Smt Sampathi Rao Chandana

Dt: 21-04-2026 1/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HANAMKONDA

Tuesday, this the 21st day of April, 2026

Present:- Smt Sampathi Rao Chandana II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda.

O.S.No. 294 OF 2022

(Old O.S.No. 715 OF 2013)

Between:

Komakula Yadagiri, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged: 65 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o. H.No.2-11-225/B, Shankarnagar colony, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. … Plaintiff AND

1. Gaddam Swaroopa Rani, W/o. Narsaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.3-10-148, Reddy colony, Kumarpalli, Hanamkonda,

2. Peddireddy Rajyalaxmi, W/o. Amrutha Reddy, Aged: 46 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Teharapur village, Shyampet pet, Warangal District.

3. Samala Srinivasulu, S/o. Rajamouli, Aged: 47 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o.H.No.5-11-725/2/3, Opp: KUC First gate, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. … Defendants

This Suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 16-03-2026 in the presence of Sri T. Mahendra Prasad,Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff; and of

Smt K. Sunitha Rani, Learned counsel for the Defendant No.1, Sri P. Sathish

Kumar, Learned counsel for the Defendant No.2 and of Sri L. Jalender Reddy,

Learned counsel for the Defendant No.3; and upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

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

1)The Suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 with a prayer to declare the Plaintiff as owner of the plaint schedule plot and to pass a

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 2/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

decree directing Defendant No.3 to deliver vacant possession of the plot by removing the structures thereon and to pass a decree of Mandatory Injunction for removal structures raised over the Suit Schedule Plot and deliver vacant possession of the plot to the Plaintiff and award the costs of the suit.

2) The brief contentions of the Plaint pleadings as pleaded by

Plaintiff is as follows:

i)The Plaintiff averred that he is the original owner of land to an extent of 173 sq.yards denoted by Plot Nos. 13/3 of Sy.Nos. 62 and 64 of Lashkarsingaram village purchased the same from Bujugundla Veeraswamy, S/o. Yellaiah under a document, dt. 16-11-1979. The Plot No.13/1 belongs to Vengala Sridevi, D/o.

Mohan Rao and 13/2 belongs to Vengala Lalitha, D/o. Kanakaraju, R/o.

Hanumannagar, Hanamkonda, hereinafter referred as Suit Schedule Property.

ii)The Plaintiff further submit that since the date of purchase, the Plaintiff is in un-interrupted exclusive possession and enjoyment of such property and as on the date of said purchase, the Suit Schedule Property is a vacant land. Later in the year 2003, Defendant No.2 filed a suit vide O.S.No.2036/2003 on 19-12-2003 before

Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Warangal claiming the property of the Plaintiff as of her by mis-describing the property for Permanent Injunction. In the said suit, Status- quo was ordered vide I.A.No.3514/2003, Dt. 19-12-2003. The Plaintiff herein made an appearance in O.S.No.2036/2003 and filed his Written Statement as Defendant

No.2 on 24-09-2004, but the Written Statement of Defendant No.2 (in

O.S.No.2036/2003) and Plaintiff herein was not recorded and ultimately on

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 3/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

17.12.2004, he was set exparte and suit was decreed. In the said suit, Defendant

No.2 herein has not adduced any evidence nor got the documents marked to prove her claim.

iii)The Plaintiff further averred that he severely fell sick in the year 2008 and came to know that Defendant No.3 started constructions over the land basing on the decree obtained by Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.2036/2003 by suppressing the real facts, by observing that Plaintiff is a senior citizen suffering with severe ailments, the Defendant No.3 perpetuated his illegal occupations by constructing the house on the land of the Plaintiff and he is residing in the said house. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 fully aware of the possessory rights and title of the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule

Property, they have illegally occupied the Suit Schedule Property under the guise of injunction and continued their possession. The Plaintiff after gaining strength and on undergoing treatment for his illness, he approached his Advocate in

O.S.No.2036/2003 and sought advise to return his original documents for filing the

same before the court, but unfortunately the said Original document, dt. 16-11-1979 was misplaced and not traceable. The Plaintiff filed the original document, dt.

16.11.1979 before Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal for impounding during the course of the suit proceedings in O.S.No.2036/2003 and the said document was impounded on 5.5.2003 in File No.D/1257/2003 application to Revenue Divisional

Officer, Warangal on 25.4.2013 to furnish a Certified copy of the document, which was impounded. The Revenue Divisional Officer has furnished the Certified copy of document, which was impounded by them on 5.5.2003, under the said Certified copy of the document, dt. 16-11-1979, the Plaintiff purchased the Suit Schedule Plot.

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 4/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

iv)The Plaintiff further averred that the claim of purchase by Defendant

No.1 on 13.8.2003 describing the property of the Plaintiff as plot no.8 is incorrect and false, she is neither pattedar nor possessor of the land in Sy.Nos. 62, 63, 64 and 69 of Lashker Singaram, Hanamkonda, she has no right to alienate any part of the land in the said survey number. The sale deed executed by Defendant No.1 on 13.8.2003 in favour of Defendant No.2 is without any right and it is a collusive document. The alleged sale is hit by Sec. 52 of Transfer of Property Act. The subsequent sale on 7.12.2007 by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant no.3 is also a collusive document without any flow of title. In January, 2008, all the Defendants with man power have illegally occupied the plot of the Plaintiff and perpetuated such illegality, hence such illegal structures which are raised inspite of objections requires to be removed by the Mandatory injunction.

v)The Plaintiff further averred that on 23-01-2013, the Plaintiff got issued a notice to all the Defendants to remove the building and to deliver vacant possession of the plot within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The

Defendant No.3 has received the notice and got issued reply, dt. 4-2-2013,

Defendant No.2 managed to return it as out of station. As there was no option to the

Plaintiff except to file the suit. Hence, this suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession of Suit Schedule Plot and for Mandatory injunction for removal of the illegal structures raised on the Suit Schedule Plot, hence filed the present suit.

3) The brief contention of the Written Statement filed by Defendant

No. 2 as follows: i)The Defendant No. 2 submits that all the allegations specified in the plaint by the Plaintiff are false and the suit is not maintainable in the

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 5/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

eye of law and contended that one B. Veeraswamy was the owner and possessor of the land bearing Sy.No.62, 63, 64 and 69 situated at Lashker Singaram,

Hanamkonda. After his death, his wife, daughter and sons succeeded his properties.

The Defendant No.1 is one of the daughter of the deceased/B. Veeraswamy, she inherited the plot sold by her to this Defendant and other lands from her father along with her sister and brothers. She has also got permission from Urban Land Ceiling

Authority for 2000 sq.mts of land in the above referred survey numbers. She being the legal heir and successor of the B. Veeraswamy, became owner and possessor of the land and has right to sell or alienate the properties acquired by her. Accordingly, she sold the 220 sq.yards of plot to this Defendant through Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.5790/2003, dt. 13-8-2003 with delivery of possession. Thereafter this

Defendant for her legal necessities sold the said plot to Defendant No.3 through a

Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.11761/2007, dt. 7-12-2007 with delivery of possession. Since the date of purchase of the Defendant No.3, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit plot. Thereafter the Defendant no.3 obtained permission from municipality and constructed house and residing therein.

ii)The Defendant No.2 further contended that Plaintiff is well aware about the purchase of the land and ownership, possession of the Defendant No.1 and sale by her to this Defendant and sale by this Defendant in favour of Defendant no.3. As the Plaintiff failed to succeed in the suit filed against him had created the document and filed the above suit. This Defendant had filed O.S.No.2036/2003 against the

Plaintiff for Permanent Injunction, which was decreed in favour of this Defendant.

The claim of the Plaintiff that the Defendant no.3 and others occupied the plot in the

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 6/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

month of January, 2008 is false and Defendant No.3’s possession shall be deemed to be continuous from the date of acquiring the land by Defendant No.1. The measurements and the area claimed by the Plaintiff defers from this Defendant’s plot. There is no Suit Schedule land in the given boundaries in the schedule, the

Plaintiff filed the above suit only to harass the Defendant and it is barred by limitation. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4)The Defendant No.1 filed Adoption memo by adopting the Written

Statement filed by Defendant No.2.

5) The brief contention of the Written Statement filed by Defendant

No. 3 as follows:

i)The Defendant No.3 submits that all the allegations specified in the plaint by the Plaintiff are false and the suit is not maintainable in the eye of law and contended that one B. Veeraswamy was the owner and possessor of the land bearing Sy.No.62, 63, 64 and 69 situated at Lashker Singaram, Hanamkonda. After his death, his wife, daughter and sons succeeded his properties. The Defendant

No.1 is one of the daughter of the deceased/B. Veeraswamy, she inherited the plot sold by her to Defendant No.2 and other lands from her father along with her sister and brothers. She has also got permission from Urban Land Ceiling Authority for 2000 sq.mts of land in the above referred survey numbers. She being the legal heir and successor of the B. Veeraswamy, became owner and possessor of the land and has right to sell or alienate the properties acquired by her. Accordingly, she sold the 220 sq.yards of plot to this Defendant through Registered Sale Deed vide

Doc.No.5790/2003, dt. 13-8-2003 with delivery of possession. Thereafter, Defendant

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 7/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

No.2 for her legal necessities sold the said plot to Defendant No.3 through a

Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.11761/2007, dt. 7-12-2007 with delivery of possession. Since the date of purchase of the Defendant No.3, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit plot. Thereafter the Defendant no.3 obtained permission from municipality and constructed house and residing therein from the month of August, 2008.

ii)The Defendant No.3 further contended that Plaintiff is well aware about the purchase of the land and ownership, possession of the Defendant No.1 and sale by her to Defendant No.2 and sale by Defendant No.2 in favour of this Defendant. As the Plaintiff failed to succeed in the suit filed against him had created the document and filed the above suit. The vendor of the Defendant No.3 i.e., Defendant No.2 had filed O.S.No.2036/2003 against the Plaintiff for Permanent Injunction, which was decreed in favour of Defendant No.2. The claim of the Plaintiff that the Defendant no.3 and others occupied the plot in the month of January, 2008 is false and

Defendant No.3’s possession shall be deemed to be continuous from the date of acquiring the land by Defendant No.1. The measurements and the area claimed by the Plaintiff defers from this Defendant’s plot. There is no Suit Schedule land in the given boundaries in the schedule, the Plaintiff filed the above suit only to harass the

Defendant and it is barred by limitation. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

6) The Learned Counsel for Plaintiff filed Written Arguments by stating that:

i)The suit is filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction for removing the building, highhanded constructed by the

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 8/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

Defendant No.3 over the suit property and for other reliefs. The land in Sy.No.62, 64 of Lashkersingaram village belonged to Boojugundla Veeraswamy, S/o. Yellaiah.

The Plaintiff purchased an extent of 173 sq.yards under a Simple Sale Deed, dt. 16- 11-1979 and it was denoted by Plot No.13/3. It is submitted that the plot No.13/1 belongs to Vangala Sridevi and 13/2 belongs to Vangala Lalitha. The Plaintiff by virtue of the Simple Sale Deed inducted into possession and thus, he is in exclusive possession of suit property. In the year, 2003, Defendant. no.2 filed a suit vide

O.S.No.2036/2003 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Warangal claiming

that such property belongs to her and the court ordered status-quo on 19-12-2003 in

I.A.No.3514/2003 as it was a vacant land by such day. The Plaintiff/ Defendant no.1 in the said suit filed Written Statement and denied the claim of Defendant No.2. The court without taking the Written Statement on record passed a Decree on 17.12.2004 by setting the Plaintiff herein exparte.

ii)The Defendant No.2 who is the Plaintiff in the said suit did not appear

before the court nor marked any documents and no evidence is adduced in support

of her alleged claim. During the course of proceedings, the Plaintiff fell sick for 7 to 8 years and could not attend to the proceedings and ultimately in the year 2008,

Defendant no.3 started construction and then the Plaintiff came to know that the earlier suit was decreed exparte and it was a fraudulent decree suppressing the fact of filing of the Written Statement by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff raised objections while

Defendant no.3 constructing the building, but the Plaintiff could not stop the illegal activity of Defendant No.3, thus the Defendant no.3 perpetuated his illegal occupation by constructing the building. The document under which the Plaintiff

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 9/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

purchased the property was filed in the said suit and it was sent to RDO, Warangal for impounding and the same is impounded and it was handed over to the earlier

Advocate who misplaced the original, hence the Plaintiff obtained the Certified copy and filed the same in this court. The vendor of the Defendant No.3 doesnot have right over the property which was already sold by her father and the other sales are hit by sec.52 of Transfer of Property act. The Plaintiff caused notice, dt. 23-1-2013 to which a reply was send by Defendant No.3, dt. 4-2-2013 with false claims. Pws 1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A-1 to A-10 marked and on behalf of the Defendant DW-1 to 3 were examined, B-1 to B-28.

iii)The Learned Counsel for Plaintiff further submitted that the Simple

Sale Deed, dt. 16-11-1979 under which the Plaintiff purchased property from

Veeraswamy was submitted before Revenue Divisional Officer and it was impounded by file No.D/1259/2003 and such document was filed in the earlier suit in

O.S.No.2036/2023. The Ex.A-1 is the impounded document and Ex.C-1 is the entire

file that has been marked. The Plaintiff with the aid of Ex.A-1 established the sale transaction in between Plaintiff and his vendor Veeraswamy and Ex.B-23 clearly shsows a finding that that the said Veeraswamy was in the habit of making sales under sale agreements. The Defendants have not given the description of the adjacent owners in their documents, whereas the Plaintiff in his plaint schedule has categorically stated that on west and south there are roads and on east and north the houses belonging to Vangala Sreidevi and Vangala Lalitha and they are denoted by plot Nos. 13/1 and 13/2. The Dws 2 and 3 admitted the boundary owners of east and northern side to the suit property through which the Plaintiff could able to prove

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 10/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

the existence of plot No.13/3 and its boundaries. Nowhere in Ex.B-1 and B-2 in the

Suit Schedule Property the northern and eastern boundary owners are mentioned.

However Ex.A-8 is confronted to the witness DW-2 and DW-3 they have categorically admitted that in the schedule of property attached to Ex.A-8, the plot of

K. Yadagiri was shown and on west so also the house of Bhasker on north was shown and such property is denoted by plot no. 13/2, hence the claim of the

Defendants that there are no plots denoted by plot Nos. 13/1, 13/2 and 13/3 is falsified by their own admission.

iv)The Plaintiff further stated that DW-1 failed to explain that how her vendor got the property, in the cross-examination DW-2 stated that he do not know about Ex.A-1 and its impounding, but no document is filed or referred by him in his

Chief examination. The Defendant no.3 who has examined as DW-3 that

Veeraswamy sold his land under Simple Sale Deeds and he has not given any intimation to higher officers about the purchase of the property and there are several admissions made by DW-3. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the suit.

v)The arguments put forth by the counsel for Defendants are not valid and the suit is within period of limitation and the title of the veeraswamy is not disputed and the contentions raised by the Defendants are not appropriate. The

Learned Counsel for Plaintiff referred the following citations in support of their contentions: 2006 (3) ALD 764, 2003 (4) ALD 461; 2007 95) ALD 758; 2012 (6) ALT 786, 2012 (5) ALD 257. The Learned Counsel for Plaintiff further submitted oral

Arguments: As per Sec. 49 ( C ) of The Registration Act, 1908, even if a Simple Sale

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 11/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

Deed can be admitted into evidence to establish the fact of any transaction in respect of such property or conferring such power. The witnesses who are examined on behalf of Defendants admitted in their cross-examination about the fact of existence of their lands adjacent to the Suit Schedule Property. The citations referred by the counsel for Defendants are not related to the present facts on hand and they are in respect of Government lands and mode of proving the document which are not relevant to the facts on hand, finally prayed to decree the suit as prayed in the interest of justice.

7)The Learned Counsel for Defendant No.1 has not participated in the trial and not advanced any Arguments.

8) The Learned Counsel for Defendant No.2 Argued that:

i)The Plaintiff who alleged to have been purchases 173 sq.yards in Suit

Survey Number claiming his right over the suit property only on the basis of an unregistered Simple Sale Deed. The O.S.No.2036/2003 was decreed in favour of the

Defendants and without challenging the same or taking any steps to set aside the decree, the Plaintiff finding fault in the Judgment without there being any valid ground. The entire case of the Plaintiff rests on Ex.A-1 and on the file of the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal which was forwarded prior to the proceedings in O.S.No.2036/2003, if the Plaintiff in the present suit who was the Defendant in the said O.S., if filed the Written Statement and contested the suit, how the Defendant was set exparte and it was done due to the non-prosecution of the Defendant therein in the said suit. In addition to that the Plaintiff had also created a false story that he

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 12/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

lost the original Agreement of sale in the office of his counsel, but there is no valid ground has been put forth to rely on his contention.

ii)After the death of D. Veeraswamy, his daughter i.e., Defendant no.1 inherited the plot sold by her with this Defendant . The Defendant No.1 got absolute right to sell or alienate the properties acquired by her. Accordingly, she sold 220 sq.yards plot to this Defendant through Registered Sale Deed and also delivered the possession and intun the Defendant No.2 had sold the same property under

Registered Sale Deed to Defendant No.3. No evidence has been brought on record to disprove the contention of the Defendant. In the Chief Affidavit of Pws 2 and 3, it was categorically deposed that in the year 2008, Swarupa Rani had constructed the house and the sale of Plaintiff was also under Simple Sale Deed. In a suit for declaration Plaintiff must prove his case beyond all the probabilities and with the aid of Certified copy of the Agreement of sale, the Plaintiff failed to prove his title as well as possession over the Suit Schedule Property. The Defendant no.1 subsequent to the death of her father inherited the properties from her father and sold the same to

Defendant No.2 and inturn Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.3. All the documents filed by the Defendants established their right, title and possession in land in Sy.No.62, 63, 64 and 69. The Plaintiff has falsely created a story and never demanded for execution of Registered Sale Deed on the basis of the alleged Simple

Sale Deed. The Plaintiff was never in possession of Suit Schedule Property at any point of time, hence not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed and prayed to dismissed the same. The Learned Counsel for Defendant No.2 relied on several

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 13/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

citations like : 2008 (8) SCC 564, AIR 2019 AP 93; 2013 (5) ALD 117; 2016 (6) ALT 17; 2022 (5) ALD 532; 2013 (6) ALT 205, AIR 2008 (SC) 1541.

9) The Learned Counsel for Defendant No.3 argued that:

i)The Plaintiff has no possessory rights and title over the Suit Schedule

Property and the occupation and possession of these Defendants are not illegal. The

Defendant started construction in the plot purchased by him in the month of January, 2008 and completed the construction by August, 2008. During the construction the

Plaintiff did not raise any objection as such he is estopped from any claim. The

Defendant No.1 who is the daughter of B. Veeraswamy inherited the landed properties in Sy.No.62, 63, 64 and 69 of Lashker Singaram, Hanamkonda and she got absolute right to alienate the property to Defendant No.2. Since the date of purchase, the Defendant No.3 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said plot and raised constructions after obtaining due permissions from the concerned authorities. The suit vide O.S.No.2036/2003 was decreed in favour of Defendant no.2 which itself shows that the Defendant No.2 is in possession and enjoyment over her plot prior to filing of this suit itself.

ii)The Plaintiff relied on an agreement of sale and without taking any steps for obtaining the registered document, he was never in possession of alleged 173 sq.yards in Suit Survey Numbers at any point of time and he had also failed to contest the suit in O.S.No.2036/2003. In a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, the Plaintiff has a burden to prove his case beyond the probabilities. The

Plaintiff utterly failed to prove his title, possession at any point of time over the Suit

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 14/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

Schedule Property, hence not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed. In support of his contention, the Learned Counsel for Defendant no.3 relied on citations i.e.,2023 (6) ALD 194 SC; 2024 (5) ALD 702 TS; 2024 (2) ALD 44 SC; 2023 (2) ALD 28 SC; 2025 (1) ALD 101 TS; 2025 (1) ALD 39 TS; 2025 (1) ALD 819 TS.

10)The Plaintiff filed Chief Affidavit as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to

A.10 on his behalf. One Lingala Mohan Rao examined himself as PW-2. One

V.Kanakaraj filed Chief Affidavit as PW-3. PWs.1 to 3 subjected to cross examination by the counsel for Defendants. Peddireddy Rajyalaxmi examined as DW-1, One B.

Purnachander examined as DW-2, S. Srinivasulu examined as DW-3 and got marked Ex.B-1 to B-27. DWs-1 to 3 subjected to cross-examination by the Learned

Counsel for Plaintiff.

11)The brief contention of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff had purchased the Suit Schedule Property under a Simple Sale Deed bearing Document, dt.

16.11.1979 which is denoted as plot no.13/3. The Defendant No.1 who is the daughter of the vendor of the Plaintiff had executed Registered Sale Deed in favour of Defendant no.2 in respect of the Suit Schedule Property without obtaining any right in any manner from her father and the Defendant No.2 inturn executed the

Registered Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.3. The Defendant no.2 had obtained a Exparte decree in O.S.2036/2003 fraudulently. The Defendant no.3 had raised construction over the Suit Schedule Property without any right and title over the suit land. The Plaintiff had lost his Simple Sale Deed but he got marked the proceedings under which the deficit stamp duty has been collected. Therefore, the

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 15/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

Plaintiff being the rightful purchaser under a Simple Sale Deed entitled for the relief of declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction in respect of the

Suit Schedule Property. Per contra, the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stated that the

Defendant No.1 had inherited the Suit Schedule Property in addition to the other properties from her father after his death and executed the Registered Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.2 and Defendant no.2 inturn had executed a Registered Sale

Deed in favour of Defendant No.3. Therefore, the right of the Defendant No.3 is absolute over the Suit Schedule Property. The Plaintiff without initiating any steps for getting a registered document in respect of alleged Simple Sale Deed and never in possession of the Suit Schedule Property and falsely claiming right over the property on the basis of false and fabricated documents. These are the rival contentions of both the parties.

12)On 29.11.2018, my predecessor framed the following Issues for trial:

i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled declaration over the Suit Schedule Property as prayed?

ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession as

prayed?

iii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the mandatory injunction for

removal of structures as prayed?

iv) To what relief?

13) ISSUE No. 1:-The Plaintiff sought for the relief of declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction in respect of the Suit Schedule

Property i.e., to an extent of 173 sq.yards in Sy.No.62, 64 with a house bearing

Municipal No.5-11-725/2/3 illegally constructed by Defendant No.3 in open plot

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 16/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

No.13/3 situated at Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda. Inorder to obtain relief of declaration, the Plaintiff must prove his title and ownership over the Suit Schedule

Property beyond all reasonable probabilities. It is well settled principle of law that in a suit for declaration, the Plaintiff must prove his case upon his own strengths and weaknesses of the Defendants in any manner entitles the Plaintiffs to obtain a relief of declaration. In Union of India and others vs. Vasavi Cooperating Housing Society

Ltd., and others (1) 2014 ALT (Rev) 28 SC. It is held by the Hon’ble Apex court that “in a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the Plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weaknesses, if any, of the case set up by the Defendants could not be a ground to grant relief to the

Plaintiff. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the Plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the Defendants have proved their case or not.

We are of the view that even if the title setup by the Defendants is found against in the absence of establishment of Plaintiffs own title, Plaintiff must be non-suited”.

14)The Plaintiff inorder to substantiate that he is the bonafide purchaser, title holder of Suit Schedule Property got marked as many as 10 documents. The entire case of the Plaintiff rests on the document, dt. 16-11-1979. The Plaintiff failed to mark the original copy of the Agreement of sale but got marked i.e., Certified copy of the same. The Plaintiff pleaded in his plaint that he had lost the original

Agreement of Sale at the office of the Plaintiff’s counsel, but the deficit stamp duty

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 17/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

has been collected by the Revenue office under File No.D/1257/2003, Dt. 3-5-2003.

The office note of the registrar office discloses that the deficit stamp duty of Rs.265/- has been paid in respect of the Document, dt. 16-11-1979. The file is enclosed with the challan as well as the photo copy of the document, dt. 16-11-1979. The

Defendants not disputing payment of stamp duty but they have disputed that it has been made during the course of the proceedings in O.S.No.2036/2003. The Plaintiff with the aid of Ex.A-1 and the office record of collecting the stamp duty pertaining to

Ex.A-1 proved before the court that he had purchased the Suit Schedule Property under an unregistered document and the deficit stamp duty was collected.

15)No documentary evidence has been placed before the court that the

Document, dt. 16-11-1979 has been forwarded to the District Registrar for collection of deficit stamp duty during the proceedings of O.S.No.2036/2003 and the

Defendants also failed to adduce any evidence to show that the deficit stamp duty was not collected during the course of said proceedings, but the file received by this court from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hanamkonda establishes the fact that the deficit stamp duty of Rs.265/- has been collected in respect of the said document, dt., 16-11-1979. On perusal of Ex.A-1 which has discloses that it was executed by

B.Veeraswamy in favour of Plaintiff i.e., K. Yadagiri in respect of plot bearing No.13/3 to an extent of 173 sq.yards in Sy.No.62 and 64 situated at Lashker singaram village. The Defendants disputing that under Ex.A-1, the Plaintiff did not obtain any right or title over the Suit Schedule Property since the documents required to be registered and the document is hit by Sec.17 and 49 of The Registration Act, 1908.

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 18/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

Contradicting to the submission of the Defendant, the Plaintiff submitted that he is the valid purchase of Suit Schedule Property and the Ex.A-1 can be looked into to prove a collateral purpose. These are the rival submissions of both the parties.

16)The Plaintiff got marked Ex.A-1 i.e., Certified copy of Document, dt.

16.11.1979 and pleaded that he had lost the original of the said document at his counsels office, but inorder to substantiate the same, no oral evidence has been adduced before this court. At this juncture, we should see whether the Ex.A-1 which is a sale deed, where the sale consideration has been passed is required to be registered or not. Section 17 of The Registration Act, 1908 discussed about the documents of which registration is compulsory. As per the ingredients of the Section where the value of the property is more than Rs.100/-, where any right, title or interest in respect of an immovable property has been transferred, it required to be registered and as per Sec.49 of the Act, if any document has not been registered as

U/s. 49 of the Act if it is not registered, it cannot be considered unless it has been registered and it can be looked into and received into evidence only in respect of suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral purpose. The citations referred by the counsel for Plaintiff i.e., 2006 (3) ALD 764 ; 2003 (4) ALD 461; and 2007 (5) ALT 758; 2012 (6) ALT 786; 2012 (5) ALD 257 all together discussed about the admissibility of unregistered sale deeds into evidence for collateral purpose or for proof of possession or in the context of possession.

17)The Plaintiff even though got marked Ex.A-1 which is the Certified copy of the document, dt. 6-11-1979, but it cannot be taken into consideration to grant any

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 19/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

relief in favour of the Plaintiff since the document required to be registered U/s. 17 of

The Registration Act and the Plaintiff filed the said document to establish that he had acquired right over the Suit Schedule Property under Ex.A-1, but it was not marked to prove any collateral purpose. Moreover the present suit filed for the relief of declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction, therefore, the Plaintiff must establish his title over the Suit Schedule Property. Even it has been considered that the Ex.A-1 can be looked into to prove the collateral purpose or as a proof of possession, but the Plaintiff except Ex.A-1 failed to file any documents to substantiate his possession over the Suit Schedule Property at any point of time prior to filing of the suit. The Ex.A-1 required to be registered under Sec.17 of the

Registration Act, since the sale consideration is of Rs.3,373.50/-, even if the deficit stamp duty has been collected, the defect of the document has not been cured.

Therefore under Ex.A-1, Plaintiff did not acquire any right or title over the Suit

Schedule Property. The PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that, he came to know that he had lost the original of the Simple Sale Deed, dt. 16-11-1979 in the year 2010. it is further admitted that the boundaries to the Suit Schedule Property has been mentioned only on the basis of the boundaries available in the photo copy of the document, dt. 16-11-1979. It is also admitted that he had paid the deficit stamp duty in the year 2003. Therefore the own admissions of the PW-1 in his cross- examination categorically proved the fact that the Plaintiff basing upon the photo copy he had mentioned suit boundaries and the stamp duty was also collected basing on the photo copy not on the original copy of the document, so also the

Plaintiff never demanded for the registration of he suit property to his vendor or his

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 20/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

daughter/Defendant no.1, hence the Plaintiff failed to prove his right or title over the

Suit Schedule Property that he has alleged to have been acquired under Ex.A-1 and the Ex.A-1 is hit by the provisions of Sec.17 and 49 of Registration Act and the documents cannot be considered as relevant to draw any conclusion in favour of the

Plaintiff and it also can’t be taken into consideration even for collateral purpose, since the Plaintiff claiming title on the basis of Ex.A-1.

18)The citations referred by the counsel for Defendant No.3 i.e., 2023 (6)

ALD 194 SC; 224 (5) ALD 702 TS and the citations referred by the counsel by

Defendant that i.e., 2013 (5) ALD 117, 2013 (6) ALT 205; All the referred Judgments referred the same principle that the document required to be registered, if it is not registered as mandated U/s. 17 of Registration Act, the document shall not be taken into consideration for any purpose unless the defect has been cured. The Plaintiff failed to prove his title over the Suit Schedule Property, in addition to that the original

Simple Sale Deed has not been filed before this court and no evidence has been adduced to establish that it has been lost at the office of Plaintiff counsel and the

Plaintiff did not take any steps for getting a registered document either from his vendor or from Defendant no.1. the Plaintiff who is seeking the relief of Declaration of title, but failed to establish his title over the Suit Schedule Property with the aid of any cogent, consistent evidence, thus the Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration over the Suit Schedule Property. Thus, the Issue No.1 is answered in against the Plaintiff.

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 21/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

19) ISSUE NOs: 2 & 3:

Inorder to avoid repetition of facts, the Issue Nos. 2 and 3 are answered together. Inview of the discussion made under Issue No.1 the Plaintiff failed to establish before the court that he has title over the Suit Schedule Property, now we should see whether the Plaintiff was in possession at any point of time in possession of Suit Schedule Property. Inorder to substantiate that the Plaintiff at any point of time prior to filing of the present suit, no documents have been filed. The

Plaintiffs contention that the Defendant no.2 filed a suit vide O.S.No.2036/2003 in which she had obtained a fraudulent decree for the relief of Permanent Injunction even if the Plaintiff herein filed Written Statement in the said suit and without considering the contention of the Defendant, the Plaintiff therein had obtained decree. Inorder to substantiate that the decree passed in O.S.No.2036/2003 is fraudulent, no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff but he had merely got marked Ex.A-2 i.e., Certified copy of the plaint and Ex.A-7 Certified copy of the Written Statement, but he has failed to establish before the court that the decree passed in O.S.No.2036/2003 was a fraudulent decree. The Plaintiff who pleads that it was a fraudulent decree must prove before the court that it was a fraudulent decree but he had failed to do so. The PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that he had visited the Suit Schedule Property in the year 2003 and found that Defendant No.2 was digging trenches in the Suit Schedule Property which shows that the Plaintiff never visited the Suit Schedule Property till the year 2003 from 1979 and also failed to adduce any documentary evidence to establish his

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 22/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

possession over the Suit Schedule Property at any point of time and he never visited the Suit Schedule Property after November, 2003 till the date of filing of the suit.

Therefore, the own admission of the Plaintiff in his cross-examination and his failure to adduce any documentary proof to establish his possession over the Suit Schedule

Property has clarifies that the Plaintiff never in possession of the Suit Schedule

Property from 1979 to till the date of filing of the suit. The Ex.A-3 to A-6 which are the legal notices issued against the Defendants and the postal acknowledgments, returned postal cover and reply notice and they have not proved in any manner, the title or possession of the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Property.

20)The Plaintiff is not disputing the relation between Defendant no.1 and his vendor B. Veeraswamy and Defendant No.1 is the daughter of Plaintiff’s vendor.

The counsel for Plaintiff submitted arguments and raised questions to the Defendant

Nos. 1 to 3 that the Defendant no.1 did not inherit the properties in Sy.Nos. 62, 63, 64 and 69 situated at Lashker Singaram, from her father after his demise. No documents has been filed to establish that the Defendant no.1 had inherited the Suit

Schedule Property along with other properties. It is true, that the Defendant No.1 did not adduce any evidence or got marked any documents on her behalf to show that she had inherited the Suit Schedule Property from her father. As discussed in Issue

No.1 in a suit for declaration of title and possession, the Plaintiff must rely on his own strength but not on the weaknesses of the Defendants. In a suit for declaration the court can’t travel beyond and decide the title of Defendants. Mathra Puri and another (5) AIR 1965 SC 1506, the Apex Court held as follows: “The Plaintiffs suit

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 23/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

being one for ejectment he has to succeed or fail on the title that he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title his suit must fail notwithdranding that the Defendant in possession has no title to the property, assuming learned counsel is right in that submission.” Even if no document has been filed by Defendant No.1 to show that she had inherited the properties under said survey numbers after the demise of her father, but the Ex.B-2 i.e., Registered Sale Deed executed in favour of

Defendant no.2 establishes the fact that the Defendant no.1 sold 220 sq.yards in said survey numbers in favour of Defendant No.2 and every registered document is presumed to be genuine unless contrary is proved.

21)The Plaintiff except pleading that it was a fraudulent transfer by

Defendant no.1 in favour of Defendant no.2 but no evidence has been adduced in support of such contention. Likewise the Ex.B-1 along with Ex.B-3 to B-27 altogether establishes the fact that the Defendant no.3 has purchased the property covered under Ex.B-1 under a Registered Sale Deed and he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same and also constructed a residential house after obtaining required permissions. Therefore, the Defendants with the aid of Ex.B- 1 to B-27 established the fact of sale in between Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and in between Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and also the possession of Defendant No.3 in the

Suit Schedule Property from 2007 till date. The Learned Counsel for Plaintiff made several suggestions to DW-1 and she had denied all the suggestions and admitted that she has not filed any documents to show that how Defendant No.1 had acquired right over the property from her father in said survey numbers, but as discussed

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 24/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

earlier, the Plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness of the Defendants. It is true, that

DW-2 in his cross-examination admitted that as per Ex.B-22, B. Veeraswamy during his life time executed Simple Sale Deeds, but the admission of the DW-2 will not come to the aid of the Plaintiff in any manner, since he has failed to prove his valid title and possession over the Suit Schedule Property at any point of time. Even if any admissions has been made in the cross-examination of DWs 1 to 3 that will alone doesnot serve any purpose in the absence of any cogent and valid documentary evidence which substantiates the Plaintiff valid title and possession over the Suit

Schedule Property. Since the Plaintiff failed to prove his possession at any point of time over the Suit Schedule Property not entitled for the relief of recovery of possession as well as the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of structures raised by Defendant no.3, since the Plaintiff utterly failed to prove his title and possession over the Suit Schedule Property. In addition to that, when the Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration which is the main relief, not entitled for any other ancillary reliefs like recovery of possession and mandatory injunction, hence the Issue Nos. 2 and 3 are answered against the Plaintiff.

22) ISSUE NO.4: Inview of the discussion made under Issue Nos. 1 to 3, this issue No.4 is answered against the Plaintiff.

23) IN THE RESULT, the Suit is Dismissed with costs.

(Typed to my Dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21 st day of April, 2026)

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 25/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW-1: K. YadagiriDW-1: P. Rajyalaxmi

PW-2: V. Mohan RaoDW-2: B. Purnachander,

PW-3: Vengala KanakarajDW-3: S. Srinivasulu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : Certified copy of Document, dt. 16-11-1979 duly impounded and issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal Ex.A-2 : Copy of Plaint in O.S.No.2036/2003 of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Warangal Ex.A-3 : Office copy of legal notice, dt 23-1-2013 issued to the Defendants along with postal receipts (3 Nos) Ex.A-4 : Served copy of reply notice, dt. 4-2-2013 by Defendant No.3 to the notice,

dt. 23-1-2013,

Ex.A-5 : Postal acknowledgments of Defendant No.3, dt. 30-1-2013, Ex.A-6 : Returned postal cover of Defendant No.2, Ex.A-7 : Signed copy of Written Statement in O.S.No.2036/2003, Ex.A-8 : Certified copy of sale deed for plot No.13/2 between Neeraja and Lalitha,

dt. 29-8-2003,

Ex.A-9 : Certified copy of sale deed for plot no.8 between Swaroop Rani and Rajyalaxmi, dt. 13-8-2003, Ex.A-10 : Certified copy of sale deed for Plot No.8 between Rajyalaxmi and Srinivasulu, dt. 7-12-2007 FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B-1 : Registered Sale Deed executed in favour of Defendant No.3 by Defendant No.2 vide Doc.no.11761/2007, dt. 7-12-2007. Ex.B-2 : Registered Sale Deed executed in favour of Defendant No.2 by Defendant No.1 vide Doc.no.5790/2003, dt. 13-08-2003. Ex.B-3 : Original House permission issued by Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal along with plan, dt. 22-12-2007, Ex.B-4 : Miscellaneous receipt, dt. 15-12-2007, Ex.B-5 : Receipt issues by Vice Chairman, KUDA bank challan, dt. 17.12.2007,

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 26/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

Ex.B-6 : Acknowledgment issued by GWMC, Warangal, dt. 2-1-2008, Ex.B-7 : Certified copy of Encumbrance on property from 1-1-1983 to 11.12.2007,

dt. 12-12-2007,

Ex.B-8 : Certified copy of House Tax assessment register from 14.7.2007 to 29.4.2025, dt. 5-7-2025, Ex.B-9 : True extract property tax assessment, dt. 15-2-2019, Ex.B-10 : Electricity payment receipts (11) from February to July, 2008, Ex.B-11 : Electricity bills payment extract from August, 2008 to December, 2013 of H.No.5-11-725/2/3, Ex.B-12 : Electricity bills payment extract from January, 2014 to June, 2025 of H.No.5-11-725/2/3, Ex.B-13 : Tap connection fee Bank challan, dt. 31-12-2008, Ex.B-14 : Tap connection donation, dt. 31-12-2008, Ex.B-15 : Tap connection order along with plan, dt. 23-01-2009, Ex.B-16 : Certified copy of encumbrance of property, dt. 16-2-2019, Ex.B-17 : Certified copy of Decree copy in O.S.No.2036/2003, DT. 17-12-2004, Ex.B-18 : Copy the legal notice issued by Plaintiff, dt. 23-1-2013, Ex.B-19 : Reply notice to the Plaintiff notice, dt. 4-2-2013, Ex.B-20 : Postal receipt, dt. 4-2-2013, Ex.B-21 : Acknowledgment card, dt. 5-2-2013, Ex.B-22 : Certified copy of the order of Special Officer and Competent authority ULC, Warangal, dt. 30-09-1997, Ex.B-23 : Certified copy of ULC Permission of D-1/Swaroopa Rani, dt. 1-12-1997, Ex.B-24 : Certified copy of ULC Permission to B. Subhashini, dt. 1-12-1997, Ex.B-25 : Certified copy of ULC Permission of B.V.Neeraja, dt. 1-12-1997, Ex.B-26 : Certified copy of ULC Permission of G. Arapitha, dt. 1-12-1997, Ex.B-27 : Certified copy of ULC of Encumbrance Certificate from 1-1-1988 to 25-7-2002, dt. 26-7-2002. MARKED BY COURT: Ex.C-1:Entire file of Revenue Divisional Officer.

Sd/-

II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 1/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HANAMKONDA

Tuesday, this the 21st day of April, 2026

Present:- Smt Sampathi Rao Chandana II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda.

O.S.No. 294 OF 2022

(Old O.S.No. 715 OF 2013)

Between:

Komakula Yadagiri, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged: 65 years, Occ: Pensioner, R/o. H.No.2-11-225/B, Shankarnagar colony, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. … Plaintiff AND

1. Gaddam Swaroopa Rani, W/o. Narsaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.3-10-148, Reddy colony, Kumarpalli, Hanamkonda,

2. Peddireddy Rajyalaxmi, W/o. Amrutha Reddy, Aged: 46 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Teharapur village, Shyampet pet, Warangal District.

3. Samala Srinivasulu, S/o. Rajamouli, Aged: 47 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o.H.No.5-11-725/2/3, Opp: KUC First gate, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. … Defendants

This Suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 16-03-2026 in the presence of Sri T. Mahendra Prasad,Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff; and of

Smt K. Sunitha Rani, Learned counsel for the Defendant No.1, Sri P. Sathish

Kumar, Learned counsel for the Defendant No.2 and of Sri L. Jalender Reddy,

Learned counsel for the Defendant No.3; and upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

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

1)The Suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 with a prayer to declare the Plaintiff as owner of the plaint schedule plot and to pass a

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 2/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

decree directing Defendant No.3 to deliver vacant possession of the plot by removing the structures thereon and to pass a decree of Mandatory Injunction for removal structures raised over the Suit Schedule Plot and deliver vacant possession of the plot to the Plaintiff and award the costs of the suit.

2) The brief contentions of the Plaint pleadings as pleaded by

Plaintiff is as follows:

i)The Plaintiff averred that he is the original owner of land to an extent of 173 sq.yards denoted by Plot Nos. 13/3 of Sy.Nos. 62 and 64 of Lashkarsingaram village purchased the same from Bujugundla Veeraswamy, S/o. Yellaiah under a document, dt. 16-11-1979. The Plot No.13/1 belongs to Vengala Sridevi, D/o.

Mohan Rao and 13/2 belongs to Vengala Lalitha, D/o. Kanakaraju, R/o.

Hanumannagar, Hanamkonda, hereinafter referred as Suit Schedule Property.

ii)The Plaintiff further submit that since the date of purchase, the Plaintiff is in un-interrupted exclusive possession and enjoyment of such property and as on the date of said purchase, the Suit Schedule Property is a vacant land. Later in the year 2003, Defendant No.2 filed a suit vide O.S.No.2036/2003 on 19-12-2003 before

Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Warangal claiming the property of the Plaintiff as of her by mis-describing the property for Permanent Injunction. In the said suit, Status- quo was ordered vide I.A.No.3514/2003, Dt. 19-12-2003. The Plaintiff herein made an appearance in O.S.No.2036/2003 and filed his Written Statement as Defendant

No.2 on 24-09-2004, but the Written Statement of Defendant No.2 (in

O.S.No.2036/2003) and Plaintiff herein was not recorded and ultimately on

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 3/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

17.12.2004, he was set exparte and suit was decreed. In the said suit, Defendant

No.2 herein has not adduced any evidence nor got the documents marked to prove her claim.

iii)The Plaintiff further averred that he severely fell sick in the year 2008 and came to know that Defendant No.3 started constructions over the land basing on the decree obtained by Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.2036/2003 by suppressing the real facts, by observing that Plaintiff is a senior citizen suffering with severe ailments, the Defendant No.3 perpetuated his illegal occupations by constructing the house on the land of the Plaintiff and he is residing in the said house. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 fully aware of the possessory rights and title of the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule

Property, they have illegally occupied the Suit Schedule Property under the guise of injunction and continued their possession. The Plaintiff after gaining strength and on undergoing treatment for his illness, he approached his Advocate in

O.S.No.2036/2003 and sought advise to return his original documents for filing the

same before the court, but unfortunately the said Original document, dt. 16-11-1979 was misplaced and not traceable. The Plaintiff filed the original document, dt.

16.11.1979 before Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal for impounding during the course of the suit proceedings in O.S.No.2036/2003 and the said document was impounded on 5.5.2003 in File No.D/1257/2003 application to Revenue Divisional

Officer, Warangal on 25.4.2013 to furnish a Certified copy of the document, which was impounded. The Revenue Divisional Officer has furnished the Certified copy of document, which was impounded by them on 5.5.2003, under the said Certified copy of the document, dt. 16-11-1979, the Plaintiff purchased the Suit Schedule Plot.

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 4/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

iv)The Plaintiff further averred that the claim of purchase by Defendant

No.1 on 13.8.2003 describing the property of the Plaintiff as plot no.8 is incorrect and false, she is neither pattedar nor possessor of the land in Sy.Nos. 62, 63, 64 and 69 of Lashker Singaram, Hanamkonda, she has no right to alienate any part of the land in the said survey number. The sale deed executed by Defendant No.1 on 13.8.2003 in favour of Defendant No.2 is without any right and it is a collusive document. The alleged sale is hit by Sec. 52 of Transfer of Property Act. The subsequent sale on 7.12.2007 by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant no.3 is also a collusive document without any flow of title. In January, 2008, all the Defendants with man power have illegally occupied the plot of the Plaintiff and perpetuated such illegality, hence such illegal structures which are raised inspite of objections requires to be removed by the Mandatory injunction.

v)The Plaintiff further averred that on 23-01-2013, the Plaintiff got issued a notice to all the Defendants to remove the building and to deliver vacant possession of the plot within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The

Defendant No.3 has received the notice and got issued reply, dt. 4-2-2013,

Defendant No.2 managed to return it as out of station. As there was no option to the

Plaintiff except to file the suit. Hence, this suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession of Suit Schedule Plot and for Mandatory injunction for removal of the illegal structures raised on the Suit Schedule Plot, hence filed the present suit.

3) The brief contention of the Written Statement filed by Defendant

No. 2 as follows: i)The Defendant No. 2 submits that all the allegations specified in the plaint by the Plaintiff are false and the suit is not maintainable in the

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 5/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

eye of law and contended that one B. Veeraswamy was the owner and possessor of the land bearing Sy.No.62, 63, 64 and 69 situated at Lashker Singaram,

Hanamkonda. After his death, his wife, daughter and sons succeeded his properties.

The Defendant No.1 is one of the daughter of the deceased/B. Veeraswamy, she inherited the plot sold by her to this Defendant and other lands from her father along with her sister and brothers. She has also got permission from Urban Land Ceiling

Authority for 2000 sq.mts of land in the above referred survey numbers. She being the legal heir and successor of the B. Veeraswamy, became owner and possessor of the land and has right to sell or alienate the properties acquired by her. Accordingly, she sold the 220 sq.yards of plot to this Defendant through Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.5790/2003, dt. 13-8-2003 with delivery of possession. Thereafter this

Defendant for her legal necessities sold the said plot to Defendant No.3 through a

Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.11761/2007, dt. 7-12-2007 with delivery of possession. Since the date of purchase of the Defendant No.3, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit plot. Thereafter the Defendant no.3 obtained permission from municipality and constructed house and residing therein.

ii)The Defendant No.2 further contended that Plaintiff is well aware about the purchase of the land and ownership, possession of the Defendant No.1 and sale by her to this Defendant and sale by this Defendant in favour of Defendant no.3. As the Plaintiff failed to succeed in the suit filed against him had created the document and filed the above suit. This Defendant had filed O.S.No.2036/2003 against the

Plaintiff for Permanent Injunction, which was decreed in favour of this Defendant.

The claim of the Plaintiff that the Defendant no.3 and others occupied the plot in the

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 6/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

month of January, 2008 is false and Defendant No.3’s possession shall be deemed to be continuous from the date of acquiring the land by Defendant No.1. The measurements and the area claimed by the Plaintiff defers from this Defendant’s plot. There is no Suit Schedule land in the given boundaries in the schedule, the

Plaintiff filed the above suit only to harass the Defendant and it is barred by limitation. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4)The Defendant No.1 filed Adoption memo by adopting the Written

Statement filed by Defendant No.2.

5) The brief contention of the Written Statement filed by Defendant

No. 3 as follows:

i)The Defendant No.3 submits that all the allegations specified in the plaint by the Plaintiff are false and the suit is not maintainable in the eye of law and contended that one B. Veeraswamy was the owner and possessor of the land bearing Sy.No.62, 63, 64 and 69 situated at Lashker Singaram, Hanamkonda. After his death, his wife, daughter and sons succeeded his properties. The Defendant

No.1 is one of the daughter of the deceased/B. Veeraswamy, she inherited the plot sold by her to Defendant No.2 and other lands from her father along with her sister and brothers. She has also got permission from Urban Land Ceiling Authority for 2000 sq.mts of land in the above referred survey numbers. She being the legal heir and successor of the B. Veeraswamy, became owner and possessor of the land and has right to sell or alienate the properties acquired by her. Accordingly, she sold the 220 sq.yards of plot to this Defendant through Registered Sale Deed vide

Doc.No.5790/2003, dt. 13-8-2003 with delivery of possession. Thereafter, Defendant

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 7/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

No.2 for her legal necessities sold the said plot to Defendant No.3 through a

Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.11761/2007, dt. 7-12-2007 with delivery of possession. Since the date of purchase of the Defendant No.3, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit plot. Thereafter the Defendant no.3 obtained permission from municipality and constructed house and residing therein from the month of August, 2008.

ii)The Defendant No.3 further contended that Plaintiff is well aware about the purchase of the land and ownership, possession of the Defendant No.1 and sale by her to Defendant No.2 and sale by Defendant No.2 in favour of this Defendant. As the Plaintiff failed to succeed in the suit filed against him had created the document and filed the above suit. The vendor of the Defendant No.3 i.e., Defendant No.2 had filed O.S.No.2036/2003 against the Plaintiff for Permanent Injunction, which was decreed in favour of Defendant No.2. The claim of the Plaintiff that the Defendant no.3 and others occupied the plot in the month of January, 2008 is false and

Defendant No.3’s possession shall be deemed to be continuous from the date of acquiring the land by Defendant No.1. The measurements and the area claimed by the Plaintiff defers from this Defendant’s plot. There is no Suit Schedule land in the given boundaries in the schedule, the Plaintiff filed the above suit only to harass the

Defendant and it is barred by limitation. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

6) The Learned Counsel for Plaintiff filed Written Arguments by stating that:

i)The suit is filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction for removing the building, highhanded constructed by the

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 8/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

Defendant No.3 over the suit property and for other reliefs. The land in Sy.No.62, 64 of Lashkersingaram village belonged to Boojugundla Veeraswamy, S/o. Yellaiah.

The Plaintiff purchased an extent of 173 sq.yards under a Simple Sale Deed, dt. 16- 11-1979 and it was denoted by Plot No.13/3. It is submitted that the plot No.13/1 belongs to Vangala Sridevi and 13/2 belongs to Vangala Lalitha. The Plaintiff by virtue of the Simple Sale Deed inducted into possession and thus, he is in exclusive possession of suit property. In the year, 2003, Defendant. no.2 filed a suit vide

O.S.No.2036/2003 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Warangal claiming

that such property belongs to her and the court ordered status-quo on 19-12-2003 in

I.A.No.3514/2003 as it was a vacant land by such day. The Plaintiff/ Defendant no.1 in the said suit filed Written Statement and denied the claim of Defendant No.2. The court without taking the Written Statement on record passed a Decree on 17.12.2004 by setting the Plaintiff herein exparte.

ii)The Defendant No.2 who is the Plaintiff in the said suit did not appear

before the court nor marked any documents and no evidence is adduced in support

of her alleged claim. During the course of proceedings, the Plaintiff fell sick for 7 to 8 years and could not attend to the proceedings and ultimately in the year 2008,

Defendant no.3 started construction and then the Plaintiff came to know that the earlier suit was decreed exparte and it was a fraudulent decree suppressing the fact of filing of the Written Statement by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff raised objections while

Defendant no.3 constructing the building, but the Plaintiff could not stop the illegal activity of Defendant No.3, thus the Defendant no.3 perpetuated his illegal occupation by constructing the building. The document under which the Plaintiff

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 9/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

purchased the property was filed in the said suit and it was sent to RDO, Warangal for impounding and the same is impounded and it was handed over to the earlier

Advocate who misplaced the original, hence the Plaintiff obtained the Certified copy and filed the same in this court. The vendor of the Defendant No.3 doesnot have right over the property which was already sold by her father and the other sales are hit by sec.52 of Transfer of Property act. The Plaintiff caused notice, dt. 23-1-2013 to which a reply was send by Defendant No.3, dt. 4-2-2013 with false claims. Pws 1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A-1 to A-10 marked and on behalf of the Defendant DW-1 to 3 were examined, B-1 to B-28.

iii)The Learned Counsel for Plaintiff further submitted that the Simple

Sale Deed, dt. 16-11-1979 under which the Plaintiff purchased property from

Veeraswamy was submitted before Revenue Divisional Officer and it was impounded by file No.D/1259/2003 and such document was filed in the earlier suit in

O.S.No.2036/2023. The Ex.A-1 is the impounded document and Ex.C-1 is the entire

file that has been marked. The Plaintiff with the aid of Ex.A-1 established the sale transaction in between Plaintiff and his vendor Veeraswamy and Ex.B-23 clearly shsows a finding that that the said Veeraswamy was in the habit of making sales under sale agreements. The Defendants have not given the description of the adjacent owners in their documents, whereas the Plaintiff in his plaint schedule has categorically stated that on west and south there are roads and on east and north the houses belonging to Vangala Sreidevi and Vangala Lalitha and they are denoted by plot Nos. 13/1 and 13/2. The Dws 2 and 3 admitted the boundary owners of east and northern side to the suit property through which the Plaintiff could able to prove

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 10/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

the existence of plot No.13/3 and its boundaries. Nowhere in Ex.B-1 and B-2 in the

Suit Schedule Property the northern and eastern boundary owners are mentioned.

However Ex.A-8 is confronted to the witness DW-2 and DW-3 they have categorically admitted that in the schedule of property attached to Ex.A-8, the plot of

K. Yadagiri was shown and on west so also the house of Bhasker on north was shown and such property is denoted by plot no. 13/2, hence the claim of the

Defendants that there are no plots denoted by plot Nos. 13/1, 13/2 and 13/3 is falsified by their own admission.

iv)The Plaintiff further stated that DW-1 failed to explain that how her vendor got the property, in the cross-examination DW-2 stated that he do not know about Ex.A-1 and its impounding, but no document is filed or referred by him in his

Chief examination. The Defendant no.3 who has examined as DW-3 that

Veeraswamy sold his land under Simple Sale Deeds and he has not given any intimation to higher officers about the purchase of the property and there are several admissions made by DW-3. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the suit.

v)The arguments put forth by the counsel for Defendants are not valid and the suit is within period of limitation and the title of the veeraswamy is not disputed and the contentions raised by the Defendants are not appropriate. The

Learned Counsel for Plaintiff referred the following citations in support of their contentions: 2006 (3) ALD 764, 2003 (4) ALD 461; 2007 95) ALD 758; 2012 (6) ALT 786, 2012 (5) ALD 257. The Learned Counsel for Plaintiff further submitted oral

Arguments: As per Sec. 49 ( C ) of The Registration Act, 1908, even if a Simple Sale

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 11/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

Deed can be admitted into evidence to establish the fact of any transaction in respect of such property or conferring such power. The witnesses who are examined on behalf of Defendants admitted in their cross-examination about the fact of existence of their lands adjacent to the Suit Schedule Property. The citations referred by the counsel for Defendants are not related to the present facts on hand and they are in respect of Government lands and mode of proving the document which are not relevant to the facts on hand, finally prayed to decree the suit as prayed in the interest of justice.

7)The Learned Counsel for Defendant No.1 has not participated in the trial and not advanced any Arguments.

8) The Learned Counsel for Defendant No.2 Argued that:

i)The Plaintiff who alleged to have been purchases 173 sq.yards in Suit

Survey Number claiming his right over the suit property only on the basis of an unregistered Simple Sale Deed. The O.S.No.2036/2003 was decreed in favour of the

Defendants and without challenging the same or taking any steps to set aside the decree, the Plaintiff finding fault in the Judgment without there being any valid ground. The entire case of the Plaintiff rests on Ex.A-1 and on the file of the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal which was forwarded prior to the proceedings in O.S.No.2036/2003, if the Plaintiff in the present suit who was the Defendant in the said O.S., if filed the Written Statement and contested the suit, how the Defendant was set exparte and it was done due to the non-prosecution of the Defendant therein in the said suit. In addition to that the Plaintiff had also created a false story that he

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 12/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

lost the original Agreement of sale in the office of his counsel, but there is no valid ground has been put forth to rely on his contention.

ii)After the death of D. Veeraswamy, his daughter i.e., Defendant no.1 inherited the plot sold by her with this Defendant . The Defendant No.1 got absolute right to sell or alienate the properties acquired by her. Accordingly, she sold 220 sq.yards plot to this Defendant through Registered Sale Deed and also delivered the possession and intun the Defendant No.2 had sold the same property under

Registered Sale Deed to Defendant No.3. No evidence has been brought on record to disprove the contention of the Defendant. In the Chief Affidavit of Pws 2 and 3, it was categorically deposed that in the year 2008, Swarupa Rani had constructed the house and the sale of Plaintiff was also under Simple Sale Deed. In a suit for declaration Plaintiff must prove his case beyond all the probabilities and with the aid of Certified copy of the Agreement of sale, the Plaintiff failed to prove his title as well as possession over the Suit Schedule Property. The Defendant no.1 subsequent to the death of her father inherited the properties from her father and sold the same to

Defendant No.2 and inturn Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.3. All the documents filed by the Defendants established their right, title and possession in land in Sy.No.62, 63, 64 and 69. The Plaintiff has falsely created a story and never demanded for execution of Registered Sale Deed on the basis of the alleged Simple

Sale Deed. The Plaintiff was never in possession of Suit Schedule Property at any point of time, hence not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed and prayed to dismissed the same. The Learned Counsel for Defendant No.2 relied on several

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 13/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

citations like : 2008 (8) SCC 564, AIR 2019 AP 93; 2013 (5) ALD 117; 2016 (6) ALT 17; 2022 (5) ALD 532; 2013 (6) ALT 205, AIR 2008 (SC) 1541.

9) The Learned Counsel for Defendant No.3 argued that:

i)The Plaintiff has no possessory rights and title over the Suit Schedule

Property and the occupation and possession of these Defendants are not illegal. The

Defendant started construction in the plot purchased by him in the month of January, 2008 and completed the construction by August, 2008. During the construction the

Plaintiff did not raise any objection as such he is estopped from any claim. The

Defendant No.1 who is the daughter of B. Veeraswamy inherited the landed properties in Sy.No.62, 63, 64 and 69 of Lashker Singaram, Hanamkonda and she got absolute right to alienate the property to Defendant No.2. Since the date of purchase, the Defendant No.3 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said plot and raised constructions after obtaining due permissions from the concerned authorities. The suit vide O.S.No.2036/2003 was decreed in favour of Defendant no.2 which itself shows that the Defendant No.2 is in possession and enjoyment over her plot prior to filing of this suit itself.

ii)The Plaintiff relied on an agreement of sale and without taking any steps for obtaining the registered document, he was never in possession of alleged 173 sq.yards in Suit Survey Numbers at any point of time and he had also failed to contest the suit in O.S.No.2036/2003. In a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, the Plaintiff has a burden to prove his case beyond the probabilities. The

Plaintiff utterly failed to prove his title, possession at any point of time over the Suit

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 14/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

Schedule Property, hence not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed. In support of his contention, the Learned Counsel for Defendant no.3 relied on citations i.e.,2023 (6) ALD 194 SC; 2024 (5) ALD 702 TS; 2024 (2) ALD 44 SC; 2023 (2) ALD 28 SC; 2025 (1) ALD 101 TS; 2025 (1) ALD 39 TS; 2025 (1) ALD 819 TS.

10)The Plaintiff filed Chief Affidavit as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to

A.10 on his behalf. One Lingala Mohan Rao examined himself as PW-2. One

V.Kanakaraj filed Chief Affidavit as PW-3. PWs.1 to 3 subjected to cross examination by the counsel for Defendants. Peddireddy Rajyalaxmi examined as DW-1, One B.

Purnachander examined as DW-2, S. Srinivasulu examined as DW-3 and got marked Ex.B-1 to B-27. DWs-1 to 3 subjected to cross-examination by the Learned

Counsel for Plaintiff.

11)The brief contention of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff had purchased the Suit Schedule Property under a Simple Sale Deed bearing Document, dt.

16.11.1979 which is denoted as plot no.13/3. The Defendant No.1 who is the daughter of the vendor of the Plaintiff had executed Registered Sale Deed in favour of Defendant no.2 in respect of the Suit Schedule Property without obtaining any right in any manner from her father and the Defendant No.2 inturn executed the

Registered Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.3. The Defendant no.2 had obtained a Exparte decree in O.S.2036/2003 fraudulently. The Defendant no.3 had raised construction over the Suit Schedule Property without any right and title over the suit land. The Plaintiff had lost his Simple Sale Deed but he got marked the proceedings under which the deficit stamp duty has been collected. Therefore, the

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 15/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

Plaintiff being the rightful purchaser under a Simple Sale Deed entitled for the relief of declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction in respect of the

Suit Schedule Property. Per contra, the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stated that the

Defendant No.1 had inherited the Suit Schedule Property in addition to the other properties from her father after his death and executed the Registered Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.2 and Defendant no.2 inturn had executed a Registered Sale

Deed in favour of Defendant No.3. Therefore, the right of the Defendant No.3 is absolute over the Suit Schedule Property. The Plaintiff without initiating any steps for getting a registered document in respect of alleged Simple Sale Deed and never in possession of the Suit Schedule Property and falsely claiming right over the property on the basis of false and fabricated documents. These are the rival contentions of both the parties.

12)On 29.11.2018, my predecessor framed the following Issues for trial:

i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled declaration over the Suit Schedule Property as prayed?

ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession as

prayed?

iii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the mandatory injunction for

removal of structures as prayed?

iv) To what relief?

13) ISSUE No. 1:-The Plaintiff sought for the relief of declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction in respect of the Suit Schedule

Property i.e., to an extent of 173 sq.yards in Sy.No.62, 64 with a house bearing

Municipal No.5-11-725/2/3 illegally constructed by Defendant No.3 in open plot

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 16/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

No.13/3 situated at Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda. Inorder to obtain relief of declaration, the Plaintiff must prove his title and ownership over the Suit Schedule

Property beyond all reasonable probabilities. It is well settled principle of law that in a suit for declaration, the Plaintiff must prove his case upon his own strengths and weaknesses of the Defendants in any manner entitles the Plaintiffs to obtain a relief of declaration. In Union of India and others vs. Vasavi Cooperating Housing Society

Ltd., and others (1) 2014 ALT (Rev) 28 SC. It is held by the Hon’ble Apex court that “in a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the Plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weaknesses, if any, of the case set up by the Defendants could not be a ground to grant relief to the

Plaintiff. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the Plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the Defendants have proved their case or not.

We are of the view that even if the title setup by the Defendants is found against in the absence of establishment of Plaintiffs own title, Plaintiff must be non-suited”.

14)The Plaintiff inorder to substantiate that he is the bonafide purchaser, title holder of Suit Schedule Property got marked as many as 10 documents. The entire case of the Plaintiff rests on the document, dt. 16-11-1979. The Plaintiff failed to mark the original copy of the Agreement of sale but got marked i.e., Certified copy of the same. The Plaintiff pleaded in his plaint that he had lost the original

Agreement of Sale at the office of the Plaintiff’s counsel, but the deficit stamp duty

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 17/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

has been collected by the Revenue office under File No.D/1257/2003, Dt. 3-5-2003.

The office note of the registrar office discloses that the deficit stamp duty of Rs.265/- has been paid in respect of the Document, dt. 16-11-1979. The file is enclosed with the challan as well as the photo copy of the document, dt. 16-11-1979. The

Defendants not disputing payment of stamp duty but they have disputed that it has been made during the course of the proceedings in O.S.No.2036/2003. The Plaintiff with the aid of Ex.A-1 and the office record of collecting the stamp duty pertaining to

Ex.A-1 proved before the court that he had purchased the Suit Schedule Property under an unregistered document and the deficit stamp duty was collected.

15)No documentary evidence has been placed before the court that the

Document, dt. 16-11-1979 has been forwarded to the District Registrar for collection of deficit stamp duty during the proceedings of O.S.No.2036/2003 and the

Defendants also failed to adduce any evidence to show that the deficit stamp duty was not collected during the course of said proceedings, but the file received by this court from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hanamkonda establishes the fact that the deficit stamp duty of Rs.265/- has been collected in respect of the said document, dt., 16-11-1979. On perusal of Ex.A-1 which has discloses that it was executed by

B.Veeraswamy in favour of Plaintiff i.e., K. Yadagiri in respect of plot bearing No.13/3 to an extent of 173 sq.yards in Sy.No.62 and 64 situated at Lashker singaram village. The Defendants disputing that under Ex.A-1, the Plaintiff did not obtain any right or title over the Suit Schedule Property since the documents required to be registered and the document is hit by Sec.17 and 49 of The Registration Act, 1908.

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 18/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

Contradicting to the submission of the Defendant, the Plaintiff submitted that he is the valid purchase of Suit Schedule Property and the Ex.A-1 can be looked into to prove a collateral purpose. These are the rival submissions of both the parties.

16)The Plaintiff got marked Ex.A-1 i.e., Certified copy of Document, dt.

16.11.1979 and pleaded that he had lost the original of the said document at his counsels office, but inorder to substantiate the same, no oral evidence has been adduced before this court. At this juncture, we should see whether the Ex.A-1 which is a sale deed, where the sale consideration has been passed is required to be registered or not. Section 17 of The Registration Act, 1908 discussed about the documents of which registration is compulsory. As per the ingredients of the Section where the value of the property is more than Rs.100/-, where any right, title or interest in respect of an immovable property has been transferred, it required to be registered and as per Sec.49 of the Act, if any document has not been registered as

U/s. 49 of the Act if it is not registered, it cannot be considered unless it has been registered and it can be looked into and received into evidence only in respect of suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral purpose. The citations referred by the counsel for Plaintiff i.e., 2006 (3) ALD 764 ; 2003 (4) ALD 461; and 2007 (5) ALT 758; 2012 (6) ALT 786; 2012 (5) ALD 257 all together discussed about the admissibility of unregistered sale deeds into evidence for collateral purpose or for proof of possession or in the context of possession.

17)The Plaintiff even though got marked Ex.A-1 which is the Certified copy of the document, dt. 6-11-1979, but it cannot be taken into consideration to grant any

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 19/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

relief in favour of the Plaintiff since the document required to be registered U/s. 17 of

The Registration Act and the Plaintiff filed the said document to establish that he had acquired right over the Suit Schedule Property under Ex.A-1, but it was not marked to prove any collateral purpose. Moreover the present suit filed for the relief of declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction, therefore, the Plaintiff must establish his title over the Suit Schedule Property. Even it has been considered that the Ex.A-1 can be looked into to prove the collateral purpose or as a proof of possession, but the Plaintiff except Ex.A-1 failed to file any documents to substantiate his possession over the Suit Schedule Property at any point of time prior to filing of the suit. The Ex.A-1 required to be registered under Sec.17 of the

Registration Act, since the sale consideration is of Rs.3,373.50/-, even if the deficit stamp duty has been collected, the defect of the document has not been cured.

Therefore under Ex.A-1, Plaintiff did not acquire any right or title over the Suit

Schedule Property. The PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that, he came to know that he had lost the original of the Simple Sale Deed, dt. 16-11-1979 in the year 2010. it is further admitted that the boundaries to the Suit Schedule Property has been mentioned only on the basis of the boundaries available in the photo copy of the document, dt. 16-11-1979. It is also admitted that he had paid the deficit stamp duty in the year 2003. Therefore the own admissions of the PW-1 in his cross- examination categorically proved the fact that the Plaintiff basing upon the photo copy he had mentioned suit boundaries and the stamp duty was also collected basing on the photo copy not on the original copy of the document, so also the

Plaintiff never demanded for the registration of he suit property to his vendor or his

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 20/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

daughter/Defendant no.1, hence the Plaintiff failed to prove his right or title over the

Suit Schedule Property that he has alleged to have been acquired under Ex.A-1 and the Ex.A-1 is hit by the provisions of Sec.17 and 49 of Registration Act and the documents cannot be considered as relevant to draw any conclusion in favour of the

Plaintiff and it also can’t be taken into consideration even for collateral purpose, since the Plaintiff claiming title on the basis of Ex.A-1.

18)The citations referred by the counsel for Defendant No.3 i.e., 2023 (6)

ALD 194 SC; 224 (5) ALD 702 TS and the citations referred by the counsel by

Defendant that i.e., 2013 (5) ALD 117, 2013 (6) ALT 205; All the referred Judgments referred the same principle that the document required to be registered, if it is not registered as mandated U/s. 17 of Registration Act, the document shall not be taken into consideration for any purpose unless the defect has been cured. The Plaintiff failed to prove his title over the Suit Schedule Property, in addition to that the original

Simple Sale Deed has not been filed before this court and no evidence has been adduced to establish that it has been lost at the office of Plaintiff counsel and the

Plaintiff did not take any steps for getting a registered document either from his vendor or from Defendant no.1. the Plaintiff who is seeking the relief of Declaration of title, but failed to establish his title over the Suit Schedule Property with the aid of any cogent, consistent evidence, thus the Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration over the Suit Schedule Property. Thus, the Issue No.1 is answered in against the Plaintiff.

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 21/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

19) ISSUE NOs: 2 & 3:

Inorder to avoid repetition of facts, the Issue Nos. 2 and 3 are answered together. Inview of the discussion made under Issue No.1 the Plaintiff failed to establish before the court that he has title over the Suit Schedule Property, now we should see whether the Plaintiff was in possession at any point of time in possession of Suit Schedule Property. Inorder to substantiate that the Plaintiff at any point of time prior to filing of the present suit, no documents have been filed. The

Plaintiffs contention that the Defendant no.2 filed a suit vide O.S.No.2036/2003 in which she had obtained a fraudulent decree for the relief of Permanent Injunction even if the Plaintiff herein filed Written Statement in the said suit and without considering the contention of the Defendant, the Plaintiff therein had obtained decree. Inorder to substantiate that the decree passed in O.S.No.2036/2003 is fraudulent, no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff but he had merely got marked Ex.A-2 i.e., Certified copy of the plaint and Ex.A-7 Certified copy of the Written Statement, but he has failed to establish before the court that the decree passed in O.S.No.2036/2003 was a fraudulent decree. The Plaintiff who pleads that it was a fraudulent decree must prove before the court that it was a fraudulent decree but he had failed to do so. The PW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that he had visited the Suit Schedule Property in the year 2003 and found that Defendant No.2 was digging trenches in the Suit Schedule Property which shows that the Plaintiff never visited the Suit Schedule Property till the year 2003 from 1979 and also failed to adduce any documentary evidence to establish his

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 22/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

possession over the Suit Schedule Property at any point of time and he never visited the Suit Schedule Property after November, 2003 till the date of filing of the suit.

Therefore, the own admission of the Plaintiff in his cross-examination and his failure to adduce any documentary proof to establish his possession over the Suit Schedule

Property has clarifies that the Plaintiff never in possession of the Suit Schedule

Property from 1979 to till the date of filing of the suit. The Ex.A-3 to A-6 which are the legal notices issued against the Defendants and the postal acknowledgments, returned postal cover and reply notice and they have not proved in any manner, the title or possession of the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Property.

20)The Plaintiff is not disputing the relation between Defendant no.1 and his vendor B. Veeraswamy and Defendant No.1 is the daughter of Plaintiff’s vendor.

The counsel for Plaintiff submitted arguments and raised questions to the Defendant

Nos. 1 to 3 that the Defendant no.1 did not inherit the properties in Sy.Nos. 62, 63, 64 and 69 situated at Lashker Singaram, from her father after his demise. No documents has been filed to establish that the Defendant no.1 had inherited the Suit

Schedule Property along with other properties. It is true, that the Defendant No.1 did not adduce any evidence or got marked any documents on her behalf to show that she had inherited the Suit Schedule Property from her father. As discussed in Issue

No.1 in a suit for declaration of title and possession, the Plaintiff must rely on his own strength but not on the weaknesses of the Defendants. In a suit for declaration the court can’t travel beyond and decide the title of Defendants. Mathra Puri and another (5) AIR 1965 SC 1506, the Apex Court held as follows: “The Plaintiffs suit

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 23/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

being one for ejectment he has to succeed or fail on the title that he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title his suit must fail notwithdranding that the Defendant in possession has no title to the property, assuming learned counsel is right in that submission.” Even if no document has been filed by Defendant No.1 to show that she had inherited the properties under said survey numbers after the demise of her father, but the Ex.B-2 i.e., Registered Sale Deed executed in favour of

Defendant no.2 establishes the fact that the Defendant no.1 sold 220 sq.yards in said survey numbers in favour of Defendant No.2 and every registered document is presumed to be genuine unless contrary is proved.

21)The Plaintiff except pleading that it was a fraudulent transfer by

Defendant no.1 in favour of Defendant no.2 but no evidence has been adduced in support of such contention. Likewise the Ex.B-1 along with Ex.B-3 to B-27 altogether establishes the fact that the Defendant no.3 has purchased the property covered under Ex.B-1 under a Registered Sale Deed and he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same and also constructed a residential house after obtaining required permissions. Therefore, the Defendants with the aid of Ex.B- 1 to B-27 established the fact of sale in between Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and in between Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and also the possession of Defendant No.3 in the

Suit Schedule Property from 2007 till date. The Learned Counsel for Plaintiff made several suggestions to DW-1 and she had denied all the suggestions and admitted that she has not filed any documents to show that how Defendant No.1 had acquired right over the property from her father in said survey numbers, but as discussed

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 24/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

earlier, the Plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness of the Defendants. It is true, that

DW-2 in his cross-examination admitted that as per Ex.B-22, B. Veeraswamy during his life time executed Simple Sale Deeds, but the admission of the DW-2 will not come to the aid of the Plaintiff in any manner, since he has failed to prove his valid title and possession over the Suit Schedule Property at any point of time. Even if any admissions has been made in the cross-examination of DWs 1 to 3 that will alone doesnot serve any purpose in the absence of any cogent and valid documentary evidence which substantiates the Plaintiff valid title and possession over the Suit

Schedule Property. Since the Plaintiff failed to prove his possession at any point of time over the Suit Schedule Property not entitled for the relief of recovery of possession as well as the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of structures raised by Defendant no.3, since the Plaintiff utterly failed to prove his title and possession over the Suit Schedule Property. In addition to that, when the Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration which is the main relief, not entitled for any other ancillary reliefs like recovery of possession and mandatory injunction, hence the Issue Nos. 2 and 3 are answered against the Plaintiff.

22) ISSUE NO.4: Inview of the discussion made under Issue Nos. 1 to 3, this issue No.4 is answered against the Plaintiff.

23) IN THE RESULT, the Suit is Dismissed with costs.

(Typed to my Dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21 st day of April, 2026)

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 25/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW-1: K. YadagiriDW-1: P. Rajyalaxmi

PW-2: V. Mohan RaoDW-2: B. Purnachander,

PW-3: Vengala KanakarajDW-3: S. Srinivasulu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : Certified copy of Document, dt. 16-11-1979 duly impounded and issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal Ex.A-2 : Copy of Plaint in O.S.No.2036/2003 of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Warangal Ex.A-3 : Office copy of legal notice, dt 23-1-2013 issued to the Defendants along with postal receipts (3 Nos) Ex.A-4 : Served copy of reply notice, dt. 4-2-2013 by Defendant No.3 to the notice,

dt. 23-1-2013,

Ex.A-5 : Postal acknowledgments of Defendant No.3, dt. 30-1-2013, Ex.A-6 : Returned postal cover of Defendant No.2, Ex.A-7 : Signed copy of Written Statement in O.S.No.2036/2003, Ex.A-8 : Certified copy of sale deed for plot No.13/2 between Neeraja and Lalitha,

dt. 29-8-2003,

Ex.A-9 : Certified copy of sale deed for plot no.8 between Swaroop Rani and Rajyalaxmi, dt. 13-8-2003, Ex.A-10 : Certified copy of sale deed for Plot No.8 between Rajyalaxmi and Srinivasulu, dt. 7-12-2007 FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B-1 : Registered Sale Deed executed in favour of Defendant No.3 by Defendant No.2 vide Doc.no.11761/2007, dt. 7-12-2007. Ex.B-2 : Registered Sale Deed executed in favour of Defendant No.2 by Defendant No.1 vide Doc.no.5790/2003, dt. 13-08-2003. Ex.B-3 : Original House permission issued by Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal along with plan, dt. 22-12-2007, Ex.B-4 : Miscellaneous receipt, dt. 15-12-2007, Ex.B-5 : Receipt issues by Vice Chairman, KUDA bank challan, dt. 17.12.2007,

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 21-04-2026 26/26 O.S.No.294 of 2022

Ex.B-6 : Acknowledgment issued by GWMC, Warangal, dt. 2-1-2008, Ex.B-7 : Certified copy of Encumbrance on property from 1-1-1983 to 11.12.2007,

dt. 12-12-2007,

Ex.B-8 : Certified copy of House Tax assessment register from 14.7.2007 to 29.4.2025, dt. 5-7-2025, Ex.B-9 : True extract property tax assessment, dt. 15-2-2019, Ex.B-10 : Electricity payment receipts (11) from February to July, 2008, Ex.B-11 : Electricity bills payment extract from August, 2008 to December, 2013 of H.No.5-11-725/2/3, Ex.B-12 : Electricity bills payment extract from January, 2014 to June, 2025 of H.No.5-11-725/2/3, Ex.B-13 : Tap connection fee Bank challan, dt. 31-12-2008, Ex.B-14 : Tap connection donation, dt. 31-12-2008, Ex.B-15 : Tap connection order along with plan, dt. 23-01-2009, Ex.B-16 : Certified copy of encumbrance of property, dt. 16-2-2019, Ex.B-17 : Certified copy of Decree copy in O.S.No.2036/2003, DT. 17-12-2004, Ex.B-18 : Copy the legal notice issued by Plaintiff, dt. 23-1-2013, Ex.B-19 : Reply notice to the Plaintiff notice, dt. 4-2-2013, Ex.B-20 : Postal receipt, dt. 4-2-2013, Ex.B-21 : Acknowledgment card, dt. 5-2-2013, Ex.B-22 : Certified copy of the order of Special Officer and Competent authority ULC, Warangal, dt. 30-09-1997, Ex.B-23 : Certified copy of ULC Permission of D-1/Swaroopa Rani, dt. 1-12-1997, Ex.B-24 : Certified copy of ULC Permission to B. Subhashini, dt. 1-12-1997, Ex.B-25 : Certified copy of ULC Permission of B.V.Neeraja, dt. 1-12-1997, Ex.B-26 : Certified copy of ULC Permission of G. Arapitha, dt. 1-12-1997, Ex.B-27 : Certified copy of ULC of Encumbrance Certificate from 1-1-1988 to 25-7-2002, dt. 26-7-2002. MARKED BY COURT: Ex.C-1:Entire file of Revenue Divisional Officer.

Sd/-

II-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 22-04-2026 1/16 S.C.No. 26 OF 2024

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE: HANAMKONDA

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2026

Present:- Smt Sampathi Rao Chandana II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-Asst.Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.

Sessions Case No. 26 OF 2024

(P.R.C.No. 32/2022 on the file of III-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanamkonda in Crime No. 346/2020 of P.S.Subedari)

1. Name and description: The State of Telangana of the Complainant.through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Subedari.

2. Name and description of the accused :

1.Sathu Rajender @ Rajendra Babu, S/o. Mogilaiah, Age: 46 years, R/o.H.No.1-7-1977, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, (A-1 reported died and case against him was abated)

2.Sathu Mahesh, S/o. Mogilaiah, Age: 39 years, Occ: Court Employee, R/o. H.No.7-70/3, Narsimhulapally, Mandal Shyampet, Warangal Now at H.No.6-2-228/1, Chandrashekara colony, Nizamabad,

3.Sathu Madhavi, W/o. Mahesh, Age: 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.7-70/3, Narsimhulapally, Mandal Shyampet, Warangal Now at H.No.6-2-228/1, Chandrashekara colony, Nizamabad,

4.Konkanapu Rajaiah, S/o. Nagaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.3-5-19, Sudhanagar, Hanamkonda.

5.Sathu Ravi Shankar, S/o. Mogilaiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.7-70/3, Narsimhulapally, Mandal Shyampet, Warangal Now at H.No. 5-99/156, Patelguda, Krishnareddypet, Patancheruvu, Sangareddy,

6.Pusapati Shekarappa, S/o. Kotaiah, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Thoragallu, Mandal and District Nalgonda,

7.Sathu Radhika, W/o. Ravi Shankar, Age: 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.7-70/3, Narsimhulapally, Mandal Shyampet, Warangal Now at H.No.5-99/156, Patelguda, Krishnareddypet, Patancheruvu, Sangareddy,

8.Sathu Veeramani, W/o. Nagender, Age: 60 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.7-70/3, Narsimulapally, Mandal Shyampet, Warangal District.

3. Offences with which charged : U/s. 306 r/w 34 IPC

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 22-04-2026 2/16 S.C.No. 26 OF 2024

4. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the Judge : Accused found not guilty.

6. Sentence or Order :

In the result, Accused Nos. 2 to 8 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 306 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted of the same under section 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months as per Section 437 of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

7. Prosecution conducted by :Smt A. Erangeline, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

8. Accused defended by: Sri Cholleti Rama Krishna, Advocate

This case coming up before me on 17.04.2026 final hearing in the presence of Smt A. Erangeline, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Cholleti Rama Krishna, Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1)The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Subedari has laid charge sheet in

Crime No.346/2020 for the offence U/s. 306 r/w 34 IPC against the accused.

2) The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

i)On 06.08.2020 at about 18.10 hours, the defacto complainant,

LW-1/Shetti Somaiah came to the Police Station, Subedari and lodged a complaint stating that on the same day at about 15.00 hours, his nephew Sathu Varun has phoned to him and informed that the sister of LW-1/Shetti Somaiah i.e., Sathu Aruna locked doors inside and on such information, LW-1/Shetti Somaiah went to the house of his sister and she was found dead. LW-1/Shetti Somaiah further stated

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 22-04-2026 3/16 S.C.No. 26 OF 2024

that A-1 is the husband of his deceased sister/Sathu Aruna and A-2 to A-8 are the family members of A-1. The marriage of Sathu Aruna and Accused No.1 was took place about 20 years back, they blessed with two sons ie.., LW-2/Sathu Varun Teja and LW-3/Sathu Shiva Teja. The deceased/S. Aruna leading her family by running binding work shop in the name and style of “Srirama Printing and Binding Works” at

Balasamudram, Hanamkonda since 2016. The disputes were arose between the family of A-1 with his family members A-2 to A-8 with regard to distribution of ancestral property.Since six years prior to death of deceased/S. Aruna, the

Accused family did not send her to her parents house i.e., the family of LW-1/Shetti

Somaiah and not allowed her to talk with her parents and tortuned her mentally and physically.

ii)On 3.8.2020, the Accused No.1 tortured the deceased/S. Aruna physically and mentally, due to which disputes arose between them, basing on the said disputes, on 5.8.2020 at about 21.00 hours, Accused no.1 abused the deceased/S. Aruna and threatened that “Mee Annanu police station ku thisukoni ravale Akkade matladali aatharvathu nenu mee ammavalla intiki pampishanu”. The deceased mentioned about the harassment caused by accused in her suicide note.

iii)On 06-08-2020 in between 12.50 hours to 14.10 hours, due to physical and mental torture of A-1 to A-8, the deceased/S. Aruna vexed with her life and closed shop doors and bolted inside and committed suicide by hanging to ceiling fan with saree, by observing the same Lws 6 to 8 forcibly opened the doors and found the dead body of deceased/S. Aruna, on which they shifted her to MGM Hospital.

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 22-04-2026 4/16 S.C.No. 26 OF 2024

The deceased/S. Aruna tied the death note to her saree hemp. Later, LW-1/S.

Rajender went to police station and lodged a complaint.

iv)Basing on the complaint of LW-1/S. Rajender, LW-22/S. Venu Gopal,

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Subedari registered a case in Crime No.346/2020, U/s.

306 r/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation. During course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited Mortuary at MGM

Hospital, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased duly obtaining photographs, later the corpse was subjected for autopsy at KMC, Warangal and after completion of the same, the dead body was handed over to his blood relatives under proper receipt. LW-22/S. Venu Gopal, Investigation officer visited the scene of offence, conducted scene observation panchanama, conducted SOC Panchanama, two photo copies death note copies of the deceased/S. Aruna which were kept on the table seized in presence of mediators duly taking signatures of panchas on them.

v)On 5.9.2020, LW-22 arrested Accused no.1 remanded to judicial custody, on 7.8.2020, he collected the standard hand writing of the deceased i.e.,

Diary 2009 and 2016 Diary 365 from LW-5/S. Surender and send to FSL, Hand writing expert with Questioned document i.e., suicide note of the deceased for comparison, LW-20/Dr. Kranthi Chaitanya issued Post Mortem Examination report and opined that cause fo death is due to hanging. LW-21/A. Raja Naik issued report by opining that “the person who wrote the red enclosed writing marked S1 to S13 also wrote the red enclosed writing marked Q”. On 19.10.2020, LW-23/P. Ravi issued bail bonds to A-2 to A-4 and A-8 for their appearance. After receiving the

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 22-04-2026 5/16 S.C.No. 26 OF 2024

medical reports and after completion of investigation, LW-24P. Punnam

Chander,Sub- Inspector of Police, P.S.Subedari filed charge sheet.

3)The case was taken on file by the learned III-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanamkonda, against the A-1 to A-8 for the offence U/s. 306 r/w 34

IPC.

4)The Death certificate of Accused no.1 was filed on 27-09-2023 by concerned police. Hence the case against Accused No.1 was abated. On appearance of the A-2 to A-8, the learned Magistrate furnished the copies of case documents to the accused as required under Sec.207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. As the offence charged against the accused, is exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate after compliance of Sec.209 Cr.P.C., committed the case vide P.R.C.No.32 of 2022 to the Hon'ble Principal Sessions

Court, Hanamkonda.

5)The Hon'ble Prl. Sessions Judge, Warangal, assigned the Sessions

Case No.26/2024 and made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

6)Upon hearing both sides, the A-2 to A-8 was examined under section 228(2) Cr.P.C. Charges U/s. 306 r/w 34 IPC were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Thereafter, the Court fixed the trial schedule and issued summons to the witnesses to record his evidence.

7)During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 22 were examined and Exs.P-1 to

P-37 were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 22-04-2026 6/16 S.C.No. 26 OF 2024

8)The material witnesses not supported the prosecution case, as such the evidence of other witnesses i.e. LW-8/Peetla Oraiah and LW-23/P. Ravi is closed by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

9)After closure of prosecution evidence, the A-2 to A-8 have examined under section 313 Cr.PC by explaining all the incriminating material appeared on record, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and reported no evidence on their behalf.

10)The Learned APP filed Written Arguments that on 6-8-2020 in the afternoon at 1500 hours S. Aruna committed suicide due to the unbearable harassment of the accused. The present case was registered for the offence U/s.

306 r/w 34 of IPC. Even though all the material witnesses have turned hostile but admitted in their cross examination that they entered into compromise outside the court with the accused, but the hostility of the witnesses doesnot automatically negate the occurrence of crime. The medical evidence establishes the fact that the deceased committed suicide by hanging and before her death, she wrote a suicide note which was recovered and it was forwarded to scientific analysis along with the standard signatures of the deceased. Upon minute and scientific comparison, the

Asst. Director of TSFSL gave his report with a finding that the standard writings and also the writings available in the suicide note are one and the same. In the suicide notice it has been specifically mentioned that due to the harassment of accused and also some of the mediation elders the deceased/Aruna committed suicide. The

Suicide Note can be considered as a sole basis for recording conviction against the accused. The accused abated the deceased to commit suicide and the suicide note

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 22-04-2026 7/16 S.C.No. 26 OF 2024

reveals the mental status of the deceased prior to her death, therefore, the accused are liable to be convicted for the offence U/s. 306 r/w 34 of IPC in the interest of justice.

11)Per Contra, the Learned Counsel for Accused argued that all the material witnesses of the prosecution, so also the circumstantial witnesses, witnesses for inquest panchanama and CDF, all the witnesses turned hostile. The material circumstantial witnesses and also the family members of the deceased specifically stated that they are not aware of cause of committing suicide by the deceased/Aruna and they have also stated that deceased/Aruna suffered with severe stomach ache and due to the health issues, she had committed suicide. The parties had entered into compromise outside the court, except the evidence of LW- 21 and the Investigation Officer, none of the witnesses deposed any evidence against the accused. The photocopies of suicidal notes were recovered in the presence of panch witnesses and the alleged original suicidal note and the diaries were implanted in the present case to strengthen the contention of the prosecution.

There is no proximate cause has been proved by the prosecution that due to the abatement of accused, the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, the prosecution had utterly failed to prove its case against the accused. Therefore all the accused are liable to be acquitted form the alleged offence in the interest of justice.

12) Now the point for determination is:

i) Whether the prosecution could able to establish the charge U/s. 306 r/w 34 IPC, against A-2 to A-8 beyond all reasonable doubt?

ii) To what finding?

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 22-04-2026 8/16 S.C.No. 26 OF 2024

13) POINT:The deceased is Sathu Aruna. The Pws 1 to 5 are her family members. The PW-1/Shetty Somaiah brother of deceased lodged a complaint under Ex.P-26. The complainant stated in his complaint, dt. 6-8-2020 that on the same day at 3.00 PM, Sathu Varun, the son of the deceased/Sathu Aruna made a phone call to him and informed that his mother locked herself in printing binding works room, immediately the complainant rushed there and found that his sister committed suicide. On enquiry, it came to his knowledge that his sisters husband and family members of her husband harassed her inview of the family disputes with regard to the property distribution. Due to which, she committed suicide and her husband was also harassing his sister, due to which she had committed suicide at 12.50 PM by hanging herself.

14)Upon registering the complaint, the Investigation Officers PWs-19 and 22 had conducted investigation and collected medical evidence and also recorded the statements of all the material witnesses including the circumstantial witnesses.

The Ex.P-34 and Ex.P-37 i.e., Post Mortem Examination report marked through PW- 19 which establishes that the deceased/S.Aruna died by committing suicide prima- faciely discloses that the PW-21/Doctor who had conducted Post Mortem over the body of the deceased gave his opinion that the deceased/S.Aruna died due to hanging. The Ex.P-34 and P-37 discloses the same. Likewise, the Ex.P-28/Inquest panchanama and the photographs i.e., Ex.P-35, all together establishes the factum of death of one S.Aruna on 6-8-2020. Now we should see whether the prosecution could able to establish before this court beyond any reasonable doubt that the death

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 22-04-2026 9/16 S.C.No. 26 OF 2024

of deceased/S.Aruna was caused due to the abatement of suicide committed by A-2 to A-8.

15)In the present case, the Pws 1 to 5 who are the material witnesses including the complainant deposed in their Chief examination that they do not have any knowledge about the reason behind the suicidal death of deceased/S.Aruna.

The prosecution except marking Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statements in the cross examination, nothing has been proved that the A-2 to A-8 abetted the deceased in committing suicide. The Pws 6, 7, 9 to 13 who are the circumstantial witnesses to the incident did not reveal any incriminating material against the accused. The

PW-8/photographer who took the photographs of dead body of the deceased/S.Aruna identified the same and they are marked as Ex.P-9, but the evidence of PW-8 or the photographs doesnot establish any facts against the accused and photography and CD are only confirming the death of the deceased/S.Aruna.

16)The Pws 14 to 16 witnesses to the inquest panchanama had also not supported the preparation of inquest panchanama to deceased in their presence.

The PWs 17 and 18 who are the witnesses for preparation of the Crime Detail Form and recovery of two photocopies of suicide notes denied the preparation of Crime

Detail Form panchanama in their presence and they have also categorically denied their signatures on photocopies of the suicide notes. Therefore, the prosecution inorder to substantiate that the A-2 to A-8 had abated the deceased/S.Aruna to commit suicide, nothing incriminating have been brought on record even if they have

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 22-04-2026 10/16 S.C.No. 26 OF 2024

examined Pws 1 to 18 before the court and no incriminating material has been brought on record even in cross examination of any of the said witnesses.

17)The prosecution inorder to substantiate the alleged offence U/s. 306 r/w 34 of IPC against the A-2 to A-8 wholly relying on the evidence of Investigation officer and also the FSL Expert report. In the present case, the Investigation officer had recovered two photocopies of suicide notes in the presence of panch witnesses but the recovery of such suicidal notes were denied by the panch witnesses. The prosecution got marked the original suicide note as Ex.P-33 through PW-19 in which it was written with blue ink that “for my death Sathu Mahesh and his wife/Madhavi and his father-in-law K. Rajaiah, Sathu Ravi Shanker and his father-in-law P.

Shekarappa and their younger aunt Veeramani” are responsible. The reason is that, since 2016 to till date, they are obstructing to resolve the dispute in mediation and also causing mental trauma and the elders causing trouble to her husband”. This is the true translation of suicidal note which was marked under Ex.P-33. The

Investigation agency during the course of investigation had forwarded the original suicidal note under Ex.P-33 and Ex.P-32 i.e., two original diaries alleged to have been written by the deceased/S.Aruna. The FSL, Hyderabad upon receiving the original suicidal note and the said two diaries hand-writing expert A. Raja Naik, after thorough examination it was opined by the hand writing expert that the standard writings available in Ex.P-32 i.e., S-1 to S-13 was written by the person who had written the questioned/original suicidal note. During the course of trial, the LW-21

FSL Expert examined as PW-20 and the FSL report was marked as Ex.P-36. In the cross examination the PW-20 admitted that in the standard writings diary under

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 22-04-2026 11/16 S.C.No. 26 OF 2024

Ex.P-31 and P-32, there is no signature. Now we should see whether the prosecution with the aid of original suicidal note under Ex.P-33 and also with the support of Ex.P-32 and P-36 could able to prove before this court that the persons i.e., Accused whose names are available in Ex.P-33 i.e., the original suicide note are the one who abetted the deceased/S.Aruna to drive her to commit suicide.

18)The learned prosecution in written arguments specifically pleaded that the suicidal note can be held sufficient to draw a conclusion against the accused and referred two Judgments in which it was discussed that suicidal note must also be corroborated with other oral and documentary evidence and the suicidal note cannot alone be taken into consideration for drawing any conclusion against the accused. In the present case, the prosecution entirely depending on the suicidal note and also the FSL report. On careful verification of suicidal note alleged to have been written by the deceased, she had referred the names of the accused and also mentioned that the accused are not cooperating to the settlement, except that there is no whisper in the suicidal note that there is a proximate relationship between the

Accused’s actions and the suicide. The alleged suicidal note is also silent that, the accused had driven the deceased to suicide. In the present case the PW-1 who gave the complaint deposed in his complaint that the accused are not cooperating for the amicable settlement of property disputes as such the deceased committed suicide.

In addition to that, the husband of the deceased had also harassed the deceased by obstructing her to visit the complainant’s house. But the deceased in her alleged suicidal note mentioned that the accused are also causing trouble to her husband.

So the deceased had no grievance against her husband. The entire suicidal note is

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 22-04-2026 12/16 S.C.No. 26 OF 2024

silent about the fact that what were the acts of the accused driven her to commit suicide and there is no specific proximate cause or nexus in between the suicidal death of the deceased and the alleged suicidal note. In addition to that, all the material witnesses including the own children of deceased/S.Aruna did not support prosecution case and they resiled from their previous version and no evidence has been brought on record to substantiate that due to the harassment alleged to have been committed by the accused the deceased/S.Aruna committed suicide.

19)Moreover, there is an ambiguity in respect of suicidal note because there were two suicidal notes i.e., one Photocopy and one Original were recovered from the place of incident. The witnesses to the recovery of photocopy of the suicidal-note did not support the recovery. The alleged suicidal note is also not clear and reflects the exact mental status of the deceased/S.Aruna before committing suicide. Likewise, the standard writings under Ex.P-32 doesnot contain the signatures of the deceased/S.Aruna. Therefore, the prosecution could not able to established before this court beyond any doubt that the deceased/S.Aruna was the one who wrote the alleged suicidal note, so also the writings in the Ex.P-32. Even if all the material documents prepared in the course of investigation had marked through the Investigation officer/PW-19 but in the absence of establishing the fact that the acts of the accused either oral or writing had driven the deceased/S.Aruna to commit suicide and there is no proximate nexus between the suicidal note and the evidence collected by the Investigation officer. In addition to that, all the material and circumstantial witnesses did not support the prosecutions case and they have deposed that the deceased/S.Aruna died due to severe stomach pain.

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 22-04-2026 13/16 S.C.No. 26 OF 2024

20)Inview of the above said facts and circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove that the A-2 to A-8 had abated the deceased/S.Aruna to commit suicide. The suicidal note is also suspicious because the original and the photocopies were recovered from the scene of incident and the FSL expert categorically admitted that the Ex.P.32 doesnot contain the signature of the deceased/S.Aruna. Inview of all these facts and circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove before the court that the A-2 to A-8 had abated the deceased/S.Aruna to commit suicide and the suicidal note is very vague and doesnot disclose any specific incriminating material against the accused. Thus the ingredient of Sec.306 r/w 34 of IPC not proved against A-2 to A-8, hence the charge against the A-2 to A-8 has not been proved. Thus the point is answered against the prosecution.

21) POINT NO.2:In view of the discussion made under Point No.1, the Accused Nos. 2 to 8 found not guilty for the offence U/s. 306 r/w 34 IPC. The point is not answered in favour of the prosecution.

22) In the result, Accused Nos. 2 to 8 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 306 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted of the same under section 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months as per Section 437 of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of April, 2026)

II-ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 22-04-2026 14/16 S.C.No. 26 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW-1 : Shetti Somaiah..Complainant

PW-2 : Sathu Varun Teja..Circumstantial witness

PW-3 : Sathu Shiva Teja..Circumstantial witness,

PW-4 : Shetti Buchamma..Mother of deceased,

PW-5 : Shetti Surender..Younger brother of deceased,

PW-6: Gugulothu Suresh..Circumstances witness

PW-7: Vanoth Srikanth..Circumstantial witness,

PW-8 : Jannu Bikshapathi..Photographer,

PW-9 : Mattapally Kishan Rao..Circumstantial witness,

PW-10: M. Devendar Rao..Circumstantial witness,

PW-11: T. Srinivas Rao..Circumstantial witness,

PW-12: A. Santhosh..Circumstantial witness,

PW-13: G. Ashok..Circumstantial witness,

PW-14: S. Vijaya..Panch witness for Inquest,

PW-15: M. Narsinga Rao..Panch witness for Inquest,

PW-16: M. Ravinder..Panch witness for Inquest,

PW-17: G. Bhaskar..Panch witness for CDF,

PW-18: Md. Masjid..Panch witness for CDF,

PW-19: S. Venugopal.. Investigation officer

PW-20: A. Raja Naik..Hand writing Expert,

PW-21: Dr. Kranthi Chaitanya..Conducted Post Mortem Examination.

PW-22: P. Purnachander.. Investigation officer

For the Defence:

- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P-1 : Signature of PW1 on complaint,

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 22-04-2026 15/16 S.C.No. 26 OF 2024

Ex.P-2 : U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1,

Ex.P-3 : U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2,

Ex.P-4 : U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3,

Ex.P-5 : U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-4,

Ex.P-6 : U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-5,

Ex.P-7 : U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-6,

Ex.P-8 : U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-7,

Ex.P-9 : (7) photographs along with C.D. by PW-8,

Ex.P-10 : U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-9,

Ex.P-11 : U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-10,

Ex.P-12 : U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-11,

Ex.P-13 : U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-12,

Ex.P-14 : U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-13,

Ex.P-15 : Signature of PW-14 on Inquest panchanama,

Ex.P-16 : Signature of PW-15 on Inquest panchanama,

Ex.P-17 : Signature of PW-16 on Inquest panchanama,

Ex.P-18 : Signature of PW-17 on CDF,

Ex.P-19 : Signature of PW-17 on rough sketch,

Ex.P-20 : Signature of PW-17 on scene of offence panchanama,

Ex.P-21 : (2) Signatures on two photocopy of suicide notes.

Ex.P-22 : Signature of PW-18 on CDF,

Ex.P-23 : Signature of PW-18 on rough sketch,

Ex.P-24 : Signature of PW-18 on scene of offence panchanama,

Ex.P-25 : (2) Signatures on two photocopy of suicide notes,

Ex.P-26 : Complainant,

Ex.P-27 : First Information Report,

Ex.P-28 : Inquest panchanama,

Ex.P-29 : CDF

Ex.P-30 : Scene of offence Panchanama,

Ex.P-31 : Photocopies of (2) suicide notes,

II ASCJ, HNK

Dt: 22-04-2026 16/16 S.C.No. 26 OF 2024

Ex.P-32 : (2) original diaries written by the deceased,

Ex.P-33 : Original Suicide notes.

Ex.P-34 : Post Mortem Examination

Ex.P-35 : (4) Photographs,

Ex.P-36 : FSL Report, dt. 14-12-2020

Ex.P-37 : Post Mortem Examination of deceased,

For the Defence:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/-

II-ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

II ASCJ, HNK

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT HANUMAKONDA

Dated, this the 22nd day of April, 2026

Present: Smt. Sampathi Rao Chandana, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Hanumakonda

O.S.No. 71 of 2026 (Old OS. No. 128 of 1998)

Between:

1. Kota Mohan Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, Age: 60 years, Occu:Rtired Govt servant, Nagaram village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District.

2. Kota Ramchandra Reddy, S/o. Kota Mohan Reddy, Age: 19 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Nagaram village, Hasanparthi mandal, Warnagal District. … Plaintiffs

AND

Kota Raji Reddy, S/o.Mohan Reddy, Age: 33 years, Occu: Electrician, Singareni colleries, Mangoor. … Defendant

This suit is filed Under Order VII Rule 1 R/W, Sec. 26 of C.P.C. by the plaintiff praying the Court to restrain the defendants by way of passing a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their workmen, agents from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties and to award costs of the suit, in the interest of justice.

This Suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Sathish Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff No.1, Sri.L.Jalendhar Reddy, Leaned counsel for the plaintiff No.2 and Sri.M.Sahodar Reddy, Learned counsel for the defendant and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

: : D O C K E T O R D E R : :

Dt: 22-04-2026

The Hon’ble High Court vide order in IA.No.1/2022, dt: 28.05.2025 in an appeal suit No.1269/2002 directed this court to consider the compromise decree of

O.S No.81/1973 and amicable settlement document dt: 15.07.1975 and consider the

same and passed appropriate orders duly taking them into consideration. This court had received the file from Prl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Warangal on 23.03.2026. The learned counsel petitioner/plaintiff as per the directions of Hon’ble High Court in the said order submitted the said documents along with a memo and copy was also served on other side. The petitioner/plaintiff submitted no hearing on the documents repored it may be considered and pass appropriate orders. The learned counsel for defendant/ respondent argued that the documents which were directed to the considered by the Hon’ble High court had already taken into consideration while disposing the present suit. Therefore, no necessity to reconsider the said document and conclusion drawn by the Court. This sufficient hence Judgment dt: 29.01.2002 is appropriate and there is no necessity for any interference.

On perusal of the record the suit vide OS.No.128/98 was filed by K. Mohan Reddy and K. Ramchander Reddy against K. Raji Reddy in respect of A and B schedule properties i.,.e one acre in Sy.no.425/D and 20 gts in Sy.no.725 and also 1/4 th share out of house G. P. No.1-83 situated at Nagaram village, Hasanparthy Mandal. The trial court after full fledged trail upon considering the documents dismissed the suit vide its Judgment and decree dt:29.01.2002. Aggrieved by the Judgment the petitioner/plaintiff approached the Hon’ble High Court with a prayer to direct the trial court to consider the compromise decree in OS.81/1973 and amicable settlement document dt: 15.09.1975. The Hon’ble High court direct this court to consider the said two documents and to pass appropriate orders.

On perusal the compromise decree of OS.81/1973 is specifically discloses in the terms of compromise in specific in compromise term No.4 it has been specifiacally mentioned that “ Out of the lands shown in the map an area of Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.435 and Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.720 was given to D1 and remaining lands shown in the map attached herewith the red color as in schedule A were absolutely to the plaintiff No.2 towards his maintenance. Originally plaintiff No.2 has got only half share of the land mentioned in the map. But the Defendant No.1 is allotting more lands than this share in order to cover up the maintenance of plaintiff No.2 upto the age of majority”. In term No.7 it has been mentioned that ‘ the plaintiff NO.1 and 2 are also allotted to the portion of house B.No.1-83 and the open land situated at Nagaram village, which is better described in the plan schedule -B attached to this compromise deed in red color”. In term No.8 it is mentioned that “ the properties allotted to plaintiff No.2 towards his share and maintenance shall be managed by plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff no.2 shall be absolute owner of the properties lands and house allotted to him. The amicable settlement document

dt: 15.09.1975 which was executed by K.Sugunamma accepting the second marriage of

her husband by name Mohan Reddy. In view of the disputes between K. Sugunamma and her husband.

At this juncture we should see whether the said 2 documents even if considered nothing has been drawn which is favourable to the petitioner/plaintiff. On considering the first document and the terms mentioned that the plaintiffs in OS.No.81/1973 i.e., Kota Sugunamma and her son K.Raji Reddy were allotted with the properties according to the terms of compromise which are the suit schedule properties of the present suit i.e., Os.no.71/2026 (old Os. 128/1998). The suit schedule properties were exclusively allotted to the share of said K. Sugunamma and K.Raji Reddy and it was further mentioned that they are having absolute right over the said properties. Despite of that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed the said suit vide OS. No.128/1998 by showing the properties which were exclusively allotted to the said K.Sugunamma and K.Raji Reddy. Therefore, the terms of compromise in OS.No.81/1973 and the suit schedule all together establishes that the husband of K.Suguanama i.e,. K.Mohan Reddy even after voluntarily entered into a compromise in Os.No.81/1973 by allotting specific properties as stated earlier filed the present suit in respect of the properties which were allotted to the share of K.Sugunamma and K.Raji Reddy.

The trial court upon conducting due trail and on considering the documents delivered its Judgment by dismissing the suit. Even on considering the document i.e., compromise decree in Os.81/1973 no new facts brought on record which favours the contention of petitioner/plaintiff. Moreover they are contradictory to the interest of petitioner/plaintiff. The second document ie. Settlement deed dt: 15.09.1975 which has also not bringing any new facts. Since the said K.Sugunamma not disputed the second marriage of her husband Mohan Reddy.

In view of the discussion made above the documents which are directed to be taken into consideration by the Hon’ble High Court does not comes to the aid of petitioner/plaintiff in any manner and even on considering the said documents no new point has been evolved to draw any conclusion in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. These are findings of this court after considering the above said documents. It has been pronounced in the open court.

(Given under my hand and Seal of this Court, on this the 22 nd day of April, 2026).

sd/-

II.ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT HANUMAKONDA

Dated, this the 21st day of April, 2026

Present: Smt. Sampathi Rao Chandana, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Hanumakonda

O.S.No. 614 of 2025 (Old O.S.No.198 /2018)

Between: Syeda Umme Salma

... Plaintiff

AND

1. Dongala Raji Reddy

2. Meekala Sudershan … Defendants

This suit is filed Under Section 26 Order VII, Rule 1 of C.P.C. by the plaintiff praying the Court to pass a decree the suit declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule land i.e., extent 120.00 sq.yds in Sy.No.819 of Hanumakonda village and district Warangal and the four documents (1) Sale deed No.3486/2014, dt: 21.03.2014, (2) Sale deed doc.No.10871 of 2014, dt: 05.12.2014 (3) GPa registered No.10520 of 2015, dt: 03.10.2015 and (4) Sale deed doc.No.11642 of 2015, dt: 26.10.2015 of Joint Sub Registrar, Warangal as null and void and not binding on behalf of plaintiff and to direct the defendant to remove the illegal structure from the suit schedule land and deliver the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and to award costs of the suit, in the interest of justice.

This Suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri.Md.Yousuf Ali, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri.P.V.Vidyadhar Raj, Learnedcounsel for D2, D1 remained set exparte and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

: : D O C K E T O R D E R : :

Dt: 21-04-2026

Plaintiff called absent no representation. The defendants called absent. No representation. Costs not paid. The matter is being posted to trial since 24.11.2025. Despite of providing several opportunities and even passing on conditional orders of the both parties failed to appear for commencement of trial and amendment and neat copy not filed, the matter pertains to the year 2018. Hence, it appears that the plaintiff not evincing interest to proceed with the suit. Hence, the suit is dismissed for default.

(Given under my hand and Seal of this Court, on this the 21 st day of April, 2026).

sd/-

II.ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA