Smt.Salma Fathima

1

OS.No.247 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM XIV ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

AT HAYATHNAGAR

PRESENT : MS.SALMA FATIMA,

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT HAYATHNAGAR

MONDAY the 16 TH DAY of JUNE, 2025

O.S.No.247 of 2015

Between:

Smt.A.Sridevi W/o Late A.V.S.Ramachandran, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.Flat No. 11, A- Block, Second Floor, Manju Shankar Apartments, Behind Moula Ali Railway Quarters, Prashanthi Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 040.

...Plaintiff

And

1. Pasham Devender Reddy S/o Butchi Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, C/o. Sri Laxmi Rice Mill, Inamguda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District.

2. All concerned …Defendants

This suit is coming on 16.06.2025 for hearing before me in the presence of M/s.L.Harish, Advocate for the plaintiff and M/s.D.Venkat Reddy, Advocate for the defendantno.1 and defendant no.2 remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration to declare the plaintiff being wife of Late A.V.S.Ramachandran, as absolute owner of suit schedule property and consequentially to grant perpetual injunction, 2

OS.No.247 of 2015

restraining the defendant herein, or his henchmen or anybody in raising compound wall on the fourth side also, causing blockade of the road/passage to suit schedule property.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants by stating that her husband i.e., A.V.S.Ramachandran, purchased the plot no.109, admeasuring 200 sq.yds in sy.no.44 and 45, situated at Inamguda

Village, Lashkarguda Gram Panchayat, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District, vide sale deed bearing document no.8628/1988, dated 27.06.1988 and further submitted that Sri A.V.S.Vishnu Mohan gifted plot no.110, admeasuring 200 sq.yards at Inamguda Village, Lashkarguda Gram

Panchayath, Hayathnagar Mandal, RR District, in favour of A.V.S.

Ramachandran vide gift settlement deed bearing document no.1274/1995, hence the husband of the plaintiff was the absolute owner and possessor of plot no.109 and 110. The plaintiff further submitted that her husband died in the year 2006 and being his wife she is the sole legal heir and further submitted that she is not having any issues out of the wed-lock.

3. The plaintiff further submitted that defendant no.1 is the proprietor/owner of Sri Laxmi Rice Mill, Inamguda Village, Hayathnagar

Mandal, R.R.District, situated in the neighborhood of the suit schedule property and the defendant no.1 constructed a compound wall on 3 sides of the said venture, covering number of plots and erected a gate. The 3

OS.No.247 of 2015

plaintiff further submitted that there is an open place meant for the school which is on the northern side of the suit schedule property and the said school is facing 40 feet width road on northern side. The defendant no.1 who did not construct compound wall on fourth side, is planning to raise compound wall. The plaintiff further submitted that if defendant no.1 constructs a compound wall even on fourth side, that may ultimately lead to blockade of the road/passage to the suit schedule property. The plaintiff issued legal notice to defendant no.1 on 12.08.2012 and sent through registered post with acknowledge due and defendant has received legal notice but he did not reply.

4. The plaintiff further submitted that she learnt on 14.11.2015 that some efforts are being made to raise compound wall on fourth side also and immediately she rushed to the spot and with great difficulty she could restrain the men at work from raising the compound wall. The plaintiff further submitted that defendant is influential person, having both money and muscle power and he may come at any time with money and muscle power to construct a compound wall, therefore she did not left with no other alternative remedy, except approaching this Hon’ble Court by way of filing this suit. Hence this suit.

5. The defendant no.2 is called absent, no representation, hence defendant no.2 is set exparte. The defendant no.1 filed written statement by denying the plaint averments by stating that as a 4

OS.No.247 of 2015

matter of fact this defendant denied the sale deeds and the same is nothing but forged and created one and at no point of time the suit survey number was converted into plots by the original pattedars, as such the question of purchase of the said plots is nothing but false and baseless created story by the plaintiff and the documents are created one.

6. The defendant no.1 further submitted that it is true that the defendant no.1 is the proprietor and owner of Sri Laxmi Rice Mill, situated at Inamguda village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District is within the suit survey numbers and he constructed rice mill long back and also constructed required sheds such as labour quarters in and around the compound wall and erected gate and enjoying the property as absolute owner and possessor and it is false that the defendant no.1 constructed compound wall only three sides.

7. The defendant no.1 further submitted that the claim of the plaintiff is false and she created documents for the purpose of this case and alleged cause of action does not arise and the suit filed by plaintiff is false and approached this Hon’ble court with unclean hands by suppressing the real facts, therefore prays this court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs in the interest of justice.

8. During the course of trial to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A18 got marked. Ex.A1 is 5

OS.No.247 of 2015

certified copy of sale deed dated 27.06.1988, Ex.A2 is certified copy of sale deed dated 27.06.1988,Ex.A3 certified copy of registered gift settlement deed dated 30.01.1995, Ex.A4 is death certificate dated 27.06.2007, Ex.A5 is office copy of legal notice dated 12.08.2015,Ex.A6 is

Postal receipt dated 12.08.2015, Ex.A7 is Document issued by bar counsel granting death benefits, Ex.A8 is Welfare certificate issued by bar counsel of A.P, Ex.A9 is Enrollment certified issued to AVS Ramchandran by bar counsel of A.P, Ex.A10 is Practicing certificate issued by bar association,

R.R District, Ex.A11 is Wedding card, Ex.A12 is Certified copy of GPA,

Ex.A13 is Encumbrance Certificate, Ex.A14 is Land photos with CD,

Ex.A15 is Certified copy of sale deed vide Doc. No.13568/1987, Ex.A16 is

C.C of sale deed vide Doc, No. 14477/1987, Ex.A17 Certified copy of sale deed vide Doc. No. 13741/1987, Ex.A18 is Marriage photographs. On the otherhand on behalf of the defendant no.1, defendant no.1 examined himself as DW1 and Ex.B1 got marked. EX.B1: is the original letter issued by officer of Grampanchayath Inamguda Village, vide Lr.No.GPIRTI/ 01/2023, dated 14.07.2023.

9. Heard both the learned counsel arguments appearing on either side and the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed written arguments.

10. Perused the material placed available on record.

11. Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties, the following issues were framed for trial by my predecessor:

6

OS.No.247 of 2015

(I) Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

(II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining them from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff?

(III) If so, to what relief?

At the time of judgment it is found that the issue with regard to declare the plaintiff as absolute owner being the wife of A.V.S.Ramachandran is not framed by my predecessor, therefore at this stage this court framed the following issue as issue no.IV:

(IV) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare herself as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property being the wife of A.V.S.

Ramachandran?

Issue no.I, II & IV:

12. The issues no. I, II & IV are framed by this court are intertwine, as such it would be appropriate to discuss and deal with the issues simultaneously.

13. The plaintiff has approached this court seeking the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction, as such burden cast upon the plaintiff to prove that she is the lawful owner and possessor of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the present suit.

Subsequently the plaintiff has to adduce positive and cogent evidence to 7

OS.No.247 of 2015

prove that the defendant no.1 is trying to interfere into the suit schedule property without having any right over the suit schedule property.

14. It is the contention of the plaintiff that her husband purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.A1 and brother of husband of plaintiff gifted the part of suit schedule property i.e., plot no.110 under Ex.A3.

The further contention of the plaintiff is that after the death of her husband she is in possession of suit schedule plots. The plaintiff further contended that defendant no.1 who is the owner and proprietor of Laxmi

Rice Mill which is situated at the neighborhood of the suit schedule property has tried to construct a compound wall on the 4th side which may lead to blockade road and passage to the suit schedule property, therefore filed the injunction against the defendant no.1 and declare her as absolute owner of the suit schedule property being the wife of A.V.S.

Ramachandran. On the otherhand the contention of the defendant no.1 is that it is true that he is the owner and possessor of Sri Laxmi Rice Mill and it is false that he constructed the said compound wall. The contention of the defendant no.1 is that he constructed 4th side compound wall long back and for the purpose of said case the plaintiff created the documents and no cause of action arose in respect of filing of the suit, therefore prays this court to dismiss the suit.

8

OS.No.247 of 2015

15. To prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A18 got marked and reiterated the contents of the plaint in her chief examination affidavit. On the otherhand the defendant no.1 examined himself as DW1 and he reiterated the contents of the written statement in his chief examination affidavit and Ex.B1 got marked.

16. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and defendant no.1 tried to interfere and to prove the same relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A18. On the otherhand the learned counsel for the defendant no.1 argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and as per Ex.B1 there are no plots in survey no.45 and the plaintiff failed to prove her case, therefore prays this court to dismiss the suit.

17. Perused the plaint, written statement and documents under Ex.A1 to

Ex.A18 and Ex.B1. In the present case it is the contention of the plaintiff that her husband purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.A1 and his brother purchased the part of the suit schedule property under Ex.A2 and he gifted the same in favour of husband of plaintiff under Ex.A3. On perusal of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 which shows that the husband of the plaintiff purchased the plot 109 in the year 1988 and his brother also purchased plot no.110 in the year 1988 and he gift the same under Ex.A3 in the year 1995. The document under Ex.A4 is the death certificate, Ex.A5 is the 9

OS.No.247 of 2015

legal notice issued to defendant no.1, Ex.A6 is the postal receipt, Ex.A7 is the amount sanctioned by bar counsel of the State of Andhra Pradesh at the time of death of her husband and Ex.A8 also issued in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A9 is the bar counsel certificate in respect of her deceased husband A.V.S.Ramachandran, Ex.A10 is the certificate of the death of her husband, Ex.A11 is the wedding card of the plaintiff and her husband,

Ex.A12 is the certified copy of document no.939 of 1987, Ex.A13 is the encumbrance certificate, Ex.A14 is the photographs along with CD,

Ex.A15 to Ex.A17 are the alleged sale deeds in respect of third parties,

Ex.A18 is the photographs of the plaintiff’s marriage. On perusal of the documents, though Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 shows that husband of the plaintiff was the owner and possessor in respect of the suit schedule properties and as per Ex.A4 it can be seen that he died in the year 2006 and thereafter no mutations in respect of the suit plots. Though in the present case the contention of the plaintiff is that defendant no.1 is the neighbouring land owner and he is trying to construct the compound wall on the 4th side of her property. In the present case the plaintiff failed to file any document or oral evidence that defendant no.1 is trying to construct 4th side compound wall, whereas in her cross examination PW1 admitted as follows:

“It is true that I have mentioned in plaint that defendant property

is having three side boundary wall and fourth side when he tried to

10

OS.No.247 of 2015

construct the wall I objected for the same. Witness adds that on the

fourth side there is well. It is true that fourth side he constructed the

boundary wall but in “L” shape as there is well. It is true that the GPA

holder of defendant sold the property in sy.no.44 and 45 to Mamatha and

she sold the property P.Sharda. I did not make Mamatha and P.Shardha

or did not seek any relief against them. It is true that P.Shardha filed

OS.No.489/2016 pending on the file of IInd Addl.Senior Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District in which I am the D1and the same is pending. It

is true that in the said suit I filed sec.10 petition to stay all the proceeding

and the same is dismissed. It is true that I have not filed any other

document expect sale deeds in respect of suit schedule property.“

18. In view of the admission of PW1, who admitted that 4th side there is well and during her cross examination she admitted that defendant no.1 constructed the boundary wall whereas in the plaint her contention is that defendant tried to construct boundary wall, in the present case plaintiff failed to prove that in what way boundaries constructed by the defendant no.1 property is causing interference to the plaintiff though the plaintiff contended that if the defendant no.1 constructed 4th side wall passage will be closed and there will be no passage but the plaintiff failed to show the same by filing any cogent evidence. In the present case Ex.B1 shows that there are no plots in survey no.45 as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 two plots are 11

OS.No.247 of 2015

shown in survey no.44 and 45 and the plaintiff failed to file any evidence to disprove the contention of the defendant no.1 in respect of Ex.B1. In the present case though the learned counsel for the plaintiff cross examined DW1 at length but could not elicit anything from his mouth.

19. In the present case though the plaintiff sought the relief of declaration to declare herself as absolute owner of suit schedule property being the wife of A.V.S.Ramachandran but on perusal of the documents under Ex.A1 and Ex.A3, it can be seen that the suit schedule plots stands in the name of A.V.S.Ramachandran and he did not convey the property to plaintiff by way of sale deed, will or gift, therefore the relief sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted because as per the Transfer of Property

Act, 1882, the property can be transferred by way of sale, will or gift.

Moreover this is not the case of the plaintiff that to declare her the legal heir of deceased A.V.S.Ramachandran, therefore the relief sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted.

20. In the present case after applying legal preposition to the facts this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff by producing oral evidence and documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A18 failed to establish that defendant no.1 is tried to blockade the passage of the suit schedule property and failed to establish that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, hence these issues are answered in favour of the defendant no.1 and against the plaintiff.

12

OS.No.247 of 2015

Issue no.(III):

21. In view of the findings that issues no.I, II & IV are answered in favour of the defendant no.1 and against the plaintiff, therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief.

22. IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 16th of June, 2025.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

At Hayathnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1:Smt.Sridevi DW1:P.Devender Reddy

Documents marked on behalf of plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is certified copy of sale deed dated 27.06.1988,

Ex.A2 is certified copy of sale deed dated 27.06.1988,

Ex.A3 certified copy of registered gift settlement deed dated 30.01.1995,

Ex.A4 is death certificate dated 27.06.2007,

Ex.A5 is office copy of legal notice dated 12.08.2015,

Ex.A6 is Postal receipt dated 12.08.2015,

Ex.A7 is Document issued by bar counsel granting death benefits,

Ex.A8 is Welfare certificate issued by bar counsel of A.P,

Ex.A9 is Enrollment certified issued to AVS Ramchandran by bar counsel of A.P,

Ex.A10 is Practicing certificate issued by bar association, R.R District,

Ex.A11is Wedding card, 13

OS.No.247 of 2015

Ex.A12 is Certified copy of GPA,

Ex.A13 is Encumbrance Certificate,

Ex.A14 is Land photos with CD,

Ex.A15 is Certified copy of sale deed vide Doc. No.13568/1987,

Ex.A16 is C.C of sale deed vide Doc, No. 14477/1987,

Ex.A17 Certified copy of sale deed vide Doc. No. 13741/1987,

Ex.A18 is Marriage photographs.

Documents marked on behalf of Defendants:

EX.B1:is the original letter issued by officer of Grampanchayath

Inamguda Village, vide Lr.No.GPIRTI/01/2023, dated 14.07.2023.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

At Hayathnagar

1 O.S.No. 548 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT HAYATHNAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT:- MS. SALMA FATIMA, Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

At Hayathnagar.

MONDAY THE 16 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

O.S. No.548 of 2024

Between

1. Dommeti Venkata Satya Durga Bhavani W/o Harikrishna D/o Late Seelam Venkata Rao @ S.Venkata Rao, Aged about 56 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.7-116, High School Road, P Gannavaram Mandalam, VTC, Patha Gannavaram, Gannavaram District, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, 533240.

2. Seelam Vijayasaradhi S/o Late Seelam Venkata Rao @ S.Venkata Rao, Aged about 48 Years, Occ: Bank Employee, H.No.7-116, High School Road, P Gannavaram Mandalam, Gannavaram District, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, 533240.

3. Seelam Surayanarayana Murthy S/o Late Seelam Venkata Rao @ S.Venkata Rao, Aged about 47 Years, Occ: Pvt.Employee, H.No.1-10-75/5/B, Chikoti Gardens, Begumpet, Secunderabad, T.S., - 500016.

…Plaintiffs

A N D

1. The Commissioner, Hayathnagar Metropolitan Development Authority, Swarnajayanthi Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

2. All concerned …Defendants

This suit is coming on 16.06.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M/s.G.Sudhakar Reddy, counsel for the plaintiffs and Sri.S.Srinivasa Rao, for defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivers the following:-

2 O.S.No. 548 of 2024

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

1. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration by declaring the plaintiffs as the legal heirs of deceased Late. Seelam Venkata Rao @

S.Venkata Rao S/o Suranna, who died intestate on 22.01.2015. The plaintiff further submitted that the plaintiff no.1 is the daughter, plaintiffs no.2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased late Seelam Venkata Rao @ S.Venkata Rao, who died intestate leaving the plaintiffs as his legal heirs.

2. The plaintiffs further submitted that during the life time of late Seelam

Venkata Rao @ S.Venkata Rao, was the absolute owner and possessor of the land bearing plot no. 38 admeasuring 200 sq.yards in sy.no.27, 465, 466, 471, 472 situated at Tharamathipet Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District vide registered sale deed bearing document no.2396 of 2001

dated 15th March, 2001.

3. The plaintiffs further submitted that after the death of deceased late.Seelam Venkata Rao @ S.Venkata Rao, they recently came to know that their plot was acquired by the defendant no.1 i.e., HMDA and immediately the plaintiff no.3 made a representation on 18.08.2023 before the HMDA

Authority stating that their plot was acquired for the ORR Project and the defendant no.1 stated that as per the project affected families in the Land

Acquisition of the Outer Ring Road as per the eligibility conditions stipulated in the G.O.Ms.Mp/14, infrastructure & Investment (IID-2) Dept., are hereby

3 O.S.No. 548 of 2024

allotted plots in the HUDA Development Residential Layouts, provisionally and the possession will be given after land is developed in a period of not more than 2 years. The plaintiffs further submitted that the defendant no.1 has been conducted the draw for allotment of plots in Koheda layout on 19.08.2016 at Indira Priyadarshini Auditorium, Public Gardens, Hyderabad in the presence of the Unit Level Committee Members & Plot Allottees and in the draw the plot bearing no.363 admeasuring 100 sq.yards in sy.no. 507 is hereby allotted to the deceased, as such the plaintiff no.3 submitted her application dated 18.08.2023 to the Spl.Officer, R & R, ORR Project, HMDA,

Nanakramguda Village, Hyderabad and requested the authority to register the said allotted plot in the name of plaintiff no.3 but the authorities instead of registration of plot issued a memo dated: 15.12.2023 and the authority directed the plaintiff no.3 to submit legal heir certificate of the deceased, therefore the plaintiffs approached and requested the Tahsildar/MRO,

P.Gannavaram(V & M), East Godavari Dist for issuing the family member certificate/ legal heirs certificate and same was submitted to the HMDA authority even though the HMDA authority asking the legal heir certificate through civil court to claim above said allotted plot of deceased from the defendant no.1, therefore the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration.

Hence this suit.

3.The learned counsel for defendant no.1 reported no written statement.

The defendant no.2 is called absent, no representation, hence defendant no.2 is set ex-parte.

4 O.S.No. 548 of 2024

4.To prove the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.3 got examined himself as Pw-1 and Ex.A1 to A7 got marked.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

6. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration to declare

themselves as legal heirs of deceased Late. Seelam Venkata Rao @

S.Venkata Rao, as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

POINT NO.1:

7. The contention of the plaintiffs is that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Late. Seelam Venkata Rao @ S.Venkata Rao, who died intestate on 22.01.2015 and after the death of Late. Seelam Venkata Rao @ S.Venkata

Rao, they recently came to know that their plot was acquired by the defendant no.1 i.e., HMDA and immediately the plaintiff no.3 made a representation on 18.08.2023 before the HMDA Authority stating that their plot was acquired for the ORR Project and the defendant no.1 stated that as per the project affected families in the Land Acquisition of the Outer Ring

Road as per the eligibility conditions stipulated in the G.O.Ms.Mp/14, infrastructure & Investment (IID-2) Dept., are hereby allotted plots in the

HUDA Development Residential Layouts, provisionally and the possession will be given after land is developed in a period of not more than 2 years. The plaintiffs further submitted that the defendant no.1 has been conducted the draw for allotment of plots in Koheda layout on 19.08.2016 at Indira

5 O.S.No. 548 of 2024

Priyadarshini Auditorium, Public Gardens, Hyderabad in the presence of the

Unit Level Committee Members & Plot Allottees and in the draw the plot bearing no.363 admeasuring 100 sq.yards in sy.no. 507 is hereby allotted to the deceased, as such the plaintiff no.3 submitted her application dated 18.08.2023 to the Spl.Officer, R & R, ORR Project, HMDA, Nanakramguda

Village, Hyderabad and requested the authority to register the said allotted plot in the name of plaintiff no.3 but the authorities instead of registration of plot issued a memo dated: 15.12.2023 and the authority directed the plaintiff no.3 to submit legal heir certificate of the deceased, therefore the plaintiffs approached and requested the Tahsildar/MRO, P.Gannavaram(V &

M), East Godavari Dist for issuing the family member certificate/ legal heirs certificate and same was submitted to the HMDA authority even though the

HMDA authority asking the legal heir certificate through civil court to claim above said allotted plot of deceased from the defendant no.1, therefore the plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration to declare themselves as legal heirs of deceased Late. Seelam Venkata Rao @ S.Venkata Rao.

8. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.3 got examined himself as Pw-1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 got marked. EX.A1: is the original copy of allotment letter issued ORRP/R&R/118/2016, dt: 19-08-2016, Ex.A2: is the original copy of Representation made by the plaintiff No.3 i.e,

S.Suryanarayana Murthy to the defendant No.1, dt: 18-08-2023, Ex.A3: is the Original copy of memo vide lr.no.450/R&R/DRRP/2023, dt: 15-12-2023,

6 O.S.No. 548 of 2024

Ex.A4: is the original copy of death certificate of seelam Venkata Rao dt: 22- 01-2015, Ex.A5: is the original copy of death certificate of Seelam Anjana

Devi dt: 09-02-2023, Ex.A6: is the Aadhar cards of plaintiffs.(nos3), Ex.A7:

is the original copy of family member certificate of Seelam Venkat Rao issued by the Tahsildar/MRO, PGannavaram.

9. The oral evidence of Pw-1 and the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to

Ex.A7 are remained unchallenged. Moreover, according to the plaintiffs, they are the only legal heirs of Late. Seelam Venkata Rao @ S.Venkata Rao , who died intestate on 22.01.2015 and they filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 in support of their case.

10. From the above said unrebutted testimony on record and documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A7, it is clear that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Late. Seelam Venkata Rao @ S.Venkata Rao , as such the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Late. Seelam Venkata Rao @ S.Venkata Rao . Therefore accordingly this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

POINT NO.2:

11. In view of the findings in point no.1, the plaintiffs are declared as legal heirs of deceased Late. Seelam Venkata Rao @ S.Venkata Rao .

12. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed without costs and the plaintiffs are declared as the legal heirs of deceased Late. Seelam Venkata Rao @

S.Venkata Rao S/o Suranna, who died intestate on 22.01.2015.

7 O.S.No. 548 of 2024

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16 th day of June, 2025.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

At Hayathnagar. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiffs : Defendants:

PW1: S.Suryanarayana Murthy -Nil-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs :

EX.A1: is the original copy of allotment letter issued ORRP/ R&R/118/2016,

dt: 19-08-2016,

Ex.A2: is the original copy of Representation made by the plaintiff No.3 i.e,

S.Suryanarayana Murthy to the defendant No.1, dt: 18-08-2023,

Ex.A3: is the Original copy of memo vide lr.no.450/R&R/DRRP/2023, dt: 15- 12-2023,

Ex.A4: is the original copy of death certificate of seelam Venkata Rao dt: 22- 01-2015,

Ex.A5: is the original copy of death certificate of Seelam Anjana Devi dt: 09- 02-2023,

Ex.A6: is the Aadhar cards of plaintiffs.(nos3),

Ex.A7: is the original copy of family member certificate of Seelam Venkat

Rao issued by the Tahsildar/MRO, PGannavaram

For Defendants: -Nil-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

At Hayathnagar.

1 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT HAYATHNAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT:- MS. SALMA FATIMA, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, At Hayathnagar.

MONDAY THE 27 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

O.S. No.159 of 2026

Between

Maddi Sai Jeevan Reddy, S/o. Late M.Ravinder Reddy, Aged 20 years, student, R/o. H.No.1-38/1, Prabhath Nagar, Chaitanyapuri, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.

…Plaintiff

A N D

1. Smt. Maddi Anitha, W/o. Late M.Ravinder Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-38/1, Prabhath Nagar, Chaitanyapuri, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District-60.

2. Maddi Meghana Reddy, D/o. Late M.Ravinder Reddy, Aged about 27 years, Student, R/o. H.No.1-38/1, Prabhath Nagar, Chaitanyapuri, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District-60.

3. The Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. All Concerned …Defendants

2 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

This suit is coming on 27.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of M/s.Hemanth Praveen Kumar, counsel for the plaintiff and Learned AGP for defendant no.3 and defendant no.1, 2 and 4 remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivers the following:-

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

1. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration by declaring the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 as the legal heirs of deceased Late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy S/o. Maddi Narsimha

Reddy, who died intestate on 20.07.2022. The plaintiff further submitted that he is the natural son, defendant no.1 is the wife and defendant no.2 is the natural daughter of deceased Late.

Maddi Ravinder Reddy, who died intestate leaving the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 as his legal heirs. The plaintiffs further submitted that the natural mother of the deceased namely Maddi

Laxmamma died on 30-01-2023.

2. The plaintiff further submitted that during the life time of late.

Maddi Ravinder Reddy, purchased the plot no.196 (West Part), admeasuring 180 sq.yds., or 150.49 sq.mtrs., in sy.nos. 280, 281,

3 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

282 & 324, situated at Pedda Amberpet Village, erstwhile

Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, presently Abdullapurmet Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, through a regd. AGPA vide doct.no.19073/2006, dated: 23-09-2006 and also purchased the plot no.471, admeasuring 200 sq.yds., or 167.23 sq.mtrs., in sy.no.663, situated at Pedda Amberpet Village, erstwhile

Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, presently Abdullapurmet Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, through a regd. AGPA vide doct.

no.24169/2006, dated: 08-11-2006.

3. The plaintiff further submitted that after the death of deceased Late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy, the defendant no.1 & 2 have executed a sale deed vide doct. no 456/2026, dated: 23-01- 2026 and sale deed vide doct.no. 459/2026, dated: 23-01-2026, in favour of Plaintiff herein by releasing their 1/3rd share each in and over the suit schedule properties, plaintiff due to his financial necessities intended to sell the suit schedule properties for a valuable consideration but on 11-02-2026, during the course of negotiations the intending purchasers demanded the legal heirs certificate of the deceased which is very much essential for the

4 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

alienation of the said plot and the plaintiffs could not produce the same to the intending purchasers, on 18-02-2026 they approached the defendant no.3 (Tahsildar) with an application for grant of legal heirs certificate but unfortunately the defendant no.3 orally refused to grant legal heirs certificate and suggested the plaintiffs to approach proper civil court of law, therefore the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration. Hence this suit.

4. Learned AGP represented defendant no.3 and reported no written statement.The defendant no.1, 2 and 4 are called absent, no representation, hence defendant no.1, 2 and 4 were set ex- parte.

5.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as Pw-1 and Ex.A1 to A10 got marked.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

7. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 are

entitled for declaration to declare themselves as legal heirs

of deceased Late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

POINT NO.1:

8. The contention of the plaintiff is that he and defendant no.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of the deceased Late. Maddi Ravinder

Reddy, who died intestate on 20.07.2022 and during the life time of late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy, purchased of the suit schedule properties and after the death of deceased late. Maddi Ravinder

Reddy, the defendant no.1 & 2 have executed a sale deed vide doct. no 456/2026, dated: 23-01-2026 and sale deed vide doct.no. 459/2026, dated: 23-01-2026, in favour of Plaintiff herein by releasing their 1/3rd share each in and over the suit schedule properties, plaintiff due to his financial necessities intended to sell the suit schedule properties for a valuable consideration but on 11-02-2026, during the course of negotiations the intending purchasers demanded the legal heirs certificate of the deceased which is very much essential for the alienation of the said plot and the plaintiffs could not produce the same to the intending purchasers, on 18-02-2026 they approached the defendant no.3 (Tahsildar) with an application for grant of legal heirs certificate but unfortunately the defendant no.3 orally refused to grant legal heirs certificate and suggested

6 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

the plaintiffs to approach proper civil court of law, therefore the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration to declare himself and defendant no.1 and 2 as legal heirs of deceased Late. Maddi

Ravinder Reddy.

9. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as Pw-1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 got marked.

EX.A1:is the certified copy of AGPA vide doc.no.19073/2006,

dt:23-09-2006, Ex.A2:is the certified copy of AGPA vide

doc.no.24169/2006, dt:08-11-2006, Ex.A3:is the certified copy of

Sale Deed vide do.no. 456/2026, dt:23-01-2026, Ex.A4:is the certified copy of Sale deed vide doc.no.459/2026, dt: 23-01- 2026, Ex.A5:is the death certificate of Maddi Ravinder Reddy,

dt:20-07-2022, Ex.A6: is the Encumbrance certificate dt: 17-02-

2026, Ex.A7: is the Encumbrance certificate, dt: 11-02-2026,

Ex.A8: is the Aadhar card of plaintiff, Ex.A9: is the Aadhar card of

Defendants No.1 and 2, Ex.A10: is the death certificate of M.

Laxmamma, dt: 30-01-2022.

7 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

10. The oral evidence of Pw-1 and the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 are remained unchallenged. Moreover, according to the plaintiff, himself and defendant no.1 and 2 are the only legal heirs of Late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy, who died intestate on 20.07.2022 and he filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 in support of his case.

11. From the above said unrebutted testimony on record and documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A10, it is clear that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of deceased

Late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy, as such the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that himself and defendant no.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of the deceased Late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy. Therefore accordingly this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

POINT NO.2:

12. In view of the findings in point no.1, the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 are declared as legal heirs of deceased

Late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy.

13. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed without costs and the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 are declared as the legal heirs

8 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

of deceased Late. Maddi Ravinder Reddy S/o. Maddi Narsimha

Reddy, who died intestate on 20.07.2022.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27 th day of April,

2026.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

At Hayathnagar.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Plaintiff: Defendants:

PW1: Maddi Sai Jeevan Reddy-Nil-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff :

EX.A1:is the certified copy of AGPA vide doc.no.19073/2006,

dt:23-09-2006,

Ex.A2:is the certified copy of AGPA vide doc.no.24169/2006,

dt:08-11-2006,

Ex.A3:is the certified copy of Sale Deed vide do.no. 456/2026,

dt:23-01-2026,

Ex.A4:is the certified copy of Sale deed vide doc.no.459/2026, dt:

23-01-2026,

Ex.A5:is the death certificate of Maddi Ravinder Reddy, dt:20-07- 2022,

Ex.A6: is the Encumbrance certificate dt: 17-02-2026,

Ex.A7: is the Encumbrance certificate, dt: 11-02-2026,

Ex.A8: is the Aadhar card of plaintiff,

Ex.A9: is the Aadhar card of Defendants No.1 and 2,

9 O.S.No. 159 of 2026

Ex.A10: is the death certificate of M. Laxmamma, dt: 30-01-2022.

For Defendants:

-Nil-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

At Hayathnagar.

1 O.S.No. 135 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT HAYATHNAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT:- MS. SALMA FATIMA, Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

At Hayathnagar.

MONDAY THE 16 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

O.S. No.135 of 2025

Between

Samuel Nischalanand Charles S/o Late S.J.Charles, Aged about : 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-7-331, Flat No. 105, Parmila Homes 3 After Geetha Hospital, Chaitanyapuri, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District – 500060. …Plaintiff

A N D

1. Chitrala Jagadish S/o late Ch.Danaiah, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2-3-121/1, Plot No.16A, Chitrala Nilayam, Cooperative Bank Colony, Road No.8, Nagoled, Tattiannaram, Ranga Reddy District – 500068.

2. All concerned …Defendants

This suit is coming on 16.06.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Satish Kumar, counsel for the plaintiff and defendants remained ex- parte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivers the following:-

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

1. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration by declaring the plaintiff as the legal heir of deceased Late. Chellamma Charles and Late

Sucharitha Charles, who died intestate on 31.07.2024 and 04.09.2014. The plaintiff is the son of deceased late Chellamma Charles, who died intestate leaving the plaintiff as her legal heir. The plaintiff further submitted that

2 O.S.No. 135 of 2025

originally his sister Sucharitha Charles who expired on 04.09.2014 leaving behind the plaintiff’s mother Smt.Chellamma Charles as her surviving legal heir. The plaintiff further submitted that his father S.J.Charles was predeceased on 11.10.2002.

2. The plaintiff further submitted that during the life time of late.

Smt.Sucharitha Charles, owned and possessed the open land bearing plot no.36 in sy.no.110, admeasuring 202 sq.yds or 168.88 sq.mtrs situated at

Munaganoor Village and Grampanchayat, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, having purchased through a registered sale deed vide doct.no.4199/1999 dated 25.05.1999.

3. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant no.1 who is a developer and came forward to develop the suit schedule property after perusing the title documents, which stands registered in the name of late

Sucharitha Charles stipulated a condition to obtain a decree from civil court declaring that her mother Smt.Chellama Charles is legal heir of late

Sucharitha Charles. The plaintiff further submitted that under these circumstances, plaintiff’s mother Smt.Chellamma Charles filed a suit before this Hon’ble Court vide O.S.No.167 of 2024 for declaration to declare her as the legal heir of the deceased late Sucharitha Charles who died intestate on 04.09.2014 and the Hon’ble Court passed decree and judgment dated 22.07.2024 and the plaintiff’s mother Smt.Chellamma Charles applied for copy application on 24.07.2024, vide CA.No.2203/2024 and the copy was

3 O.S.No. 135 of 2025

made ready and delivered on 31.07.2024, but unfortunately Smt.Chellamma

Charles died on the same day i.e., 31.07.2024, therefore the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration. Hence this suit.

4.The defendants are called absent, no representation, hence defendants are set ex-parte.

5.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as

Pw-1 and Ex.A1 to A5 got marked.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

7. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration to declare himself

as legal heir of deceased Late. Chellamma Charles and Late

Sucharitha Charles, as prayed for?

2. To what relief? POINT NO.1:

8. The contention of the plaintiff is that he is the legal heir of the deceased

Late. Chellamma Charles and Late Sucharitha Charles, who died intestate on 31.07.2024 and 04.09.2014 and during the life time of late Sucharitha

Charles was owned and possessed the suit schedule property and the defendant no.1 who is a developer and came forward to develop the suit schedule property after perusing the title documents, which stands registered in the name of late Sucharitha Charles stipulated a condition to obtain a decree from civil court declaring that her mother Smt.Chellama Charles is legal heir of late Sucharitha Charles. The plaintiff further contended that under these circumstances, plaintiff’s mother Smt.Chellamma Charles filed a

4 O.S.No. 135 of 2025

suit before this Hon’ble Court vide O.S.No.167 of 2024 for declaration to declare her as the legal heir of the deceased late Sucharitha Charles who died intestate on 04.09.2014 and the Hon’ble Court passed decree and judgment dated 22.07.2024 and the plaintiff’s mother Smt.Chellamma

Charles applied for copy application on 24.07.2024, vide CA.No.2203/2024 and the copy was made ready and delivered on 31.07.2024, but unfortunately Smt.Chellamma Charles died on the same day i.e., 31.07.2024, therefore the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration to declare himself as legal heir of deceased Late. Chellamma Charles and Late

Sucharitha Charles.

9. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as Pw- 1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 got marked. EX.A1: is the Original death certificate of

Smt.Chellamma Charles died on 31.07.2024, EX.A2: is the C.C of judgment

dt: 22.07.2024 passed in O.S.167/2024, EX.A3: is the C.C of Regd. Sale

Deed vide doc.No.4199/1999, dt: 25.05.1999, EX.A4: is the Encumbrance certificate, EX.A5: is the original Aadhar card of the plaintiff.

10. The oral evidence of Pw-1 and the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are remained unchallenged. Moreover, according to the plaintiff, he is the only legal heir of Late. Chellamma Charles and Late Sucharitha

Charles, who died intestate on 31.07.2024 and 04.09.2014 and he filed

Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 in support of his case.

5 O.S.No. 135 of 2025

11. From the above said unrebutted testimony on record and documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, it is clear that the plaintiff is the legal heir of deceased Late. Chellamma Charles and Late Sucharitha Charles, as such the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he is the legal heir of the deceased

Late. Chellamma Charles and Late Sucharitha Charles. Therefore accordingly this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

POINT NO.2:

12. In view of the findings in point no.1, the plaintiff is declared as legal heir of deceased Late. Chellamma Charles and Late Sucharitha Charles.

13. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed without costs and the plaintiff is declared as the legal heir of deceased Late. Chellamma Charles and Late

Sucharitha Charles, who died intestate on 31.07.2024 and 04.09.2014.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16 th day of June, 2025.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

At Hayathnagar. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff: Defendants:

PW1: Samuel Nischalanand Charles -Nil-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff:

EX.A1: is the Original death certificate of Smt.Chellamma Charles died on 31.07.2024,

EX.A2: is the C.C of judgment dt: 22.07.2024 passed in O.S.167/2024,

6 O.S.No. 135 of 2025

EX.A3: is the C.C of Regd. Sale Deed vide doc.No.4199/1999, dt:

25.05.1999,

EX.A4: is the Encumbrance certificate,

EX.A5: is the original Aadhar card of the plaintiff.

For Defendants: -Nil-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

At Hayathnagar.

1 O.S.No. 158 of 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT HAYATHNAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT:- MS. SALMA FATIMA, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, At Hayathnagar.

MONDAY THE 27 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

O.S. No.158 of 2026

Between

1. CHOLLETI RADHA, W/o late Cholleti Ramachari, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.6-2-1221, Plot No.93 New Venkateshwara Colony, Hyderabad Road, New Venkateswara Temple, Nalgonda town, Nalgonda District-508001.

2. VISHWANADULA LIKITHA, W/o Vishwanadula Sandeep, D/o late Cholleti Ramachan, Aged about 31 years, Occ: House wife, R/o 6-2-955/35. Flat No 307, Sri Kakatiya towers, Old VT Colony, Kakatiya Nagar, Nalgonda town, Nalgonda District -508001.

3. CHOLLETI SWETHA, D/o late Cholleti Ramachari, Aged about 26 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o Plot No.203, Sahithi Residency, Ravindra Nagar Colony, Hyderabad Road, Nano College, Nalgonda town & District - 508001. …Plaintiffs

A N D

1. Ch. Venkatesham, S/o Ch.

2 O.S.No. 158 of 2026

Satyanarayana, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Driver. R/o Yellareddygudem village, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

2. The Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. All concerned.

…Defendants

This suit is coming on 27.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.G.Narsimha, counsel for the plaintiffs and Learned AGP for defendant no.2 and defendant no.1 and 3 remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivers the following:-

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

1. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration by declaring the plaintiffs, as the legal heirs of deceased Late.

Cholleti Rama Chary S/o Cholleti Veerachari, who died intestate on 22.05.2021. The plaintiffs further submitted that the plaintiff no.1 is the wife and plaintiff no.2 and 3 are the daughters of deceased Late. Cholleti Rama Chary, who died intestate leaving the plaintiffs as his legal heirs.

3 O.S.No. 158 of 2026

2. The plaintiffs further submitted that during the life time of late. Cholleti Rama Chary and one Ch. Venkatesham, who is the defendant no.1 herein had jointly purchased the land bearing plot no.105. admeasuring 209 sq.yards or 174.74 sq.mtrs in survey nos. 196, 223 & 234, situated at Pasmamula village,

Abdullapurmet Mandal, (erstwhile Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal),

Under Pasmamula Gram panchayath, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing document no.9534/2001, dated 27-11-2001.

3. The plaintiffs further submitted that after the death of deceased Late. Cholleti Rama Chary, they are in need of money to meet the family maintenance, as such the plaintiffs intended to sell the suit schedule property to the prospective purchasers for valuable sale consideration, on their approach, the prospective purchasers required legal heirs certificate of the deceased upon which the plaintiffs approached the defendant no.2, the Tahsildar, on 17-11-2025 to issue legal heirs certificate in favour of them in the capacity of L.Rs. of deceased in order to sell away the suit schedule property, but the defendant no.2 refused and insisted

4 O.S.No. 158 of 2026

the plaintiffs to get legal heirs certificate from the competent court of law, therefore the plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration. Hence this suit.

4. Learned AGP represented defendant no.2 and reported no written statement.The defendant no.1 and 3 are called absent, no representation, hence defendant no.1 and 3 were set ex-parte.

5.To prove the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.1 got examined herself as Pw-1 and Ex.A1 to A4 got marked.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

7. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration to

declare themselves as legal heirs of deceased Late. Cholleti

Rama Chary as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

POINT NO.1:

8. The contention of the plaintiffs is that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Late. Cholleti Rama Chary, who died intestate on 22.05.2021 and during the life time of late. Cholleti Rama Chary and one Ch. Venkatesham, who is the defendant no.1 herein had

5 O.S.No. 158 of 2026

jointly purchased of the suit schedule property and after the death of deceased late. Cholleti Rama Chary, they are in need of money to meet the family maintenance, as such the plaintiffs intended to sell the suit schedule property to the prospective purchasers for valuable sale consideration, on their approach, the prospective purchasers required legal heirs certificate of the deceased upon which the plaintiffs approached the defendant no.2, the Tahsildar, on 17-11-2025 to issue legal heirs certificate in favour of them in the capacity of L.Rs. of deceased in order to sell away the suit schedule property, but the defendant no.2 refused and insisted the plaintiffs to get legal heirs certificate from the competent court of law, therefore the plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration to declare themselves as legal heirs of deceased Late.

Cholleti Rama Chary.

9. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff no.1 got examined herself as Pw-1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint in her chief examination affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 got marked. EX.A1:is the certified copy of Regd.Sale Deed br.doc.no.

dt:27-11-2001. 9534/2001, Ex.A2: is the death certificate of Ch.

6 O.S.No. 158 of 2026

Rama Chary, dt: 22-05-2021, Ex.A3: is the Encumbrance certificate, dt: 16-12-2025, Ex.A4: is the Aadhar card of plaintiffs ( 3nos).

10. The oral evidence of Pw-1 and the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are remained unchallenged. Moreover, according to the plaintiff, they are the only legal heirs of Late.

Cholleti Rama Chary, who died intestate on 22.05.2021 and they filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 in support of their case.

11. From the above said unrebutted testimony on record and documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A4, it is clear that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Late. Cholleti Rama

Chary, as such the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Late. Cholleti Rama Chary.

Therefore accordingly this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

POINT NO.2:

12. In view of the findings in point no.1, the plaintiffs are declared as legal heirs of deceased Late. Cholleti Rama Chary.

7 O.S.No. 158 of 2026

13. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed without costs and the plaintiffs are declared as the legal heirs of deceased Late. Cholleti

Rama Chary S/o Cholleti Veerachari, who died intestate on 22.05.2021.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27 th day of April,

2026.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

At Hayathnagar.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Plaintiffs: Defendants:

PW1: CHOLLETI RADHA-Nil-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs :

EX.A1:is the certified copy of Regd.Sale Deed br.doc.no. dt:27-11- 2001. 9534/2001,

Ex.A2: is the death certificate of Ch. Rama Chary, dt: 22-05- 2021,

Ex.A3: is the Encumbrance certificate, dt: 16-12-2025,

Ex.A4: is the Aadhar card of plaintiffs ( 3nos).

For Defendants:

-Nil-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

At Hayathnagar.