari Sathamma W/o.Late T.Venkatesham, Aged about 62yrs, Occ: Household,

8. T.Srisailam, S/o.Late T.Venkatesham, Aged about 40yrs, Occ: Pvt. Employee,

9. T.Balamani W/o. Babu Rao, D/o.Late T.Venkatesham, Aged about 45yrs, Occ: Household,

Defendants no. 7 to 9 are R/o.Balapur (v), Saroornagar (M), R.R.District.

10. A.Lalitha W/o.Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 56yrs, Occ: Housewife

11. A.Shravan Kumar, S/o.Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 40yrs, Occ: Business,

12. A.Arun Kumar S/o.Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 36yrs, Occ: Business,

13. A.Praveen Kumar, S/o.Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 33yrs, Occ: Business, Defendants no. 10 to 13 are R/o. H.no. 4-294/1, Sarvodayanagar, Meerpet X Roads, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.

14. K.Srilatha W/o. Sudhakar, Aged about 34yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Chintalbasthi, Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

15. N.Shivakala W/o. N.Devender, Aged about 30yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Jillelguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District. Impleaded as per Orders in IA no. 1331 of 2013

Dt. 28.10.2014)

16. Urmila W/o. Late T.Pwan Kumar

17. Lokesh S/o. Late Pwan Kumar, Aged about yrs, Occ: Student,

18. Umesh S/o.Late T.Pwan Kumar, Aged about yrs, Occ: Student, defendants no.16 to 18 are impleaded as per 17 orders in IA no. 339 of 19.04.2004. (impleaded as per orders in IA no. 399 of 2015

dt. 19.04.2017). ….. Defendants

Claim: Suit filed praying this court to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants to partition the suit schedule property and to allot ¼th share to plaintiff no.1 and ¼th share to plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 out of Ac.2-19gts, to grant costs of the suit and to grant such other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be entitled for.

Cause of Action: The cause of action arose at Balapoor village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.district when the defendants no.1 to 5 have refused to partition the suit schedule property and on 25.09.2005 when a panchayath was conducted and the cause of action is subsisting and continuing.

Suit Valuation: The suit is valued at Rs.____________/- and court fee of Rs._________/- is paid under sec. 34(2)(11) of A.P Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, which is sufficient, and the same is valued for the purpose of Jurisdiction.

Suit Presented on: 23.11.2005 Suit Numbered on: 23.11.2005 Suit Decreed on : 13.02.2019

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of M/s.P.Praveen Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiff

and Sri. B.D.Raju Advocate for Defendants no.1 to 5, Sri.

J.Bhaskar Goud, Advocate for Defendant no. 6, M/s.

C.Radhakrishna, Advocate for Defendants no.10 to 15 a nd

having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court

doth Order as follows:

1) That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is decreed without costs.

2) That the plaintiff no.1 is allotted ¼th share of the suit schedule property.

3) That the plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 are allotted ¼th share each of the suit schedule property.

4) That there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 13th day of February, 2019

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

COSTS OF THE PETITION

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

1) Stamp on plaint Rs.

2) Stamp on power Rs.

3) Service of Process Fee Rs.

4) Advocate fee Rs. ---

5) Misc. Charges. Rs. ---

6) Publication Rs. ---

7) FC not filed Rs. ---

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

18

Total Rs.

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

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that the land in Sy.no. 64/A, admeasuring Ac.2-19gts in Balapoor village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District bounded by:

NORTH:Kontham Ram Reddy land SOUTH:Singi Reddy Narasimha Reddy Land EAST:Kontham Narasimha Reddy Land WEST:A.Anji Reddy Land

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Crl.A.No. 727 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-

CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

Present: SMT. S. SREEVANI,

XIV Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

On this the 17th day of April, 2019.

Crl.A.No. 727 of 2017

Between:

Chitranjan Roy, S/o. Late Sri Omkar, Age: 62 years, Occ: Consultant, R/o. Plot No.70, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

...Appellant/Accused

A N D

The State of A.P., through SHO Mailardevpally Police Station, rep., by Addl. Public Prosecutor

...Respondent/Complainant

Appeal Against the Judgment in C.C.No. 216 of 2015 dated 09.06.2017

passed by II Special Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar

in C.C.No. 216 2015

Between :

The State, SHO Mailardevpally Police Station ..Complainant

A N D

Chitranjan Roy, S/o. Late Sri Omkar, Age: 62 years, Occ: Consultant, R/o. Plot No.70, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

... Accused

This Appeal having come before me on this the 10 th day of April, 2019 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri A. Ravi Shanker, Counsel for Appellant ; Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for Respondent and upon perusal of the material papers on record having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

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

1. This appeal is filed by appellant/accused, aggrieved by the Judgment passed in CC 216 of 2015 dated 9.6.2017 on the file of II Special Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 727 of 2017

2. For the convenience, appellant herein is going to be addressed as accused and respondent is going to be addressed as complainant in this appeal.

3. The case of the prosecution before trial Court is that, defacto complainant and his brothers have formed themselves into a partnership firm and running business under the name and style “Kishore Sons

Investments.” In the year 2006, the firm represented by defacto complainant purchased land an extent of Ac.2-32 guntas from accused through a registered sale deed vide Doct.No. 3556/2006. In fact, accused owned land an extent of Ac.3-07 guntas of land in Sy.No.50/2, out of it, he sold Ac.2-32 guntas to defacto complainant and remaining extent of Ac.0-15 guntas of land is in possession of accused. After purchasing the land, the firm represented by defacto complainant got mutated their names in revenue records and said firm is in possession of land purchased from accused. On 17.4.2014 at 7:00 am accused criminally trespassed into the land along with one JCB and some others got demolished fencing erected around the land. On information, son of defacto complainant by name

Shashwat Jain and his employee Vijay Kumar Vyas rushed to spot and accused abused them in filthy language and also threatened them with dire consequences.

4. Basing on the complaint, SHO P.S. Mailardevpally registered a case in

Cr.No. 228/2014 for the offences U/sec. 447, 427 and 506 of IPC.

5. Trial Court framed charges for the offences U/sec. 4 47, 427 and 506 of IPC against the accused. The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to P8 and also got marked Ex.D1 to D10.

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 727 of 2017

6. Trial Court having considered the oral and documentary evidence, found guilty of appellant herein for the offences punishable U/s. 426 and 447 of IPC and he is convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for the each offence and also pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable U/s. 426 ofIPC. Further, accused is sentenced to under go Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) month and also pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable

U/sec. 447 of IPC. In default in payment of total fine of Rs.1000/- accused shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for three (3) months.

7. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, appellant filed this appeal contending that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and erred in convicting the accused and at last prayed the court to allow the appeal.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination :-

Whether the accused has shown sufficient grounds to set

aside the impugned Judgment dated 9.6.2017?

P O I N T :

10. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused against judgment passed by II Special Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar in CC 216 of 2015 dated 09.06.2017.

11. On perusing the record, it is the contention of the defacto complainant that the accused has trespassed into his land and threatened

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 727 of 2017

him with dire consequences. The Court will after going through the entire evidence of PW1 to PW5 and Ex.P1 to P3 and Ex.D1 to D10 and convicted the accused.

12. PW1 is the defacto complainant, PW2 is son of PW1, PW3 is

Supervisor of PW1, PW4 is panch witness for the scene of offence and PW5 is Investigating Officer. On perusing the chief examination of PW1, it is an admitted fact that, PW1 has purchased land from the accused. According to accused, he was left with 15 guntas of land after selling Ac.2-32 guntas to

PW1. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 in chief further goes to show that defacto complainant has raised fencing around his property, but the accused has trespassed into his land and damaged the said fencing with the help of JCB.

13. On perusing the chief examination of PW1, he deposed before court that, neighbour of land by name Shimansue Rai has informed about the offence to his son and then his son went to the scene of offence. He further deposed that, he did not go there as he was sick, one worker by name Vyas also went along with his son. Then, the accused has abused his son in filthy language, after 5 or 10 minutes he went to the scene of offence. On perusing the witnesses produced by prosecution, the prosecution has not examine said Srimansue Rai before court, because said witness is first wintess who has observed the offence at first at the scene of offence. There is no explanation from the prosecution as why Investigating

Officer has not examined Srimansue Rai. On perusing the chief examination of PW1 and PW2, PW2 deposed that when the accused trying to interfeere

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 727 of 2017

into the property, he along with his father has entered, then the accused has abused him and his father in filthy language. Though PW1 deposed that

Srimansue Rai has informed to his son i.e., PW1, but PW2 has nowhere deposed that said Srimansue Rai has called him and informed him about the offence. Even, PW2 nowhere deposed that though whom he came to know that the accused is trying to interfere into the property. This is another contradiction in the evidence of PW1 and PW2.

14. The evidence of PW3 place a vital role to prove the guilt of the accused. According to him, he has seen the accused at the scene of offence while removing fencing around the land by using JCB. According to PW3, he has called PW2 and informed the same to police. Even for awhile, it is presumed that, PW3 is also known as Srimansue Rai, but the same was not elicited through out the chief examination of PW3. According to PW3, he informed about the incident to PW2 and also informed the same to the police over phone. Then, the police came to the scene of offence, on seeing the police, accused has fled away from the place and PW2 came to the land around 8:00 or 8:30 am after arrival of police to the land. Therefore, chief examination of PW3, prima facie shows that when he has called police, the police came to the scene of offence and on seeing the police, accused has fled away from the scene of offence, subsequently about 8:00 or 8:30 am

PW2 came to the land. Even cross examination of PW3 shows that PW2 alone came to the scene of offence and PW1 did not come to the land along with PW2. However, according to PW1 and PW2, accused has abused them in filthy language. Surprisingly, PW1 further deposed that accused abused him in filthy language and in his presence only accused has removed fencing

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 727 of 2017

with the help of JCB. But, according to PW3, when police came to the scene of offence accused has fled away and then PW2 came to the scene of offence and PW1 did not came to the land along with PW2. If that is the case, there is no possibility for the accused to remove fencing around the land either in the presence of PW1 or in the presence of PW2. Moreover, as per the evidence of PW3, accused has already fled away by the time PW2 came to the scene of offence. Then the accused cannot abused PW1 and

PW2 in filthy language at the scene of offence and also cannot threatened either PW1 or PW2 with dire consequences. This is clearly shows that though the accused was not present at the time of scene of offence by the time PW1, PW2 went to the scene of offence, but PW2 and PW1 deposed

before court as if the incident was took place in their presence.

15. According to PW1, accused and his henchmen came to the scene of offence along with sticks and gun. Accused carrying gun at the time of incident. If the accused is carrying gun at the time of incident, it is not a simple offence and the Investigating Officer will definitely bestow his more attention, even for recovery of said gun. But, as per cross examination of

Investigating Officer, he has not seized anything more particularly gun from the accused. This is clearly shows that, PW1 has developed his version only to impress upon the court that the accused has committed a grave offence.

16. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it can be safely held that by the time PW1 and PW2 went to the scene of offence, accused is not at all present at the scene of offence.

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 727 of 2017

17. According to PW1 and PW2 accused has removed fencing which was raised around his land with JCB. According to PW3, police came to the scene of offence and they took away JCB to police station. On perusing the evidence of Investigating Officer he has not seized JCB or Tipper from the scene of offence. He simply deposed that he has examined available JCB driver, but on persuing the evidence procuded by the prosecution, no JCB driver was examined before court. If at all accused has used JCB for committing the offence, definitely investigating officer is expected to seize the JCB from the scene of offence, but he has not seized JCB from the scene of offence. Again coming to the evidene of PW3, he deposed before court that, as the police took away JCB to the police station and now, on perusing the chief examination of PW4, he deposed that police conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence and he found JCB at the scene of offence. If that is the case, investigating officer has to mention the presence of JCB at the scene of offence in rough sketch prepared by him, which was marked as Ex.P7. On perusing Ex.P7, no JCB was found at the scene of offence, but as per Ex.P6 investigating officer has mentioned about presence of JCB in the scene of offence. Though, PW3 deposed that, investigating officer has shifted JCB from the scene of offence, but on perusing Ex.P6 though investigating officer has mentioned the date on

Ex.P6, but he failed to mentioned the time. Therefore, evidence of PW3 is contradicting with the evidence of PW4 about presence of JCB at the scene of offence. However, as I already stated above, the investigating officer failed to seize JCB from the scene of offence, which is a material object for doing the offence. This will definitely, entertain a doubt whether JCB was used for removing fencing at the scene offence or not.

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 727 of 2017

18. According to PW1 to PW3, accused has removed fencing which was around the scene of offence, except oral testimony of PW1 to PW5, there is no documentary prove to show that a fencing was around the scene of offence. Even Investigating Officer has not chosen to take any photo at the scene offence to show that the damage caused to PW1 at the scene of offence. At this juncture, it is the arugment of the counsel for accused that,

GHMC has addressed a letter to defacto complainant to not to raise any fencing as there is a Government land adjacent to the scene of offence which was marked as Ex.D8. But, Ex.D8 is came into existence basing on

Ex.D7. On perusing Ex.D8 GHMC has addressed a letter to defacto complainant firm by once again directing to not to proceed with any type of construction at the site under reference, but not heeding to said instructions and made boundaries with profile blue sheets at the site under reference. As the accused has filed complaint before GHMC stating that the defacto complainant was encorached into his land, the GHMC further directed the defacto complainant to fix the boundaries of his plot within seven (7) days failing which, further necessary action will be initiated as per rules. Therefore, Ex.D8 prima facie further establishing that inspite of instructions of GHMC, defacto complainant has raised fencing and basing on the complaint of accused, again GHMC has addressed a letter to defacto compalinant to fix the boundaries of his plot. Therefore, it is further clear that there are some civil disputes betwen the parties in connection with the property. Even defacto complainant has contended that he has filed suit against accused for perpetual injunction and wherein he has also got temporary injunction. Admittedly, the land of accused and the land of defacto complainant are adjacent to each other and there is dispute in

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 727 of 2017

connection with their respective properties and again accused has also claiming that the defacto complainant has used to raise fencing by encroaching into his land. Therefore, it is further clear that, there are previous civil disputes between the parties in connection with land.

Therefore, the lower court is expected to consider the evidence of all the witnesses minutely before come to a conclusion that the accused has committed any offence or not.

19. At the time of arguments, counsel for defacto complainant aruged that, prior to the present offence just on the previous day, accused has approached the Commissioner of Police and filed complaint against defacto complainant and after coming to know the same, defacto complainant has filed a false complaint before police. Accused has also filed copy of complaint which was filed before Asst.Commissioner of Police, marked as

Ex.D6. The date of Ex.D6 is 16.4.2014, office of ACP of Rajendranagar has also endorsed date on receiving complaint on Ex.D6 as 16.4.2014.

Admittedly present complaint was lodged before police alleging that, the offence was took place in the morning hours on 17.4.2014. That means prior to the alleged offence, the accused filed against defacto complainant stating that, defacto complainant along with his son with the help of unsocial elements, constructed the boundaries and fencing by blocking his property illegally inspite of Hon’ble High Court orders and Orders of Junior

Civil Judge, Rajendranagar. Even, he further mentioned in his complaint

that defacto complainant threatening him with dire consequences and requested to take necessary action. The documents which are filed by accused are further establishing that there are previous civil disputes

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 727 of 2017

between the parties in connection with the property and even it is the contention of the accused that, defacto complainant has encroaching into his land. Therefore, it can be safely held that there are previous civil dispute between the parties. When there are disputes between the parties, investigating officer has to seize the property which was damaged at the scene of offence to establish that the accused has trespassed into the property and damaged fencing. The investigating officer has not seized

JCB from the scene of offence which is first lacunae in the case of prosecution and not seized any damaged material from the scene of offence which is second lacunae in the case of the prosecution. Even the investigating officer or PW1 are not made any attempt to take photos from the scene of offence or atleast establish the scene of offence is damaged.

Unless and until, prosecution should succeed in proving that the accused damaged the property which was worth of more than Rs.50/-, the prosecution cannot claim that accused has criminally trespassed into the property and damaged the property worth more than Rs.50/-, but on perusing the entire evidence of prosecution, no witness has deposed the exact loss sustained by PW1, due to the acts of accused. There are material contradictions in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 about presence of accused at the scene of offence itself. Even the investigating Officer has not chosen to examine either any person or atleast, prosecution has not chosen to examine JCB driver to prove that the fencing was removed at the scene of offence with the help of JCB.

20. In these circumstances, the prosecution cannot claim that the accused had committed offence for the offences punishable under sections

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 727 of 2017

447, 426 of IPC and prosecution succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Though, the Coourt below has came to concluson that the accused has committed the offence, but in the light of the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 426, 447 of IPC.

Hence, the Judgment passed by trial court in CC 216 of 2015 is hereby set aside.

21. IN THE RESULT, appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by II Spl.Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar in CC 216 of 2015 dated 9.6.2017 against appellant/accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 447 and 426 of IPC. If the appellant/accused paid any fine amount into the trial Court shall be refunded to the appellant, after appeal time is over.

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

by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of April, 2019.

XIV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 727 of 2017

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 716 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-

CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

Present: SMT. S. SREEVANI,

XIV Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

On this the 23rdday of April, 2019.

Crl.A.No. 716 of 2017

Between:

P. Anjaiah, S/o.Late P.Nagaiah, Age: 43 years, Occ: Govt.Employee, R/o.H.No.2-270, Chaitanyanagar, Near Bangarumysamma Temple, Badepally, Jedcharla Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. And also at O/o Executive Engineer, PR Dept, EOP. Panchayath Raj Department, Gadwal V & M, Mahaboobnagar District.

...Appellant/Accused

A N D

1. K. Padmareddy, S/o.K. Ramreddy, Age: 70 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. H.No.3-11-30/A, Gokelenagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

...Respondent/Complainant

2. The State of Telangana ...Respondent

Appeal Against Judgment passed in C.C.No. 183 of 2015 dated 31.05.2017

passed by VI Special Magistrate, Hastinapuram at Ranga Reddy District.

in

C.C.No. 183 of 2015

Between:

K. Padmareddy, S/o.K. Ramreddy, Age: 70 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. H.No.3-11-30/A, Gokelenagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

...Complainant

A N D

P. Anjaiah, S/o.Late P.Nagaiah, Age: 43 years, Occ: Govt.Employee, R/o.H.No.2-270, Chaitanyanagar, Near Bangarumysamma Temple, Badepally, Jedcharla Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

And also at O/o Executive Engineer, PR Dept, EOP. Panchayath Raj Department, Gadwal V & M, Mahaboobnagar District.

... Accused

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 716 of 2017

This Appeal having come before me on this the 12 th day of April, 2019 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Smt.V. Bharathi, Counsel for Appellant ; Sri G. Ashok, Counsel for Respondent and upon perusal of the material papers on record having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

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

1. This appeal is filed by appellant/accused against respondent/ complainant, aggrieved by the Judgment passed in CC 183 of 2015 dated 31.05.2017 on the file of VI Special Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hastinapuram,

Ranga Reddy District.

2. Originally, respondent herein filed complaint before the trial Court

U/s. 200 Cr.P.C., against appellant herein for the offence U/s 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, before trial Court.

3. For the convenience, appellant herein is going to be addressed as accused and respondent is going to be addressed as complainant in this appeal.

4. The brief averments of the the complaint before trial Court are that, accused is known to the complainant for the last three years through his friends by name S. Beeraiah and Naveen. Accused approached her in the month of January, 2012 stating that his son got payment seat in

Engineering College and requested to lend a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and then complainant arranged said amount on 11.2.2012 to the accused and accused has executed a promissory note on the same day and also agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 2 % per month within 6 months, but

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 716 of 2017

accused did not pay interest amount to him. Complainant has demanded him to pay the interest amount, then the accused deposited Rs.10,000/- in the account of complainant on 6.10.2012 and Rs.10,000/- on 7.11.2012 and requested her for one month time to pay the remaining amount along with interest and complainant agreed for the same and waited till December, 2012. Complainant along with his friends approached the accused and demanded him to pay said amount with interest, then the accused has issued cheque bearing No.089962 dated 5.12.2013 for Rs.3,35,000/- drawn on SBH, Kalwakurthy branch, Mahaboobnagar and requested her to present the same on 27.12.2013. Complainant presented the said cheque on 27.12.2013 before Union Bank of India, Ramanthapur Branch, but same was dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds insufficient”. Then, the complainant got issued legal notice on 6.1.2014 to the accused and accused has received the said notice on 10.1.2014. Even after receiving the legal notice, accused did not repay the amount nor gave any reply. Therefore, complainant filed this complaint.

5. Trial Court having examined the complainant as PW1 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P12. Accused himself is examined as DW1. DW2 is also examined on behalf of accused, but no document is marked on behalf of accused.

6. After completion of evidence of both parties, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., and accused denied the evidence of complainant.

7. Trial court having considered the oral and documentary evidence,

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 716 of 2017

convicted the appellant herein for the offence punishable U/s.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.3,50,000/-. Out of which, Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the State. The remaining amount of

Rs.3,40,000/- shall be paid to complainant towards compensation u/sec.357 (3) of Cr.P.C., within three months. In default, accused shall undergo Simple

Imprisonment for one (1) month.

8. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, appellant filed this appeal contending that, trial Court erred in convicting the appellant herein and trial court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and therefore, requested the court to allow the appeal.

9. Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the accused has shown sufficient grounds to set aside the impugned Judgment dated 31.05.2017?

P O I N T :

10. This appeal has to be filed by the appellant/accused aggrieved by the Judgment passed by learned Magistrate in CC 183 of 2015 dated 31.05.2017 on the file of VI Special Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hastinapuram,

Ranga Reddy District.

11. The grounds of the appeal are that, learned Magistrate has erred in convicting the accused without appreciating the evidence of PW1 and DW2 and documents.

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 716 of 2017

12. The ingredients to prove the offence under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act are:-

(i). The cheque should have been issued for legally enforceable debt.

(ii). The cheque should have been presented within six months or within its validity period whichever is earlier.

(iii). The payee or holder in due course should have issued a notice in writing to the drawer within thirty days of receipt of information about dishonour of cheque.

(iv). The drawer should have failed to pay the cheque amount within fifteen days of receipt of cheque.

13. On perusing the contention of the complainant that, the accused has borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from her. When the complainant has demanded for return of amount, accused has issued cheque to complainant towards repayment of loan amount, but same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

14. On perusing the defence of the accused, he has taken a plea that

DW2 has borrowed amount from complainant and in the said transaction

DW2 has requested him to issue cheque as security to handed over the same to complainant and DW2 has also repaid loan amount of Rs.1 Lakh to complainant, but the complainant has misused the cheque and filed a false complaint against him.

15. On perusing the contentions of both sides, prima facie it is clear that the cheque belongs to accused and it is in the custody of complainant.

As the accused himself admitted his signature on the cheque, presumption can be drawn U/sec. 118 and 139 of NI Act that the cheque issued to complainant towards legally enforceable debt.

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 716 of 2017

16. Now the burden shifts on the shoulder of accused to disprove the contention of the complainant or to prove his contention. At first the accused has taken a plea that he has never seen the complainant at any point of time and he has seen the complaint only before court. It is also contention of the accused that he has not received legal notice from complainant. However, on perusing the cross examination of DW1 dated 3.4.2017, accused has clearly admitted that legal notice sent to the address as shown in his personal bond and petition filed U/sec. 70 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Therefore, accused cannot claim that he has not at all received legal notice from the complainant. Therefore, whatever defence taken by accused at the first instance is not sustainable

17. The main defence of the accused is that he gave Promissory note to complainant for loan transaction between DW2 and complainant. DW2 has also appeared before court and deposed that he has repaid Rs.1 Lakh to complainant. However, DW1 and DW2 has categorically admitted that there is no document to show that DW2 has repaid Rs.1 Lakh to complainant on three occasions. Moreover, as admitted by the accused, he had deposited

Rs.20,000/- on two occasions i.e., @ Rs.10,000/- in the account of complainant. There is no explanation from the accused as why he has deposited Rs.20,000/- directly in the account of complainant. However, at the time of chief examination, accused has taken a plea that he has deposited Rs.20,000/- in the account of complainant on behalf of DW2 as

DW2 is an illiterate. At this juncture, it is the contention of complainant that, accused has deposited in her account towards interest. If at all really

Rs.20,000/- was deposited in the account of complainant by the accused

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 716 of 2017

only on behalf of DW2, nothing prevented DW2 to directly pay Rs.20,000/- to complainant as he already taken a plea that he himself has paid Rs.1 Lakh to complainant. This clearly shows that accused has taken strange plea to avoid his liability.

18. PW1 has also got marked Ex.A10 i.e., Memorandum of understanding between the parties. On perusing Ex.A10 accused has categorically admitted that he has borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from complainant and also issued one cheque and promissory note as guarantee and complainant has also filed cheque bounce case before court and now then entered into compromise and he is agreeing to pay the amount of Rs.3,25,000/- in the month of May. Ex.A10 was signed by accused. Though accused has taken a plea that he gave cheque to complainant as security for the loan transaction between DW2 and complainant, but Ex.A10 is negativating the contention of the accused. The contents of Ex.A10 clearly shows that accused himself has borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from complainant and he issued cheque and also executed promissory note in favour of complainant. There is no explanation to show that why accused has executed Ex.A10, when he has not at all borrowed amount from complainant.

19. Moreover, on perusing the cross examination of DW1 dated 3.4.2017, he has clearly admitted that he has approached the complainant for compromise and also admitted that he has agreed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to complainant, but complaisant had demand Rs.5,00,000/- and the mediator has settled the matter for Rs.3,25,000/-. Though accused has taken different defences while cross examining PW1, but the cross

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 716 of 2017

examination of DW1 dated 3.4.2017 clearly shows that he has borrowed amount from complainant and also issued cheque to complainant and same was dishonoured and subsequently, accused tried to compromise the matter with the complainant, but same was not settled. Therefore, though the accused has taken a plea that he has issued cheque as security for loan transaction between DW2 and PW1, but cross examination of DW1 clearly establishing that accused himself has borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from complainant and he also deposited Rs.20,000/- in the account of complainant towards interest and cheque which was issued by accused to complainant towards repayment of loan amount was dishonoured, due to insufficient funds. Therefore, it can be safely held that, though accused has borrowed amount from complainant, but not repaid the same and cheque which was issued to complainant for legally enforceable debt was dishonoured due to funds insufficient. Accused has taken a plea that the lower court has erred in convicting him, but I believe that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

19. In the result, appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment passed by learned VI Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hastinapuram

dated 31.5.2017 in CC 183 of 2015 for the offence U/sec.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, by confirming the sentence passed by the said Court i.e.,

Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay fine of

Rs.3,50,000/-. Out of which, a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the State.

The remaining amount of Rs.3,40,000/- shall be paid to respondent towards

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 716 of 2017

compensation u/sec. 357 of Cr.P.C., within one month. In default, Simple

Imprisonment for one (1) month.

Further, Learned Magistrate is directed to take necessary steps against appellant/accused immediately for serving out of sentence.

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

by me in the open court on this the 23 rd day of April, 2019.

XIV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Crl.A.No. 716 of 2017

XIV Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

1

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. S.SREEVANI

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Dated on this the 11 th day of February, 2019

O.S. No. 1280 of 2014

BETWEEN:-

T.Ramesh Reddy, S/o. T.Ramachandra Reddy,

Aged about 39yrs, Occ: Business,

R/o.H.no. A-37, D.D.Colony, Bagh Amberpet,

Hyderabad – 500 014. .…. Plaintiff

AND

1. M/s. Grandhe Developers Pvt. Ltd.,

Office at : Flat no. 101, Tarakarama

Shriyas Apartments, Asif Avenue,

Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda,

Hyderabad.

Rep. By its Managing Director,

Grandhe Madhusudhan Rao,

S/o. G.Sarabaiah, Aged about 42yrs,

Occ: Business, R/o. Flat no. 403,

Ashish Orchids, H.no. 3-5-170/1/8/1/B,

Narayanaguda, Hyderabad.

2. Grandhe Madhusudhan Rao, S/o. G.Sarabaiah,

Aged about 42yrs, Occ: Business,

R/o. Flat no. 403, Ashish Orchids,

H.no. 3-5-170/1/8/1/B, Narayanaguda,

Hyderabad. …. Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri.M.Devender Reddy, Advocate for the

Plaintiff and Sri. K.S.Reddy, Advocate for Defendants

and having stood over for consideration till this day,

this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants for

permanent injunction.

2)The brief averments of plaint are that the plaintiff has 2

purchased suit schedule property i.e., seventeen plots bearing nos. 346,

354, 445, 448, 543, 544, 449, 542, 510, 515, 511, 526, 528, 529, 546,

548 and 549 to an extent of 5100 sq.yds in total in Sy.no. 76 to 86 in the

approved sanctioned layout of Grampanchayath Thimmaipally on

25.08.1984 under registered sale deed. The owners of the above said

17 house plots are different as such all of them have given GPA in the

property in favour of defendant no.1 represented by defendant no.2 and

the plaintiff has purchased the plots from the owners through

defendants. The plaintiff further submitted that after verifying in the

ownership and title of his vendors, he has purchased the property. When

the plaintiff is trying to raise fencing around the suit schedule property

on 16.06.2014, the defendants have tried to interfere into the peaceful

possession of the property and again on 31.07.2014, when the plaintiff

again went to the suit schedule property, to complete the fencing work,

the defendant has tried to interfere into the peaceful possession of the

plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence the plaintiff filed this suit

for suit schedule property.

3)Defendant filed written statement denying the contents of the

plaint though admitted the ownership of the vendors of the plaintiff. The

defendant further submitted that defendants have executed sale deed in

favour of the plaintiff towards security for the hand loan taken by

S.Ramachandra Reddy and no sale consideration has been passed

under the sale deed filed by the plaintiff and possession of the property

was also not delivered to the plaintiff. There was an agreement between

the plaintiffs and defendant that when ever Ramchandra Reddy has

3

repaid the loan amount of Rs. 50,000/- then the defendant and plaintiffs

will jointly can cancel the sale deed dt. 25.01.2014, but now the plaintiff

has set up a false story alleging that he has purchased the suit schedule

property from the plaintiff by paying sale consideration. The plaintiff is

not having any possession of the suit schedule property and at last

prayed to dismiss the suit.

4)Basing on the above pleadings, following issues are settled

for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit

schedule property as averred in the plaint?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of

perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule

property against the defendant as prayed in the

plaint?

3.Whether the plaintiff is not at all in possession of the

suit property and this suit of plaintiff is not

maintainable in the eye of law?

4.To what other relief?

5)To prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and

got marked Ex.A1 and A2.

6)Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7)ISSUEs No.1 to 3: According to the plaintiff, he has

purchased the suit schedule property consisting of seventeen plots from

its original owners through the defendants but the defendants trying to

interfere into the suit schedule property. To substantiate his contention,

the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the

plaint and also got marked Ex.A1 and A2. Ex.A1 is the sale deed.

4

8)At this juncture, it is the contention of the defendants that

Ex.A1 came into existence only as a security for the loan taken by

S.Ramachandra Reddy from the plaintiff and no sale consideration has

been passed under Ex.A1.

9)However, on perusing Ex.A1, sale consideration passed

under Ex.A1. As per Ex.A2, the name of the plaintiff was mutated into

revenue records. Therefore, now the burden shifts on the shoulders of

defendant. Though the defendants have taken a plea in the written

statement that Ex.A1 was executed only as a security for the loan

transaction between Ramachandra Reddy and the plaintiff but the

defendants have not produced any evidence before this court to prove

that Ex.A1 came into existence only as a security. At least, it is the duty

of the defendants to examine Ramachandra Reddy who has taken loan

of Rs.50,00,000/- from the plaintiff but said Ramachandra Reddy was

also not turnup before this court and not deposed that Ex.A1 was only a

security for the loan transaction between himself and plaintiff. Therefore,

though the defendant has set up a plea that Ex.A1 is only a document

executed as a security and no sale consideration has been passed but

could not establish the same.

10)On the other hand, the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 and A2

are establishing that defendant has executed Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff

on behalf of owners of suit schedule property and the possession was

also delivered to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendants

are trying to interfere into the suit schedule property and the contention

5

of the plaintiff was not rebutted by the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is

entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants. These issues

are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

11)ISSUE no. 4 : In the result, this suit is decreed without costs

granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants no.1 and 2

from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit

schedule property in any manner..

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court

on this the 11th day of February, 2019.

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1 : T.Ramesh ReddyNone

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Sale Deed

Ex.A2: Encumbrance Certificate

FOR DEFENDANT: Nil

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

6

OS no. 1280 of 2014

11.02.2019

Judgment pronounced (Vide

separate judgment)

In the result, this suit is decreed

without costs granting permanent

injunction restraining the defendants

no.1 and 2 from interfering with the

peaceful possession of the plaintiff over

the suit schedule property in any

manner.

VII ASCJ

7

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. S.SREEVANI

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Dated on this the 11 th day of February, 2019

O.S. No. 1280 of 2014

BETWEEN:-

T.Ramesh Reddy, S/o. T.Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 39yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.H.no. A-37, D.D.Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad – 500 014. .…. Plaintiff

AND

1. M/s. Grandhe Developers Pvt. Ltd., Office at : Flat no. 101, Tarakarama Shriyas Apartments, Asif Avenue, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. Rep. By its Managing Director, Grandhe Madhusudhan Rao, S/o. G.Sarabaiah, Aged about 42yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat no. 403, Ashish Orchids, H.no. 3-5-170/1/8/1/B, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad.

2. Grandhe Madhusudhan Rao, S/o. G.Sarabaiah, Aged about 42yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat no. 403, Ashish Orchids, H.no. 3-5-170/1/8/1/B, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. …. Defendants

Claim: Suit filed praying this court to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants, restraining the defendants or his men from interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiff voer suit schedule property and to grant such other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be entitled for.

Cause of Action: The cause of action arose within the limits of Thimmaipally vil- lage, Keesara Mandal, R.R.district on 16.06.2017 and 31.07.2014 when the de- fendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and the cause of action is subsisting and continuing.

Suit Valuation: The suit is valued at Rs.____________/- and court fee of Rs._____________/- is paid under sec. 26(c) of A.P Court fee and Suits Valuation Act, which is sufficient, and the same is valued for the purpose of Jurisdiction.

Suit Presented on: 13.08.2014 Suit Numbered on: 13.08.2014 Suit Decreed on : 11.02.2019 8

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence

of Sri.M.Devender Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri.

K.S.Reddy, Advocate for Defendants a nd having stood over

for consideration till this day, this Court doth Order as

follows:

1) That the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is decreed without costs.

2) That the plaintiff is granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants no.1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in any manner.

3) That there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 11th day of February, 2019

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

COSTS OF THE PETITION

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

1) Stamp on plaint Rs.

2) Stamp on power Rs.

3) Service of Process Fee Rs.

4) Advocate fee Rs. ---

5) Misc. Charges. Rs. ---

6) Publication Rs. ---

7) FC not filed Rs. ---

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

Total Rs.

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

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that the part and parcel of open land bearing plot numbers 346, 354, 445, 448, 543, 544, 449, 542, 510, 514, 511, 526, 528, 529, 546, 548 and 549 total admeasuring 5100sq.yds or 4264.11sq.mtrs (each plot admeasuring 300sq.yds) in Sy.nos. 76 to 86 situated at Thimmaipally Village, Keesara Mandal, R.R.District and bounded as follows:

Boundaries of Plot no. 346:

NORTH:Plot no. 347 SOUTH:Plot no. 345 EAST:Plot no. 284 9

WEST:Road

Boundaries of Plot no. 354:

NORTH:Plot no. 355 SOUTH:Plot no. 353 EAST:Plot no. 276 WEST:Road

Boundaries of Plot no. 445:

NORTH:Plot no. 444 SOUTH:Plot no. 446 EAST:60ft wide road WEST:Plot no. 546

Boundaries of Plot no. 448:

NORTH:Plot no. 447 SOUTH:Plot no. 449 EAST:Road WEST:Plot no. 543

Boundaries of Plot no. 543:

NORTH:Plot no. 544 SOUTH:Plot no. 542 EAST:Plot no. 448 WEST:Road

Boundaries of Plot no. 544:

NORTH:Plot no. 545 SOUTH:Plot no. 543 EAST:Plot no. 447 WEST:Road

Boundaries of Plot no. 449:

NORTH:Plot no. 448 SOUTH:Road EAST:Road WEST:Plot no. 542

Boundaries of Plot no. 542:

NORTH:Plot no. 543 SOUTH:Road EAST:Plot no. 449 WEST:Road

Boundaries of Plot no. 510:

NORTH:Plot no. 511 SOUTH:Plot no. 509 EAST:Plot no. 481 WEST:Road 10

Boundaries of Plot no. 514:

NORTH:Plot no. 515 SOUTH:Plot no. 513 EAST:Plot no. 477 WEST:Road

Boundaries of Plot no. 511:

NORTH:50’ wide road SOUTH:Plot no. 510 EAST:Plot no. 480 WEST:40’ wide road

Boundaries of Plot no. 526:

NORTH:Plot no. 527 SOUTH:Plot no. 525 EAST:Plotn o. 465 WEST:Road

Boundaries of Plot no. 528:

NORTH:Plot no. 529 SOUTH:Plotn o. 527 EAST:Plot no. 463 WEST:Road

Boundaries of Plot no. 529:

NORTH:Plot no. 530 SOUTH:Plot no. 528 EAST:Plot no. 462 WEST:Road

Boundaries of Plot no. 546:

NORTH:Plot no. 547 SOUTH:Plot no. 545 EAST:Plot no. 445 WEST:Road

Boundaries of Plot no. 548:

NORTH:Plot no. 549 SOUTH:Plot no. 547 EAST:Plot no. 443 WEST:Road 11

Boundaries of Plot no. 549:

NORTH:Government land SOUTH:Plot no. 548 EAST:Plot no. 442 WEST:Road

VII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT