Sri. Sattu Ravinder

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 1 of 23

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUSHAIGUDA.

PRESENT: SRI. SATTU RAVINDER, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

DATED THE 29th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

IA. No. 595 OF 2025

IN

OS.No. 855 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

1.Sri Pasham Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o. Late P. Ranga Reddy, aged about 68 years, Business, Resident of Villa No. 56, Aparna Elixir, Near ORR, Khajaguda, Chitrapuri Colony, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

2.Mr. Md. Riyauddin, S/o. Mohd. Faizuddin, aged about 68 years, Business, Resident of H.No. 42-815, Moulali, Hyderabad. Rep., by their GPA Holder, Mr. K. Rayeesuddin, S/o. Late Allauddin, aged about 58 years, Business, Resident of H.No. 42-815, Old Moulali, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

3.Mr. K. Rayeesuddin, S/o. Late Allauddin, aged about 58 years, Business, Resident of H.No. 42-815, Old Moulali, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

...Petitioners/Plaintiffs

A N D

1.Mr. K. Chandra Prakash, S/o. K. Suresh Kumar aged major, Occ: Not known, R/o. H.No. 43-181, Moulali Ali, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri.

2.Mrs. Haji Begum, W/o. Mr. Imtiyaz Ali, aged major, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 4-11-58, Beside Dargah Mer Mohammed Pasha, M.M.Pahadi, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad – 64.

3.Mr. Majid Shareif, S/o. Imtiyaz Ali, aged major, Occ: Not known, R/o. H.No. 4-11-59, Beside Dargah Mer Mohammed Pasha, M.M.Pahadi, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad – 64.

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 2 of 23

4.Mr. Syed Mahmood Hussaini @ Mahmood Shareef, S/o. Quasim Shareef, aged major, Occ: Not known, R/o. H.No. 4-11-58, Beside Dargah Mer Mohammed Pasha, M.M.Pahadi, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad – 64.

5.Mr. G. Mahesh Goud, S/o. Not known to petitioner, aged major, Occ: Business, 1-23-323, Bhoodevi Nagar, Subash Nagar, Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad – 15 Mobile: 9908582841

6.Mr. S. Kranthi Kumar, S/o. S. Sudhir Kumar, aged major, Occ: not known, R/o. 43-316, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri.

7.Mr. K. Santosh Kumar, S/o. K. Suresh Kumar, aged major, Occ: Not known, R/o. H.No. 43-181, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri.

8.Mr. Shaik Abdulla, S/o. Shaik Hussain, H.No. 43-448/3A, RTC Colony, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. Mobile: 9899005983

9.Mr. Abbas, S/o. Jahangir, H.No. 43-448/3A, RTC Colony, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

10.Mr. Ashwin, S/o. Sudhir, aged major, Occ: Not known, R/o. H.No. 43-316, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri.

11.Mr. Imran, C/o. Shaik Abdulla, H.No. 43-448/3A, RTC Colony, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri. Mobile: 8309528750

12.Mr. Umar Farooq, C/o. Mulla Mahaboobial, H.No. 41-50/17/1, Ground Floor, Sadulla Nagar, VTC, Secunderabad – 500040. Mobile: 9542641882

...Respondents/Defendants

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 3 of 23

This petition is coming up for final hearing before the court on 01.04.2026 in the presence of M/s L. Aravind Reddy, learned Counsel for Petitioners/plaintiffs, M/s Syed Shabbir Hussain, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 to 7 and 10, Sri S.S. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for respondent no., 8, 9, 11 and 12 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

ORDER

1.The present petition is filed U/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w Sec. 151 CPC by the petitioners/plaintiffs praying this court to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or creating charge in favour of third party interest over the petition schedule property in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the above application. The petitioners are herein after referred to as plaintiffs and respondents are referred to as defendants.

2. Brief facts of the affidavit:

a)The plaintiff no.3 filed affidavit on behalf of himself and plaintiff no.1 and 2 being their

GPA holder. He submitted that, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of land in Sy.No. 419/P & 420/P having an extent of Ac.4-16 Gts and Ac.8-01 Gts situated in

Moula Ali village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District along with other lands, being the suit schedule property; the lands were purchased by one Pasham Ranga Reddy, i.e., father of 1st plaintiff along with 2nd plaintiff and others through sale deed dated 18.06.1976 from Smt Fakrunnisa Begum, Shujath Ali Hussain and Basharath Ali Hussain being minor represented by Smt Fakrunnisa Begum; ever since the purchase, the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property; originally lands in

Sy.No. 419 & 420 and other lands were part of Muntakab No. 959 of 1324F belong to one

Syed Abbas Ali Hussain @ Syed Shah Ali Raza; the Muntakab No. 959 of 1324F was having lands totaling an extent of Ac.317-24gts of agricultural land in Sy.Nos. 392, 393, 396 to 411, 418 to 421, 461, 463, 446 to 470, 472, 513, 514, 526, 544, 545, 574, 579, 587, 590,

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 4 of 23

610, 643, 647, 649 to 663 situated in Malkajgiri Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri

District; subsequent to demise of Syed Abbas Ali Hussain @ Syed Shah Ali Raza an issue with regard to succession of said lands and other have arise; one Smt Fakrunnisa Begum has claimed said succession; the said issue has been decided affirmatively in favour of said

Smt Fakrunnisa Begum by Atiyat Court and attained finality there upon with regard to succession of said Syed Abbas Ali Hussain; the said lands and other lands belonging to said Syed Abbas Ali Hussain were under supervision of Court of Wards, and under supervision of Umoor-e-Mazahabi and afterwards came to the supervision of Wakf Board during said period; subsequent to declaration of succession of Atiyat Court, said lands have been handed over to said Smt Faizunnisa Begum and she was demised in 1959.

b)It is submitted that, subsequent to demise of Faizunnisa Begum the Government of

Andhra Pradesh has acquired an extent of Ac. 69-16 Gts. of land in Sy.Nos.392, 393, 396, 397, 398, 399 and 400 out of said Muntakab lands; further again issue of succession of said

Smt Faizunnisa Begum has arisen upon her demise, accordingly, a suit in OS No. 89 of 1969 on the file of Addl. Chief Judge cum Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad was filed by one Syed Wajidulla Hussaini against Yousuf Begum and

Tajunniasa Begum, Wakf Board and against others, Wakf Board was also included in view of claim being made by them with regard to said lands under Muntakab No. 959 of 1324F; however, with regard to payment of compensation a reference U/S. 30 of Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 was made to Civil Court as there was title dispute, vide O.P. No. 243 of 1967,

O.P. No. 282 of 1969 and O.P. No. 375 of 1971; the last OP was filed by Smt. Fakrunnisa

Begum, Shujath Ali Hussain and Basharath Ali Hussain seeking succession of properties held by Smt. Faizunnisa Begum under said Muntakab, and also payment of compensation deposited by Government in view of dispute of title.

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 5 of 23

c)It is submitted that, a common judgment and decree dated 16-06-1976 was passed dismissing suit and OPs and allowing OP No. 375 of 1971 holding that defendants 8 to 10, who are vendors of 1st plaintiff late father and 2nd plaintiff herein, in suit and petitioners in

OP.No. 375 of 1971 are successors of Smt Faizunnisa Begum; accordingly said Smt

Fakrunnisa Begum, Shujath Ali Hussain and Basharath Ali Hussain were declared as true owners and successors of Smt Faizunnisa Begum; said decree passed in OS.No. 89/1969 was challenged before Hon’ble High Court of AP, as it was then in CCCA No. 47 of 1979; the Hon'ble High Court after elaborate discussion and on merits has dismissed said appeal through order dated 23-04-1999 confirming judgment and decree of trial court. Against said judgment, a Special Leave Petition was filed and said Civil Appeals No. 17181-17182 of 2009 were dismissed confirming orders of High Court through order dated 11-08-2010; accordingly, title and possession of vendors of plaintiffs has attained finality and crystallized.

d)The plaintiffs submit that predecessor of defendants no.2 & 3 i.e., Smt. Yousuf

Begum, claims right and title basing on a compromise passed in W.P. No. 211 of 1966 on the file of Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad, dated 12-08-1966 with regard to lands covered under Muntakab No. 959 of 1324F. And further basing on proceedings of mutation issued vide No. B/2491/89 dated 07-03-1990 issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri.

However, said facts are true from reality and predecessor of defendants no. 2 & 3 have no right or claim over said lands covered under Muntakab No. 959 of 1324F, which is abundantly clear in view of judgment and decree passed in OS 89 of 1969 along with O.P.

No. 243 of 1967, O.P. No. 282 of 1969 and O.P. No. 375 of 1971 dated 16-06-1976, which was affirmed in appeal by Hon'ble High Court and also by Hon'ble Apex Court on further challenge of same.

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 6 of 23

e)It is submitted that, the 1st plaintiff herein has made an application U/s 5A of the

Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 to the Tahsildar,

Malkajgiri seeking regularization of his Sada Sale Deed dated 18.06.1976, executed in favor of 1st plaintiff late father and 2nd plaintiff and others by Smt. Fakrunnisa Begum,

Shujath Ali Hussain and Basharath Ali Hussain, the said application seeking regularization was rejected by Tahsildar, Malkajgiri; aggrieved the same, the 1st plaintiff has filed appeal

U/s 5-B of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 before the

Special Grade Deputy Collector cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division and said appeal bearing file no. C/2074/2008 filed U/s 5-B of ROR Act, was allowed through order

dated 27.12.2008, directing the Tahsildar, Malkajgiri to take up regularization application

and pass appropriate orders and accordingly, the Tahsildar, Malkajgiri has taken 1st plaintiff application on record vide no. ROR/B/2444/2008, however same is pending consideration as on date.

f)It is submitted that, the appeal bearing file no. C/2074/2008 was also challenged in

WP.No. 17455 of 2011 on the file of High Court of Judicature, AP by one Mohd. Ayub Ali; in

the said writ petition the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass orders in WPMP.No.

20980/2011 in WP.No. 17455/2011 granting interim stay of further proceedings pending

before the Tahsildar, Malkajgiri vide no. ROR/B/2444/2008. It is submitted that, in appeal

proceedings before the Special Grade Deputy Collector cum Revenue Divisional Officer,

Chevella Division, the plaintiffs vendors have given a categorical statement that, un- registered sale deed was indeed executed by them and possession was also delivered by them to vendees as per the sale deed dated 18.06.1976, as such, they have stated that regularization of sale deed can be acceded and same be allowed. It is submitted that, in appeal proceedings, defendants no. 2 & 3 predecessor i.e., Smt. Yousuf Begum, has

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 7 of 23

participated and contested claim of 1st plaintiff. The predecessor of defendants no. 2 & 3 i.e., Smt. Yousuf Begum, has contested said appeal proceedings, stating that mutation was earlier granted in her favor vide proceedings no. B/2491/89 dated 07-03-1990, and that said lands are belonging to them in accordance to judgment passed in W.P. No. 211 of 1966.

However, the appellate authority i.e., the Special Grade Deputy Collector cum Revenue

Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, has elaborately discussed and specifically negated both contentions, by categorically observing that as defendants no. 2 & 3 predecessor Smt.

Yousuf Begum, was a defendant and contestant in O.S. No. 89 of 1969, and decree passed therein is binding in nature and has also attained finality, the Smt. Yousuf Begum cannot claim any right or title under W.P. No. 211 of 1966, and further has held that mutation proceedings passed in favor of Smt. Yousuf Begum are non-est in law. And accordingly, said Smt. Yousuf Begum cannot claim any right or title having lost claim in a properly instituted suit, and held that Sale Deed was executed in favor of 1st plaintiff late father and others affirmatively.

g)The plaintiffs submit that aggrieved by order passed in File No. C/2074/2008 vide order dated 27-12-2008, defendants no. 2 & 3 predecessor Smt. Yousuf Begum, has preferred Revision before Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and said revision was disposed through order dated 27-08-2019 in Case No. D5/4194/2013 and D5/4158/2015 directing both parties to resolve their disputes before the Civil Court. The operative portion of said order reads as under:

"There are multiple claims over the said property and the matter

essentially involves dispute over the title and settlement of rights among

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 8 of 23

the legal heirs which can only be rightfully decided in an appropriated

Civil Court. Hence the parties are advised to approach competent Civil

Court"

h)Against order of revision defendants no.2 and 3 have filed W.P. No. 743 of 2020 on the file of Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad; and by misrepresenting facts, have obtained interim orders; and said writ petition is pending consideration before the Hon'ble High Court; that the predecessor of defendants no. 2 & 3 i.e.. Smt. Yousuf Begum has filed W.P. No. 23192 of 2009 on the file of High Court of

Judicature, Andhra Pradesh. The said writ petition was filed stating that illegal constructions are being carried out in Sy. No. 418, 419, 420, 420/1 and 421 of Malkajgiri Village and

Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. And the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass order

dated 29.10.2009 granting Status-Quo with regard to same, and same was also reaffirmed

through subsequent orders dated 04-08-2015. However, in said writ petition plaintiffs have filed their implead petition and contesting said writ petition, however, same is pending consideration before the Hon'ble High Court as on date. However, abiding by said order the plaintiffs have been maintaining status-quo and no activity was taken up with regard to same, even as on today.

i)The plaintiffs submit that defendants no. 2 & 3 herein have earlier filed O.S. No. 1955 of 2021 on the file of XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said suit was filed seeking declaration as legal heirs of their predecessor Smt. Yousuf Begum. However, said proceedings are completely sham in nature and taken in collusion and without revealing real facts and details. As per information of plaintiffs said Smt. Yousuf Begum was succeeded by nearly five to seven people, and defendants no. 2 & 3 are not sole

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 9 of 23

successors of the said Smt. Yousuf Begum. However, suppressing real facts and details said proceedings were initiated with a malaise intention and a decree was obtained.

However, when any decree is hit by malaise and deliberate hiding of facts, same would be non-est in law, and accordingly, defendants no. 2 & 3 cannot claim any right or succession or as a matter of fact to be sole Legal Representatives of late Smt. Yousuf Begum.

j)The plaintiffs further submit that subsequent to obtaining of above-mentioned fraudulent decree, defendants no. 2 & 3 have made an application dated 19-03-2022 to

Tahsildar, Malkajgiri seeking grant of mutation with regard to part of the lands covered under Muntakab No. 959 of 1324F. And further, defendants no. 2 & 3 have thereupon filed

W.P. No.43522 of 2022 on the file of High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad seeking grant of mutation basing on above said application. However, the defendants no. 2 & 3 have on their own volition have withdrawn said writ petition on 17-10-2022, and no further proceedings were initiated with regard to same till date. As such, above said exercise clearly and affirmatively shows that neither defendants no. 2 & 3 nor their predecessor Smt. Yousuf Begum was ever having any mutation or right conferred on them, and without any iota of right are making false claims with an ulterior motive.

k)The plaintiffs submit that plaintiffs no. 1 & 2 have executed GPA in favor of this plaintiff. And upon so, this plaintiff has formed a house plots layout in Schedule-A of the suit schedule property, consisting of nearly 162 plots of varying size situated in Sy. No. 419/P and Sy. No. 420/P in an extent of Ac. 4-16 Gts, and in Sy. No. 420 an extent of Ac. 8-01

Gts, which is more fully described in Schedule-A of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that, under guise of said illegal GPA 1st defendant has been executing various deeds under the style of 'Indemnity Bond' to third parties. And in reality, through said indemnity bonds, 1st defendant is actually alienating as GPA Holder of defendants no. 2 &

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 10 of 23

3, however, as stated above, neither defendants no. 2 & 3 nor the 1st defendant who is claiming to be their GPA holder, were having any right and have miserably failed on all attempts before the Civil Court and also before Revenue Courts with regard to their claims, which was also affirmed by Hon'ble High Court and also Hon'ble Apex Court. As such, without any right or title over suit schedule property, the defendants are executing and creating false litigation and taking advantage of fraudulent documents at the cost of the plaintiffs herein, who are original owners and possessors of suit schedule property and other lands covered under Muntakab No. 959 of 1324F.

l)The plaintiffs submit that in 2013 the plaintiffs 1 & 2 have given a representation

dated 21-12-2013 to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy requesting to conduct enquiry with

regard to illegal transactions of Smt. Yousuf Begum in favor of others. And said application was transferred to Tahsildar, Malkajgiri for conducting of necessary field enquiry and submitted report vide B/2444/2008 dated 08-01-2014. And in said report Tahsildar,

Malkajgiri has categorically stated that upon conducting field enquiry, it was found that plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of said agricultural lands, which are present suit schedule properties. As such, it is quite clear and evident that said agricultural lands being suit schedule properties are in possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs. However, there are contra claims with regard to ownership, though same without any basis. It is submitted that while issues stood so, now defendants without any right or lawful claim, have started trespassing into suit schedule properties, with help of unlawful mob consisting of rowdy sheeters and forcefully in the first week of September, 2025. And same was informed to this plaintiff through one of his servants who was stationed in said land. However, upon coming to know about said aspect this plaintiff has immediately rushed to the spot. And the plaintiff upon reaching the land, has observed that defendants with help of rowdy shatters and huge

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 11 of 23

mob of nearly 40 people have started creating ruckus and destroying property and were thrashing people in suit schedule property. And immediately this plaintiff has informed plaintiffs no. 1 & 2 about said aspect, and with help of his people and nearby persons, were able to withhold the defendants and other persons from further destruction and damaging property with lot of effort.

m)The plaintiffs submit that, when upon restraining defendants with further trespassing and damaging property, a discussion has taken place at that time, and plaintiffs have confronted the defendants with regard to motive and reason for such unlawful and highhanded acts. However, defendants have been adamant in character and attitude and have been restless with regard to responding to this plaintiff with regard to their actions.

And further, in a highhanded manner and muscle power is right have collectively with their henchmen have started threatening this plaintiff with consequences of obstructing them with their actions, which is highly illegal and regrettable and shows lack of respect for law and society by defendants. However, when this plaintiff has stood his ground with help of others, and persevered over defendants and negated their illegal activities. However, thereupon, after sometime, when this plaintiff has confronted defendants with regard to their status and claim, the defendants have stated that they are owners of the subject land and also other extents of land in Sy. No. 418, 419 & 420 situated in Malkajgiri Village and Mandal,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District. And that plaintiffs have no right or title over said lands, and have started threatening plaintiffs with dire consequences if plaintiffs insist on restraining them any further. The plaintiffs submit that, when they have tried to explain and reason with defendants, the 1st defendant who claims to be GPA holder of defendants no. 2 & 3 has confronted this plaintiff and started abusing in filthy language, and threatened this plaintiff with dire consequences, stating that this plaintiff is only a GPA holder and has no right or

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 12 of 23

title over suit schedule property and also advised this plaintiff no to enter into litigation with the defendant. However, when the plaintiff has stood his ground on the day and gas restrained defendants, and upon seeing same, defendants have left with a warning to plaintiffs with regard to suit schedule property.

3. Brief facts of the counter filed by Defendants/Respondents no.1 to 7 and 10:

i)The defendants No.1 to 7 and 10 filed counter denied the petition. The defendants no. 8, 9, 11 and 12 filed adoption memo adopting counter of defendants No.1 to 7 and 10.

ii)The defendants submitted that, originally the lands bearing Sy.No. 419 and 420 along with other lands total admeasuring Ac. 317-24 guntas situated at Malkajgiri Village and Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri Dist., were covered by Muntakhab No. 959 of 1324F which was originally belongs to Syed Shah Ali Raza Hussaini who was one of the Muntakhab

Holder; it is true that after the demise of Syed Shah Raza Ali Hussaini an issue with regard to succession of said lands have arisen; it is true that basing on the Judgment in

W.P.No.211 of 1966 with regards to lands covered under Muntakhab No. 157 and 959 was also issued in favour of my mother in File No. B/2491/89 dated 7-3-1990 issued by Mandal

Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri; that earlier the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and others filed a suit against one Nakka Narsing Rao and others for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.463 of 2018 on the file of Hon'ble I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist., and the said suit was dismissed in default on 06-12-2023; during the pendency of the said suit the injunction petition filed by the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and others was dismissed on 24-04-2019 in I.A.

No. 628 of 2018 and also observed in the said suit, inspite of the orders of the Hon'ble court the plaintiffs therein fails to produce the original the alleged Sale deed dated 18-06-1976.

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 13 of 23

iii)It is mentioned that, in another matter in W.P.No.4770 of 2013 which was filed byher mother for challenging the order passed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella

Division in file No.C/1000/2010 dated 16-04-2011 in respect of the lands situated at Attapur

Village, on the appeal filed by plaintiffs and others and in the said W.P. the Hon'ble High court directed to issue criminal proceedings against the then RDO who passed the alleged order and as per the directions of Prl. Secretary, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division filed a complaint before Rajendra

Nagar, P.S., against the then RDO B.Ratna Kumar who passed the alleged order in file

No.C/1000/2010 and the police Rajendra Nagar registered a case in crime No. 168 of 2013 for the offence U/Sec.409, 120-B IPC. That due to apprehension of arrest, the then RDO filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.11338 of 2013 with a prayer not to arrest him and in the said

W.P., the then RDO filed an affidavit stating that he has not dealt with the file

No.C/1000/2010 and he never passed the alleged order and also stated that the said order is a fabricated and created by forging his signature after his transfer. Further hereto mention that, the plaintiffs have fabricated the orders in File No.C/1000/2010 and also the orders in file No.C/2074/2008; that, after coming to know the said alleged order her mother filed a revision before the then Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy Dist., aggrieved by the order passed by the then RDO, Chevella in appeal file No.D5/4194 of 2013. Subsequently after bifurcation of Districts the said Revision was transferred to Joint Collector Medchal-

Malkajgiri Dist., and numbered as file No. D5/4158/2015 and in the said revision no notice was served to her mother or her counsel. That her mother was died on 17-12-2014 and the order was passed after the death of her mother by the Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri

Dist., on 27-08-2019 which is subsequent to the death of her mother; that after knowing the said fact about the dismissal of said Revision, she along with the defendant No. 3 filed W.P

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 14 of 23

No. 743 of 2020 before the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana and obtained suspension order and the said Writ Petition is pending. It is true that she along with defendant No.3 filed W.P.No.743/2020 but it is denied that by misrepresenting the facts they have obtained interim orders from the Hon'ble High court, hence the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same; it is true that her mother filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.23192 of 2009 before the Hon'ble High court challenging the issuance of Gazette Notification issued by the then A.P.Wakf Board and after the death of her mother they have filed LR petition and the same is pending; it is true that she along with her brother filed a suit in O.S.No.1955 of 2021 on the of Hon'ble XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court and they have been declared as Legal heirs of Yousuf Begum. It is denied that her mother Yousuf begum was succeeded by nearly 5 to 7 people and they the defendants 2 and 3 are not sole successors of said Yousuf Begum, hence the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same; that, her mother was blessed with 2 sons and one daughter. That her elder Azam Shareef was died prior to the death of her mother, as such his sons and two wives are pre-deceased successors to her mother and they are not entitled to claim any share of her mother.

iv)It is true that the defendants No.2 and 3 have filed an application dated 19-03-2022

before the Tahsildar Malkajgiri seeking grant of mutation in their favor covered her

Muntakhab No.959. The rest of allegations leveled in the para are hereby denied, hence the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same; that the defendants No.2 and 3 have appointed the defendant No.1 as their GPA Holder who is a builder and also having vast experience in construction of buildings and the remaining defendants who are associates in the business of defendant No. 1 who is used to enter into development agreement and also used to develop the property; that, the petitioners along with one Pilli Anjaneyulu Yaday have created by fabricating the documents, as such on her complaint the Police Malkajgiri

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 15 of 23

PS registered a case in Crime No. 723 of 2020 against the plaintiffs and others and also filed Charge Sheet against them vide C.C.No.1061 of 2024 and the same is pending before the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist., at

Kushaiguda. Further in a suit filed by Pill Anjaneyulu Yadav against her and others in

O.S.No.252 of 2021 before this Hon'ble Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri Dist.,

seeking for injunction against her and others and the Hon'ble Court dismissed the injunction petition vide orders passed in I.A.No. 100 of 2021. That even one G.Surya Narayana Reddy also filed a suit in O.S.No.249 of 2022 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-

Malkajgiri Dist., claiming that he also purchased property from the vendors of the plaintiffs namely Syed Shujath Ali Hussaini and others the Hon'ble court dismissed the injunction vide orders passed in I.A. No.471 of 2022; that, the plaintiff No.2 along with Syed Shujath

Ali Hussainini filed an impleading petition in I.A.No.622 of 2025 in O.S.No.249 of 2022 and the same is pending. That even the plaintiff No.2 filed impleading petition in O.S.No.252 of 2021 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist., on 11-12-2024. That the plaintiffs suppressed all these facts and filed the present suit and petition before this Hon'ble court.

4. Brief facts of the rejoinder filed by petitioners/plaintiffs:

Plaintiffs filed rejoinder to the counter filed by defendants. On traveling rejoinder it is found that the plaintiffs reiterated that the counter averments simply submitted borne by record. Hence, no need to reproduce rejoinder.

5.Heard the learned counsels for plaintiffs and defendants. Perused the record.

6. Now the points for consideration are :

1) Whether the order dated 18.11.2025 be made absolute or not?

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 16 of 23

2) To What relief?

7. Point No.1:

i)Learned counsel for plaintiffs submitted elaborately and explained all the documents.

Learned counsel for defendants also vehemently argued and explained the back ground of case.

ii)As per pleadings, oral submissions of learned counsels the undisputed fact is that the property was Muntakab bearing no. 959/1324F.

iii)The simple case of the plaintiffs is that Pasham Ranga Reddy, 2nd plaintiff herein purchased suit land through unregistered sale deed dated 18.06.1976 from Fakrunnisa

Begum, Sujath Ali and Basharath Ali Hussain. The plaintiff no.1 is the son of Pasham

Ranga Reddy.

iv)As per the affidavit and oral submission of learned counsels undoubtedly there is a legal jagron in the facts. I have also noticed that 1. Syed Shah Ali (Raja Hussain), 2. Syed

Rahmetullah Hussain, 3. Syed Shamshuddin, 4. Syed Basha Hussain, 5. Syed Makdum, 6.

Syed Naziruddin and 7. Syed Nahamatullah. These are the seven (7) persons said to have been transferred in favor of Faizunnisa Begum, who died issue-less. One Yousuf Begum and Tajunnisa Begum claimed as successors to Faizunnisa Begum. Tajunnisa Begum,

Sujath Ali, Basharath Ali and Fakrunnisa, arrayed as defendant no. 8 to 10 in OS.No.

89/1969. The defendants no. 8 to 10 are the alleged vendors of father of plaintiff no.1 herein and plaintiff no.2 herein.

v)This is a petition filed to grant temporary injunction, hence no need to look documents minutely but circumstances of case demanded to look documents for prima- facie case.

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 17 of 23

vi)The plaintiffs relied the following documents.

a) Ex.P1: is the General Power of Attorney without sale power. As seen Ex.P1, P.

Madhusudhan Reddy and Md. Riazuddin appointed Kaja Rayeezuddin, G. Hanmantha Rao and Mohd. Yasin and conferred rights to file suit before Officers with a rider not to sale.

Learned counsel for respondents argued that though there are three agents but only one agent signed the affidavit as such the petition is not maintainable. The contention of learned counsel for defendants is found force. Unless there is a express contract to waive, all the agents are supposed to sign. As seen the Ex.P1, there is no such averment in

Ex.P1. Therefore, the affidavit suffers for want of signature of all agents.

b) Ex.P2: is the Common Judgment dated 16.06.1976 in OS.No. 89/1969, OP.No.

243/1967, OP.No. 282/1969 and OP.No. 375/1971 on the file of Hon’ble Additional Chief

Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad. As seen Ex.P2, the

defendant no. 8 to 10 are Sujath Ali Hussain, Basarath Ali Hussain and Fakrunnisa Begum i.e., defendant no. 8 to 10. The Hon’ble Court held issue no.2 in OP.No.375/1971 as “the rival claimants for the amounts in deposit are the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant on the one hand and defendants no. 8 to 10 in the suit on the other hand; in view of my findings in the suit rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs to the property it follows that defendants no.8 to 10 are entitled to the amount in deposit.” Therefore, defendant no. 8 to 10 are entitled amount only.

c) Ex.P3: is the Judgment in CCC Appeal.No. 47/1979 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad dated 23.04.1999. The appeal arises against the judgment and decree in OS.No. 89/1969 dated 16.06.1976. The Hon’ble High Court affirmed the

Judgment and Decree in OS.No. 89/1969.

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 18 of 23

d) Ex.P4: is the Proceedings No. C/2074/2008 dated 27.11.2008 on the file of Special

Grade Deputy Collector and RDO, Chevella Division, R.R.District. This is the order against proceedings dated 21.03.2006 on the file of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri regarding refusal of regularization of unregistered sale deed on stamp paper in respect of

Sy.Nos. 401, 418, 419, 420, 421 etc., total extent Ac.248-18gts situated at Malkajgiri village.

The appellants are Pasham Madhusudhan Reddy, Pasham Venkat Reddy and Pasham

Susheela who are LR’s of Pasham Ranga Reddy. Mohd. Riyazuddin is also one among appellants. The respondents are Fakrunnisa Begum, Sujath Ali Hussain, Basharath Ali

Hussain. The learned RDO has pleased to allow the appeal and directed the Tahsildar,

Malkajgiri to take up the application for regularization of unregistered sale deed dated 18.06.1976 under Section 5-A of AP Rights in Land and Pattedhar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘Act’).

e) Ex.P5: is the 12 notice dated 19.03.2010.

f) Ex.P6: is the order of Hon’ble Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Keesara vide Proceedings No. D5/4194/2013 dated 27.08.2019. Aggrieved by orders of RDO,

Chevella Division dated 27.12.2008 in case no. C/2074/2008/ Ex.P4. Learned Joint

Collector while disposing the appeal advised the parties to approach Civil Court.

g) Ex.P7: is the order in WP.No. 43522/2022 wherein Haji Begum/defendant no.2 herein and another filed said petition and withdrawn.

h) Ex.P8: is the affidavit in WP.No. 43522/2022.

vii)The defendants relied the following documents:

a) Ex.R1: is the true copy of file no. B5/28396/59

b) Ex.R2: is the true copy of memo

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 19 of 23

c) Ex.R3: is the true copy of proceedings of MRO Malkajgiri no. B/2491/89 dated 07.03.90. The tenor of Ex.R3 is succession of Inam lands.

d) Ex.R4: is the CCC Appeal no. 47/1979

e) Ex.R5: is the Charge sheet in FIR.No. 723/2020. The complainant is defendant no.2 herein and accused are plaintiffs herein, besides Basharath Ali Hussain and Fakrunnisa

Begum

f) Ex.R6: is the true copy of written statement filed by defendant no.2 in OS.No.

89/1969

g) Ex.R7: is the written statement of defendant no. 8, 9 and 10 in OS.No. 89/1969

h) Ex.R8: is the Order in OS.No. 15/1967

i) Ex.R9: is the affidavit memorandum of writ petition no. 11338/2013. The petitioner is

B.V Ratna Kumar challenging the proceedings no. F/991/2023 dated 05.03.2013 and

FIR.No. 168/2013

j) Ex.R10: is the counter filed in WP.no. 11338/2013

k) Ex.R11: is the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent no.5 in WP.No. 11338/2013

l) Ex.R12: is the counter filed by respondent no.1 in WP.No. 11338/2013

m) Ex.R13: is the memorandum of writ petition in WP.No. 14253

n) Ex.R14: is the Order in IA.No. 628/2018 in OS.No. 463/2018 on the file of I Addl.

Junior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri.

o) Ex.R15: is the Docket order in OS.No. 463/2018

p) Ex.R16: is the Orders in CCCA No. 69/1967

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 20 of 23

q) Ex.R17: is the endorsement from the office of Tahsildar, Malkajagiri vide no.

2063/2019.

r) Ex.R18: is the true copy of order in IA.No. 622/2025 in OS 249/2022 dated 12.02.2026.

s) Ex.R19: is the decree in IA.No. 1123/2022 in OS.No. 252/2021 dated 11.12.2024.

t) Ex.R20: is the order in IA.No. 1123/2022 in OS.No. 252/2021 dated 11.12.2024.

viii)As per the affidavit, the case of the plaintiffs are that their application before MRO,

Malkajgiri to regularize unregistered sale deed is dismissed, aggrieved by it they filedappeal vide file no. C/2074/2008, on the file of the Special Grade Deputy Collector cum RDO,

Chevella, the same is allowed vide Ex.P4.

ix)Here, learned counsel for respondents got the attention of this court that the orders who passed orders under Ex.P4 namely B.V. Ratna Kumar, being the Special Grade

Deputy Collector cum Revenue Divisional Officer challenged the Ex.P4 stating that he has not passed the orders under Ex.P4, and his signature was forged, vide Ex.R9. As seen

Ex.R9. There is a criminal case registered against B.V. Ratna Kumar. In view of WP vide

Ex.R9, the Revenue proceedings are no way useful to the plaintiff.

x)To my understand the case of the plaintiffs are basing on unregistered sale deed way back 1976. The same document is not seen the day light till today. As per affidavit itself the said unregistered sale deed is not yet regularized. Therefore, entering of plaintiffs names in revenue record does not arise. The claim of the plaintiffs stands on the unregistered sale deed as such it is week piece of evidence. Muchless the exclusive possession over the petition schedule property is not supported any material. Accordingly,

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 21 of 23

prima-facie case whether the defendants are in lawful possession in petition schedule property to be decided during the trial does not arise.

xi)As far as balance of convenience, the Ex.P4 is the proceedings of B.V. Ratna Kumar directed the MRO to consider the unregistered sale deed but a criminal case is registered against him. Besides, Ex.P4 there is no other material in favor of plaintiffs, as such, there is no balance of convenience. If the petition is dismissed, no irreparable loss to the plaintiffs.

In case the plaintiffs succeeds, they may file restoration petition. Accordingly, point is answered against plaintiffs.

8.Learned counsel for defendant submitted that plaintiffs filed OS.No. 463/2018 and the same is dismissed for default, but no material relied. The plaintiffs suppressed FIR.No.

723/2020.

9. Point No.2:

In the result, the order dated 18.11.2025 is set aside.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29 th day of April, 2026).

FAC II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Kushaiguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT

- NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER

Ex.P1: is the General Power of Attorney without sale power

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 22 of 23

Ex.P2: is the Common Judgment dated 16.06.1976 in OS.No. 89/1969, OP.No. 243/1967,

OP.No. 282/1969 and OP.No. 375/1971 on the file of Hon’ble Additional Chief Judge-cum-

Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad

Ex.P3: is the Judgment in CCC Appeal.No. 47/1979 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad dated 23.04.1999

Ex.P4: is the Proceedings No. C/2074/2008 dated 27.11.2008 on the file of Special Grade Deputy Collector and RDO, Chevella Division, R.R.District

Ex.P5: is the 12 notice dated 19.03.2010.

Ex.P6: is the order of Hon’ble Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Keesara vide Proceedings No. D5/4194/2013 dated 27.08.2019

Ex.P7: is the order in WP.No. 43522/2022

Ex.P8: is the affidavit in WP.No. 43522/2022

FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.R1: is the true copy of file no. B5/28396/59

Ex.R2: is the true copy of memo

Ex.R3: is the true copy of proceedings of MRO Malkajgiri no. B/2491/89 dated 07.03.90.

Ex.R4: is the CCC Appeal no. 47/1979

Ex.R5: is the Charge sheet in FIR.No. 723/2020

Ex.R6: is the true copy of written statement filed by defendant no.2 in OS.No. 89/1969

Ex.R7: is the written statement of defendant no. 8, 9 and 10 in OS.No. 89/1969

Ex.R8: is the Order in OS.No. 15/1967

Ex.R9: is the affidavit memorandum of writ petition no. 11338/2013

Ex.R10: is the counter filed in WP.no. 11338/2013

Ex.R11: is the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent no.5 in WP.No. 11338/2013

Ex.R12: is the counter filed by respondent no.1 in WP.No. 11338/2013

Ex.R13: is the memorandum of writ petition in WP.No. 14253

Ex.R14: is the Order in IA.No. 628/2018 in OS.No. 463/2018 on the file of I Addl. Junior

Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri.

Ex.R15: is the Docket order in OS.No. 463/2018

Ex.R16: is the Orders in CCCA No. 69/1967

Ex.R17: is the endorsement from the office of Tahsildar, Malkajagiri vide no. 2063/2019.

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 23 of 23

Ex.R18: is the true copy of order in IA.No. 622/2025 in OS 249/2022 dated 12.02.2026.

Ex.R19: is the decree in IA.No. 1123/2022 in OS.No. 252/2021 dated 11.12.2024.

Ex.R20: is the order in IA.No. 1123/2022 in OS.No. 252/2021 dated 11.12.2024.

FAC II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Kushaiguda.

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 1 of 23

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUSHAIGUDA.

PRESENT: SRI. SATTU RAVINDER, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

DATED THE 29th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

IA. No. 595 OF 2025

IN

OS.No. 855 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

1.Sri Pasham Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o. Late P. Ranga Reddy, aged about 68 years, Business, Resident of Villa No. 56, Aparna Elixir, Near ORR, Khajaguda, Chitrapuri Colony, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

2.Mr. Md. Riyauddin, S/o. Mohd. Faizuddin, aged about 68 years, Business, Resident of H.No. 42-815, Moulali, Hyderabad. Rep., by their GPA Holder, Mr. K. Rayeesuddin, S/o. Late Allauddin, aged about 58 years, Business, Resident of H.No. 42-815, Old Moulali, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

3.Mr. K. Rayeesuddin, S/o. Late Allauddin, aged about 58 years, Business, Resident of H.No. 42-815, Old Moulali, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

...Petitioners/Plaintiffs

A N D

1.Mr. K. Chandra Prakash, S/o. K. Suresh Kumar aged major, Occ: Not known, R/o. H.No. 43-181, Moulali Ali, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri.

2.Mrs. Haji Begum, W/o. Mr. Imtiyaz Ali, aged major, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 4-11-58, Beside Dargah Mer Mohammed Pasha, M.M.Pahadi, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad – 64.

3.Mr. Majid Shareif, S/o. Imtiyaz Ali, aged major, Occ: Not known, R/o. H.No. 4-11-59, Beside Dargah Mer Mohammed Pasha, M.M.Pahadi, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad – 64.

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 2 of 23

4.Mr. Syed Mahmood Hussaini @ Mahmood Shareef, S/o. Quasim Shareef, aged major, Occ: Not known, R/o. H.No. 4-11-58, Beside Dargah Mer Mohammed Pasha, M.M.Pahadi, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad – 64.

5.Mr. G. Mahesh Goud, S/o. Not known to petitioner, aged major, Occ: Business, 1-23-323, Bhoodevi Nagar, Subash Nagar, Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad – 15 Mobile: 9908582841

6.Mr. S. Kranthi Kumar, S/o. S. Sudhir Kumar, aged major, Occ: not known, R/o. 43-316, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri.

7.Mr. K. Santosh Kumar, S/o. K. Suresh Kumar, aged major, Occ: Not known, R/o. H.No. 43-181, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri.

8.Mr. Shaik Abdulla, S/o. Shaik Hussain, H.No. 43-448/3A, RTC Colony, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. Mobile: 9899005983

9.Mr. Abbas, S/o. Jahangir, H.No. 43-448/3A, RTC Colony, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

10.Mr. Ashwin, S/o. Sudhir, aged major, Occ: Not known, R/o. H.No. 43-316, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri.

11.Mr. Imran, C/o. Shaik Abdulla, H.No. 43-448/3A, RTC Colony, Moula Ali, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri. Mobile: 8309528750

12.Mr. Umar Farooq, C/o. Mulla Mahaboobial, H.No. 41-50/17/1, Ground Floor, Sadulla Nagar, VTC, Secunderabad – 500040. Mobile: 9542641882

...Respondents/Defendants

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 3 of 23

This petition is coming up for final hearing before the court on 01.04.2026 in the presence of M/s L. Aravind Reddy, learned Counsel for Petitioners/plaintiffs, M/s Syed Shabbir Hussain, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 to 7 and 10, Sri S.S. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for respondent no., 8, 9, 11 and 12 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

ORDER

1.The present petition is filed U/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w Sec. 151 CPC by the petitioners/plaintiffs praying this court to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or creating charge in favour of third party interest over the petition schedule property in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the above application. The petitioners are herein after referred to as plaintiffs and respondents are referred to as defendants.

2. Brief facts of the affidavit:

a)The plaintiff no.3 filed affidavit on behalf of himself and plaintiff no.1 and 2 being their

GPA holder. He submitted that, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of land in Sy.No. 419/P & 420/P having an extent of Ac.4-16 Gts and Ac.8-01 Gts situated in

Moula Ali village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District along with other lands, being the suit schedule property; the lands were purchased by one Pasham Ranga Reddy, i.e., father of 1st plaintiff along with 2nd plaintiff and others through sale deed dated 18.06.1976 from Smt Fakrunnisa Begum, Shujath Ali Hussain and Basharath Ali Hussain being minor represented by Smt Fakrunnisa Begum; ever since the purchase, the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property; originally lands in

Sy.No. 419 & 420 and other lands were part of Muntakab No. 959 of 1324F belong to one

Syed Abbas Ali Hussain @ Syed Shah Ali Raza; the Muntakab No. 959 of 1324F was having lands totaling an extent of Ac.317-24gts of agricultural land in Sy.Nos. 392, 393, 396 to 411, 418 to 421, 461, 463, 446 to 470, 472, 513, 514, 526, 544, 545, 574, 579, 587, 590,

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 4 of 23

610, 643, 647, 649 to 663 situated in Malkajgiri Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri

District; subsequent to demise of Syed Abbas Ali Hussain @ Syed Shah Ali Raza an issue with regard to succession of said lands and other have arise; one Smt Fakrunnisa Begum has claimed said succession; the said issue has been decided affirmatively in favour of said

Smt Fakrunnisa Begum by Atiyat Court and attained finality there upon with regard to succession of said Syed Abbas Ali Hussain; the said lands and other lands belonging to said Syed Abbas Ali Hussain were under supervision of Court of Wards, and under supervision of Umoor-e-Mazahabi and afterwards came to the supervision of Wakf Board during said period; subsequent to declaration of succession of Atiyat Court, said lands have been handed over to said Smt Faizunnisa Begum and she was demised in 1959.

b)It is submitted that, subsequent to demise of Faizunnisa Begum the Government of

Andhra Pradesh has acquired an extent of Ac. 69-16 Gts. of land in Sy.Nos.392, 393, 396, 397, 398, 399 and 400 out of said Muntakab lands; further again issue of succession of said

Smt Faizunnisa Begum has arisen upon her demise, accordingly, a suit in OS No. 89 of 1969 on the file of Addl. Chief Judge cum Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad was filed by one Syed Wajidulla Hussaini against Yousuf Begum and

Tajunniasa Begum, Wakf Board and against others, Wakf Board was also included in view of claim being made by them with regard to said lands under Muntakab No. 959 of 1324F; however, with regard to payment of compensation a reference U/S. 30 of Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 was made to Civil Court as there was title dispute, vide O.P. No. 243 of 1967,

O.P. No. 282 of 1969 and O.P. No. 375 of 1971; the last OP was filed by Smt. Fakrunnisa

Begum, Shujath Ali Hussain and Basharath Ali Hussain seeking succession of properties held by Smt. Faizunnisa Begum under said Muntakab, and also payment of compensation deposited by Government in view of dispute of title.

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 5 of 23

c)It is submitted that, a common judgment and decree dated 16-06-1976 was passed dismissing suit and OPs and allowing OP No. 375 of 1971 holding that defendants 8 to 10, who are vendors of 1st plaintiff late father and 2nd plaintiff herein, in suit and petitioners in

OP.No. 375 of 1971 are successors of Smt Faizunnisa Begum; accordingly said Smt

Fakrunnisa Begum, Shujath Ali Hussain and Basharath Ali Hussain were declared as true owners and successors of Smt Faizunnisa Begum; said decree passed in OS.No. 89/1969 was challenged before Hon’ble High Court of AP, as it was then in CCCA No. 47 of 1979; the Hon'ble High Court after elaborate discussion and on merits has dismissed said appeal through order dated 23-04-1999 confirming judgment and decree of trial court. Against said judgment, a Special Leave Petition was filed and said Civil Appeals No. 17181-17182 of 2009 were dismissed confirming orders of High Court through order dated 11-08-2010; accordingly, title and possession of vendors of plaintiffs has attained finality and crystallized.

d)The plaintiffs submit that predecessor of defendants no.2 & 3 i.e., Smt. Yousuf

Begum, claims right and title basing on a compromise passed in W.P. No. 211 of 1966 on the file of Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad, dated 12-08-1966 with regard to lands covered under Muntakab No. 959 of 1324F. And further basing on proceedings of mutation issued vide No. B/2491/89 dated 07-03-1990 issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri.

However, said facts are true from reality and predecessor of defendants no. 2 & 3 have no right or claim over said lands covered under Muntakab No. 959 of 1324F, which is abundantly clear in view of judgment and decree passed in OS 89 of 1969 along with O.P.

No. 243 of 1967, O.P. No. 282 of 1969 and O.P. No. 375 of 1971 dated 16-06-1976, which was affirmed in appeal by Hon'ble High Court and also by Hon'ble Apex Court on further challenge of same.

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 6 of 23

e)It is submitted that, the 1st plaintiff herein has made an application U/s 5A of the

Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 to the Tahsildar,

Malkajgiri seeking regularization of his Sada Sale Deed dated 18.06.1976, executed in favor of 1st plaintiff late father and 2nd plaintiff and others by Smt. Fakrunnisa Begum,

Shujath Ali Hussain and Basharath Ali Hussain, the said application seeking regularization was rejected by Tahsildar, Malkajgiri; aggrieved the same, the 1st plaintiff has filed appeal

U/s 5-B of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 before the

Special Grade Deputy Collector cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division and said appeal bearing file no. C/2074/2008 filed U/s 5-B of ROR Act, was allowed through order

dated 27.12.2008, directing the Tahsildar, Malkajgiri to take up regularization application

and pass appropriate orders and accordingly, the Tahsildar, Malkajgiri has taken 1st plaintiff application on record vide no. ROR/B/2444/2008, however same is pending consideration as on date.

f)It is submitted that, the appeal bearing file no. C/2074/2008 was also challenged in

WP.No. 17455 of 2011 on the file of High Court of Judicature, AP by one Mohd. Ayub Ali; in

the said writ petition the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass orders in WPMP.No.

20980/2011 in WP.No. 17455/2011 granting interim stay of further proceedings pending

before the Tahsildar, Malkajgiri vide no. ROR/B/2444/2008. It is submitted that, in appeal

proceedings before the Special Grade Deputy Collector cum Revenue Divisional Officer,

Chevella Division, the plaintiffs vendors have given a categorical statement that, un- registered sale deed was indeed executed by them and possession was also delivered by them to vendees as per the sale deed dated 18.06.1976, as such, they have stated that regularization of sale deed can be acceded and same be allowed. It is submitted that, in appeal proceedings, defendants no. 2 & 3 predecessor i.e., Smt. Yousuf Begum, has

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 7 of 23

participated and contested claim of 1st plaintiff. The predecessor of defendants no. 2 & 3 i.e., Smt. Yousuf Begum, has contested said appeal proceedings, stating that mutation was earlier granted in her favor vide proceedings no. B/2491/89 dated 07-03-1990, and that said lands are belonging to them in accordance to judgment passed in W.P. No. 211 of 1966.

However, the appellate authority i.e., the Special Grade Deputy Collector cum Revenue

Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, has elaborately discussed and specifically negated both contentions, by categorically observing that as defendants no. 2 & 3 predecessor Smt.

Yousuf Begum, was a defendant and contestant in O.S. No. 89 of 1969, and decree passed therein is binding in nature and has also attained finality, the Smt. Yousuf Begum cannot claim any right or title under W.P. No. 211 of 1966, and further has held that mutation proceedings passed in favor of Smt. Yousuf Begum are non-est in law. And accordingly, said Smt. Yousuf Begum cannot claim any right or title having lost claim in a properly instituted suit, and held that Sale Deed was executed in favor of 1st plaintiff late father and others affirmatively.

g)The plaintiffs submit that aggrieved by order passed in File No. C/2074/2008 vide order dated 27-12-2008, defendants no. 2 & 3 predecessor Smt. Yousuf Begum, has preferred Revision before Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and said revision was disposed through order dated 27-08-2019 in Case No. D5/4194/2013 and D5/4158/2015 directing both parties to resolve their disputes before the Civil Court. The operative portion of said order reads as under:

"There are multiple claims over the said property and the matter

essentially involves dispute over the title and settlement of rights among

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 8 of 23

the legal heirs which can only be rightfully decided in an appropriated

Civil Court. Hence the parties are advised to approach competent Civil

Court"

h)Against order of revision defendants no.2 and 3 have filed W.P. No. 743 of 2020 on the file of Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad; and by misrepresenting facts, have obtained interim orders; and said writ petition is pending consideration before the Hon'ble High Court; that the predecessor of defendants no. 2 & 3 i.e.. Smt. Yousuf Begum has filed W.P. No. 23192 of 2009 on the file of High Court of

Judicature, Andhra Pradesh. The said writ petition was filed stating that illegal constructions are being carried out in Sy. No. 418, 419, 420, 420/1 and 421 of Malkajgiri Village and

Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. And the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass order

dated 29.10.2009 granting Status-Quo with regard to same, and same was also reaffirmed

through subsequent orders dated 04-08-2015. However, in said writ petition plaintiffs have filed their implead petition and contesting said writ petition, however, same is pending consideration before the Hon'ble High Court as on date. However, abiding by said order the plaintiffs have been maintaining status-quo and no activity was taken up with regard to same, even as on today.

i)The plaintiffs submit that defendants no. 2 & 3 herein have earlier filed O.S. No. 1955 of 2021 on the file of XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said suit was filed seeking declaration as legal heirs of their predecessor Smt. Yousuf Begum. However, said proceedings are completely sham in nature and taken in collusion and without revealing real facts and details. As per information of plaintiffs said Smt. Yousuf Begum was succeeded by nearly five to seven people, and defendants no. 2 & 3 are not sole

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 9 of 23

successors of the said Smt. Yousuf Begum. However, suppressing real facts and details said proceedings were initiated with a malaise intention and a decree was obtained.

However, when any decree is hit by malaise and deliberate hiding of facts, same would be non-est in law, and accordingly, defendants no. 2 & 3 cannot claim any right or succession or as a matter of fact to be sole Legal Representatives of late Smt. Yousuf Begum.

j)The plaintiffs further submit that subsequent to obtaining of above-mentioned fraudulent decree, defendants no. 2 & 3 have made an application dated 19-03-2022 to

Tahsildar, Malkajgiri seeking grant of mutation with regard to part of the lands covered under Muntakab No. 959 of 1324F. And further, defendants no. 2 & 3 have thereupon filed

W.P. No.43522 of 2022 on the file of High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad seeking grant of mutation basing on above said application. However, the defendants no. 2 & 3 have on their own volition have withdrawn said writ petition on 17-10-2022, and no further proceedings were initiated with regard to same till date. As such, above said exercise clearly and affirmatively shows that neither defendants no. 2 & 3 nor their predecessor Smt. Yousuf Begum was ever having any mutation or right conferred on them, and without any iota of right are making false claims with an ulterior motive.

k)The plaintiffs submit that plaintiffs no. 1 & 2 have executed GPA in favor of this plaintiff. And upon so, this plaintiff has formed a house plots layout in Schedule-A of the suit schedule property, consisting of nearly 162 plots of varying size situated in Sy. No. 419/P and Sy. No. 420/P in an extent of Ac. 4-16 Gts, and in Sy. No. 420 an extent of Ac. 8-01

Gts, which is more fully described in Schedule-A of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that, under guise of said illegal GPA 1st defendant has been executing various deeds under the style of 'Indemnity Bond' to third parties. And in reality, through said indemnity bonds, 1st defendant is actually alienating as GPA Holder of defendants no. 2 &

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 10 of 23

3, however, as stated above, neither defendants no. 2 & 3 nor the 1st defendant who is claiming to be their GPA holder, were having any right and have miserably failed on all attempts before the Civil Court and also before Revenue Courts with regard to their claims, which was also affirmed by Hon'ble High Court and also Hon'ble Apex Court. As such, without any right or title over suit schedule property, the defendants are executing and creating false litigation and taking advantage of fraudulent documents at the cost of the plaintiffs herein, who are original owners and possessors of suit schedule property and other lands covered under Muntakab No. 959 of 1324F.

l)The plaintiffs submit that in 2013 the plaintiffs 1 & 2 have given a representation

dated 21-12-2013 to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy requesting to conduct enquiry with

regard to illegal transactions of Smt. Yousuf Begum in favor of others. And said application was transferred to Tahsildar, Malkajgiri for conducting of necessary field enquiry and submitted report vide B/2444/2008 dated 08-01-2014. And in said report Tahsildar,

Malkajgiri has categorically stated that upon conducting field enquiry, it was found that plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of said agricultural lands, which are present suit schedule properties. As such, it is quite clear and evident that said agricultural lands being suit schedule properties are in possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs. However, there are contra claims with regard to ownership, though same without any basis. It is submitted that while issues stood so, now defendants without any right or lawful claim, have started trespassing into suit schedule properties, with help of unlawful mob consisting of rowdy sheeters and forcefully in the first week of September, 2025. And same was informed to this plaintiff through one of his servants who was stationed in said land. However, upon coming to know about said aspect this plaintiff has immediately rushed to the spot. And the plaintiff upon reaching the land, has observed that defendants with help of rowdy shatters and huge

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 11 of 23

mob of nearly 40 people have started creating ruckus and destroying property and were thrashing people in suit schedule property. And immediately this plaintiff has informed plaintiffs no. 1 & 2 about said aspect, and with help of his people and nearby persons, were able to withhold the defendants and other persons from further destruction and damaging property with lot of effort.

m)The plaintiffs submit that, when upon restraining defendants with further trespassing and damaging property, a discussion has taken place at that time, and plaintiffs have confronted the defendants with regard to motive and reason for such unlawful and highhanded acts. However, defendants have been adamant in character and attitude and have been restless with regard to responding to this plaintiff with regard to their actions.

And further, in a highhanded manner and muscle power is right have collectively with their henchmen have started threatening this plaintiff with consequences of obstructing them with their actions, which is highly illegal and regrettable and shows lack of respect for law and society by defendants. However, when this plaintiff has stood his ground with help of others, and persevered over defendants and negated their illegal activities. However, thereupon, after sometime, when this plaintiff has confronted defendants with regard to their status and claim, the defendants have stated that they are owners of the subject land and also other extents of land in Sy. No. 418, 419 & 420 situated in Malkajgiri Village and Mandal,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District. And that plaintiffs have no right or title over said lands, and have started threatening plaintiffs with dire consequences if plaintiffs insist on restraining them any further. The plaintiffs submit that, when they have tried to explain and reason with defendants, the 1st defendant who claims to be GPA holder of defendants no. 2 & 3 has confronted this plaintiff and started abusing in filthy language, and threatened this plaintiff with dire consequences, stating that this plaintiff is only a GPA holder and has no right or

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 12 of 23

title over suit schedule property and also advised this plaintiff no to enter into litigation with the defendant. However, when the plaintiff has stood his ground on the day and gas restrained defendants, and upon seeing same, defendants have left with a warning to plaintiffs with regard to suit schedule property.

3. Brief facts of the counter filed by Defendants/Respondents no.1 to 7 and 10:

i)The defendants No.1 to 7 and 10 filed counter denied the petition. The defendants no. 8, 9, 11 and 12 filed adoption memo adopting counter of defendants No.1 to 7 and 10.

ii)The defendants submitted that, originally the lands bearing Sy.No. 419 and 420 along with other lands total admeasuring Ac. 317-24 guntas situated at Malkajgiri Village and Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri Dist., were covered by Muntakhab No. 959 of 1324F which was originally belongs to Syed Shah Ali Raza Hussaini who was one of the Muntakhab

Holder; it is true that after the demise of Syed Shah Raza Ali Hussaini an issue with regard to succession of said lands have arisen; it is true that basing on the Judgment in

W.P.No.211 of 1966 with regards to lands covered under Muntakhab No. 157 and 959 was also issued in favour of my mother in File No. B/2491/89 dated 7-3-1990 issued by Mandal

Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri; that earlier the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and others filed a suit against one Nakka Narsing Rao and others for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.463 of 2018 on the file of Hon'ble I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist., and the said suit was dismissed in default on 06-12-2023; during the pendency of the said suit the injunction petition filed by the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and others was dismissed on 24-04-2019 in I.A.

No. 628 of 2018 and also observed in the said suit, inspite of the orders of the Hon'ble court the plaintiffs therein fails to produce the original the alleged Sale deed dated 18-06-1976.

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 13 of 23

iii)It is mentioned that, in another matter in W.P.No.4770 of 2013 which was filed byher mother for challenging the order passed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella

Division in file No.C/1000/2010 dated 16-04-2011 in respect of the lands situated at Attapur

Village, on the appeal filed by plaintiffs and others and in the said W.P. the Hon'ble High court directed to issue criminal proceedings against the then RDO who passed the alleged order and as per the directions of Prl. Secretary, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division filed a complaint before Rajendra

Nagar, P.S., against the then RDO B.Ratna Kumar who passed the alleged order in file

No.C/1000/2010 and the police Rajendra Nagar registered a case in crime No. 168 of 2013 for the offence U/Sec.409, 120-B IPC. That due to apprehension of arrest, the then RDO filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.11338 of 2013 with a prayer not to arrest him and in the said

W.P., the then RDO filed an affidavit stating that he has not dealt with the file

No.C/1000/2010 and he never passed the alleged order and also stated that the said order is a fabricated and created by forging his signature after his transfer. Further hereto mention that, the plaintiffs have fabricated the orders in File No.C/1000/2010 and also the orders in file No.C/2074/2008; that, after coming to know the said alleged order her mother filed a revision before the then Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy Dist., aggrieved by the order passed by the then RDO, Chevella in appeal file No.D5/4194 of 2013. Subsequently after bifurcation of Districts the said Revision was transferred to Joint Collector Medchal-

Malkajgiri Dist., and numbered as file No. D5/4158/2015 and in the said revision no notice was served to her mother or her counsel. That her mother was died on 17-12-2014 and the order was passed after the death of her mother by the Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri

Dist., on 27-08-2019 which is subsequent to the death of her mother; that after knowing the said fact about the dismissal of said Revision, she along with the defendant No. 3 filed W.P

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 14 of 23

No. 743 of 2020 before the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana and obtained suspension order and the said Writ Petition is pending. It is true that she along with defendant No.3 filed W.P.No.743/2020 but it is denied that by misrepresenting the facts they have obtained interim orders from the Hon'ble High court, hence the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same; it is true that her mother filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.23192 of 2009 before the Hon'ble High court challenging the issuance of Gazette Notification issued by the then A.P.Wakf Board and after the death of her mother they have filed LR petition and the same is pending; it is true that she along with her brother filed a suit in O.S.No.1955 of 2021 on the of Hon'ble XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court and they have been declared as Legal heirs of Yousuf Begum. It is denied that her mother Yousuf begum was succeeded by nearly 5 to 7 people and they the defendants 2 and 3 are not sole successors of said Yousuf Begum, hence the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same; that, her mother was blessed with 2 sons and one daughter. That her elder Azam Shareef was died prior to the death of her mother, as such his sons and two wives are pre-deceased successors to her mother and they are not entitled to claim any share of her mother.

iv)It is true that the defendants No.2 and 3 have filed an application dated 19-03-2022

before the Tahsildar Malkajgiri seeking grant of mutation in their favor covered her

Muntakhab No.959. The rest of allegations leveled in the para are hereby denied, hence the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same; that the defendants No.2 and 3 have appointed the defendant No.1 as their GPA Holder who is a builder and also having vast experience in construction of buildings and the remaining defendants who are associates in the business of defendant No. 1 who is used to enter into development agreement and also used to develop the property; that, the petitioners along with one Pilli Anjaneyulu Yaday have created by fabricating the documents, as such on her complaint the Police Malkajgiri

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 15 of 23

PS registered a case in Crime No. 723 of 2020 against the plaintiffs and others and also filed Charge Sheet against them vide C.C.No.1061 of 2024 and the same is pending before the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist., at

Kushaiguda. Further in a suit filed by Pill Anjaneyulu Yadav against her and others in

O.S.No.252 of 2021 before this Hon'ble Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri Dist.,

seeking for injunction against her and others and the Hon'ble Court dismissed the injunction petition vide orders passed in I.A.No. 100 of 2021. That even one G.Surya Narayana Reddy also filed a suit in O.S.No.249 of 2022 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-

Malkajgiri Dist., claiming that he also purchased property from the vendors of the plaintiffs namely Syed Shujath Ali Hussaini and others the Hon'ble court dismissed the injunction vide orders passed in I.A. No.471 of 2022; that, the plaintiff No.2 along with Syed Shujath

Ali Hussainini filed an impleading petition in I.A.No.622 of 2025 in O.S.No.249 of 2022 and the same is pending. That even the plaintiff No.2 filed impleading petition in O.S.No.252 of 2021 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist., on 11-12-2024. That the plaintiffs suppressed all these facts and filed the present suit and petition before this Hon'ble court.

4. Brief facts of the rejoinder filed by petitioners/plaintiffs:

Plaintiffs filed rejoinder to the counter filed by defendants. On traveling rejoinder it is found that the plaintiffs reiterated that the counter averments simply submitted borne by record. Hence, no need to reproduce rejoinder.

5.Heard the learned counsels for plaintiffs and defendants. Perused the record.

6. Now the points for consideration are :

1) Whether the order dated 18.11.2025 be made absolute or not?

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 16 of 23

2) To What relief?

7. Point No.1:

i)Learned counsel for plaintiffs submitted elaborately and explained all the documents.

Learned counsel for defendants also vehemently argued and explained the back ground of case.

ii)As per pleadings, oral submissions of learned counsels the undisputed fact is that the property was Muntakab bearing no. 959/1324F.

iii)The simple case of the plaintiffs is that Pasham Ranga Reddy, 2nd plaintiff herein purchased suit land through unregistered sale deed dated 18.06.1976 from Fakrunnisa

Begum, Sujath Ali and Basharath Ali Hussain. The plaintiff no.1 is the son of Pasham

Ranga Reddy.

iv)As per the affidavit and oral submission of learned counsels undoubtedly there is a legal jagron in the facts. I have also noticed that 1. Syed Shah Ali (Raja Hussain), 2. Syed

Rahmetullah Hussain, 3. Syed Shamshuddin, 4. Syed Basha Hussain, 5. Syed Makdum, 6.

Syed Naziruddin and 7. Syed Nahamatullah. These are the seven (7) persons said to have been transferred in favor of Faizunnisa Begum, who died issue-less. One Yousuf Begum and Tajunnisa Begum claimed as successors to Faizunnisa Begum. Tajunnisa Begum,

Sujath Ali, Basharath Ali and Fakrunnisa, arrayed as defendant no. 8 to 10 in OS.No.

89/1969. The defendants no. 8 to 10 are the alleged vendors of father of plaintiff no.1 herein and plaintiff no.2 herein.

v)This is a petition filed to grant temporary injunction, hence no need to look documents minutely but circumstances of case demanded to look documents for prima- facie case.

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 17 of 23

vi)The plaintiffs relied the following documents.

a) Ex.P1: is the General Power of Attorney without sale power. As seen Ex.P1, P.

Madhusudhan Reddy and Md. Riazuddin appointed Kaja Rayeezuddin, G. Hanmantha Rao and Mohd. Yasin and conferred rights to file suit before Officers with a rider not to sale.

Learned counsel for respondents argued that though there are three agents but only one agent signed the affidavit as such the petition is not maintainable. The contention of learned counsel for defendants is found force. Unless there is a express contract to waive, all the agents are supposed to sign. As seen the Ex.P1, there is no such averment in

Ex.P1. Therefore, the affidavit suffers for want of signature of all agents.

b) Ex.P2: is the Common Judgment dated 16.06.1976 in OS.No. 89/1969, OP.No.

243/1967, OP.No. 282/1969 and OP.No. 375/1971 on the file of Hon’ble Additional Chief

Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad. As seen Ex.P2, the

defendant no. 8 to 10 are Sujath Ali Hussain, Basarath Ali Hussain and Fakrunnisa Begum i.e., defendant no. 8 to 10. The Hon’ble Court held issue no.2 in OP.No.375/1971 as “the rival claimants for the amounts in deposit are the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant on the one hand and defendants no. 8 to 10 in the suit on the other hand; in view of my findings in the suit rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs to the property it follows that defendants no.8 to 10 are entitled to the amount in deposit.” Therefore, defendant no. 8 to 10 are entitled amount only.

c) Ex.P3: is the Judgment in CCC Appeal.No. 47/1979 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad dated 23.04.1999. The appeal arises against the judgment and decree in OS.No. 89/1969 dated 16.06.1976. The Hon’ble High Court affirmed the

Judgment and Decree in OS.No. 89/1969.

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 18 of 23

d) Ex.P4: is the Proceedings No. C/2074/2008 dated 27.11.2008 on the file of Special

Grade Deputy Collector and RDO, Chevella Division, R.R.District. This is the order against proceedings dated 21.03.2006 on the file of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri regarding refusal of regularization of unregistered sale deed on stamp paper in respect of

Sy.Nos. 401, 418, 419, 420, 421 etc., total extent Ac.248-18gts situated at Malkajgiri village.

The appellants are Pasham Madhusudhan Reddy, Pasham Venkat Reddy and Pasham

Susheela who are LR’s of Pasham Ranga Reddy. Mohd. Riyazuddin is also one among appellants. The respondents are Fakrunnisa Begum, Sujath Ali Hussain, Basharath Ali

Hussain. The learned RDO has pleased to allow the appeal and directed the Tahsildar,

Malkajgiri to take up the application for regularization of unregistered sale deed dated 18.06.1976 under Section 5-A of AP Rights in Land and Pattedhar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘Act’).

e) Ex.P5: is the 12 notice dated 19.03.2010.

f) Ex.P6: is the order of Hon’ble Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Keesara vide Proceedings No. D5/4194/2013 dated 27.08.2019. Aggrieved by orders of RDO,

Chevella Division dated 27.12.2008 in case no. C/2074/2008/ Ex.P4. Learned Joint

Collector while disposing the appeal advised the parties to approach Civil Court.

g) Ex.P7: is the order in WP.No. 43522/2022 wherein Haji Begum/defendant no.2 herein and another filed said petition and withdrawn.

h) Ex.P8: is the affidavit in WP.No. 43522/2022.

vii)The defendants relied the following documents:

a) Ex.R1: is the true copy of file no. B5/28396/59

b) Ex.R2: is the true copy of memo

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 19 of 23

c) Ex.R3: is the true copy of proceedings of MRO Malkajgiri no. B/2491/89 dated 07.03.90. The tenor of Ex.R3 is succession of Inam lands.

d) Ex.R4: is the CCC Appeal no. 47/1979

e) Ex.R5: is the Charge sheet in FIR.No. 723/2020. The complainant is defendant no.2 herein and accused are plaintiffs herein, besides Basharath Ali Hussain and Fakrunnisa

Begum

f) Ex.R6: is the true copy of written statement filed by defendant no.2 in OS.No.

89/1969

g) Ex.R7: is the written statement of defendant no. 8, 9 and 10 in OS.No. 89/1969

h) Ex.R8: is the Order in OS.No. 15/1967

i) Ex.R9: is the affidavit memorandum of writ petition no. 11338/2013. The petitioner is

B.V Ratna Kumar challenging the proceedings no. F/991/2023 dated 05.03.2013 and

FIR.No. 168/2013

j) Ex.R10: is the counter filed in WP.no. 11338/2013

k) Ex.R11: is the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent no.5 in WP.No. 11338/2013

l) Ex.R12: is the counter filed by respondent no.1 in WP.No. 11338/2013

m) Ex.R13: is the memorandum of writ petition in WP.No. 14253

n) Ex.R14: is the Order in IA.No. 628/2018 in OS.No. 463/2018 on the file of I Addl.

Junior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri.

o) Ex.R15: is the Docket order in OS.No. 463/2018

p) Ex.R16: is the Orders in CCCA No. 69/1967

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 20 of 23

q) Ex.R17: is the endorsement from the office of Tahsildar, Malkajagiri vide no.

2063/2019.

r) Ex.R18: is the true copy of order in IA.No. 622/2025 in OS 249/2022 dated 12.02.2026.

s) Ex.R19: is the decree in IA.No. 1123/2022 in OS.No. 252/2021 dated 11.12.2024.

t) Ex.R20: is the order in IA.No. 1123/2022 in OS.No. 252/2021 dated 11.12.2024.

viii)As per the affidavit, the case of the plaintiffs are that their application before MRO,

Malkajgiri to regularize unregistered sale deed is dismissed, aggrieved by it they filedappeal vide file no. C/2074/2008, on the file of the Special Grade Deputy Collector cum RDO,

Chevella, the same is allowed vide Ex.P4.

ix)Here, learned counsel for respondents got the attention of this court that the orders who passed orders under Ex.P4 namely B.V. Ratna Kumar, being the Special Grade

Deputy Collector cum Revenue Divisional Officer challenged the Ex.P4 stating that he has not passed the orders under Ex.P4, and his signature was forged, vide Ex.R9. As seen

Ex.R9. There is a criminal case registered against B.V. Ratna Kumar. In view of WP vide

Ex.R9, the Revenue proceedings are no way useful to the plaintiff.

x)To my understand the case of the plaintiffs are basing on unregistered sale deed way back 1976. The same document is not seen the day light till today. As per affidavit itself the said unregistered sale deed is not yet regularized. Therefore, entering of plaintiffs names in revenue record does not arise. The claim of the plaintiffs stands on the unregistered sale deed as such it is week piece of evidence. Muchless the exclusive possession over the petition schedule property is not supported any material. Accordingly,

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 21 of 23

prima-facie case whether the defendants are in lawful possession in petition schedule property to be decided during the trial does not arise.

xi)As far as balance of convenience, the Ex.P4 is the proceedings of B.V. Ratna Kumar directed the MRO to consider the unregistered sale deed but a criminal case is registered against him. Besides, Ex.P4 there is no other material in favor of plaintiffs, as such, there is no balance of convenience. If the petition is dismissed, no irreparable loss to the plaintiffs.

In case the plaintiffs succeeds, they may file restoration petition. Accordingly, point is answered against plaintiffs.

8.Learned counsel for defendant submitted that plaintiffs filed OS.No. 463/2018 and the same is dismissed for default, but no material relied. The plaintiffs suppressed FIR.No.

723/2020.

9. Point No.2:

In the result, the order dated 18.11.2025 is set aside.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29 th day of April, 2026).

FAC II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Kushaiguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT

- NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER

Ex.P1: is the General Power of Attorney without sale power

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 22 of 23

Ex.P2: is the Common Judgment dated 16.06.1976 in OS.No. 89/1969, OP.No. 243/1967,

OP.No. 282/1969 and OP.No. 375/1971 on the file of Hon’ble Additional Chief Judge-cum-

Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad

Ex.P3: is the Judgment in CCC Appeal.No. 47/1979 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad dated 23.04.1999

Ex.P4: is the Proceedings No. C/2074/2008 dated 27.11.2008 on the file of Special Grade Deputy Collector and RDO, Chevella Division, R.R.District

Ex.P5: is the 12 notice dated 19.03.2010.

Ex.P6: is the order of Hon’ble Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Keesara vide Proceedings No. D5/4194/2013 dated 27.08.2019

Ex.P7: is the order in WP.No. 43522/2022

Ex.P8: is the affidavit in WP.No. 43522/2022

FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.R1: is the true copy of file no. B5/28396/59

Ex.R2: is the true copy of memo

Ex.R3: is the true copy of proceedings of MRO Malkajgiri no. B/2491/89 dated 07.03.90.

Ex.R4: is the CCC Appeal no. 47/1979

Ex.R5: is the Charge sheet in FIR.No. 723/2020

Ex.R6: is the true copy of written statement filed by defendant no.2 in OS.No. 89/1969

Ex.R7: is the written statement of defendant no. 8, 9 and 10 in OS.No. 89/1969

Ex.R8: is the Order in OS.No. 15/1967

Ex.R9: is the affidavit memorandum of writ petition no. 11338/2013

Ex.R10: is the counter filed in WP.no. 11338/2013

Ex.R11: is the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent no.5 in WP.No. 11338/2013

Ex.R12: is the counter filed by respondent no.1 in WP.No. 11338/2013

Ex.R13: is the memorandum of writ petition in WP.No. 14253

Ex.R14: is the Order in IA.No. 628/2018 in OS.No. 463/2018 on the file of I Addl. Junior

Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri.

Ex.R15: is the Docket order in OS.No. 463/2018

Ex.R16: is the Orders in CCCA No. 69/1967

Ex.R17: is the endorsement from the office of Tahsildar, Malkajagiri vide no. 2063/2019.

IA.No.595/2025 in OS.No. 855/2025 Page 23 of 23

Ex.R18: is the true copy of order in IA.No. 622/2025 in OS 249/2022 dated 12.02.2026.

Ex.R19: is the decree in IA.No. 1123/2022 in OS.No. 252/2021 dated 11.12.2024.

Ex.R20: is the order in IA.No. 1123/2022 in OS.No. 252/2021 dated 11.12.2024.

FAC II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Kushaiguda.

Page No. 1 of 14

SC No.103 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT : AT KUSHAIGUDA

PRESENT : Sri Ravinder Sattu, Assistant Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda

Wednesday 22nd day of April, 2026

S.C. NO.103 OF 2013

PRC No.76/2011 on the file X Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri in Crime No.311/2011 of Police

station, P.S.Neredmet of Rachakonda Comissionarate.

1Nameand*The state of telangana, through Sub-Inspector description ofofpolice,Neredmet, Rachakonda the*Comissionarate. Complainant 2Nameand*A1: Korimindla Narender Goud, S/o.Nadhan, description ofaged 38 years, Caste: Goud, Occ:Business, the Accused.*R/o.Plot No.24, Deendayal Nagar, Neredmet.

A2: Smt.Aerva Uma Devi @ Uma, W/o.Ram Chandra Reddy, aged about 34 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.30-1610/101, Surya Nagar, Safilguda, Neredmet.

3Offences with* Under Section 307 R/w.109 of Indian Penal whichCode. charged.* 4Counsel for*Sri Avula Ravi, Addl.Public prosecutor. the prosecuton* 5Counsel for*Sri Gurjeet Singh, Counsel for accused No.1 the Accusedand Sri Satyanarayana, Counsel for accused *No.2 6Plea of the* Pleaded not Guilty Accused 7PRC No.* PRC No.76/2011 on the file X Metropolitan

Page No. 2 of 14

SC No.103 of 2013

Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri in Crime

No.311/2011 of Police station, P.S.Neredmet of Rachakonda Comissionarate.

8CaseSmt.P.Sridevi, X Metroplitan Magistrate, committed byM.M.District, at Malkajgiri.

9Findingof*Found not guilty under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C courtfor the offence under section 307 R/w.109. * 10 Sentence or*the accused No.1 and 2 are found not Orderofguilty for the offences punishable under Court*Sections 307 against accused No.1 and 307

R/w.109 IPC against accused No.2, they

are acquitted for the same offence under

Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of

accused are ordered to be in force for a

period of 6 months U/s.437-A Cr.P.C.

M.O.No.1/Iron rod shall be destroyed after

appeal time.

This case coming before me to day on 7 th day of April, 2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Avula Ravi, Addl.Public prosecutor, for State and of Sri Gurjeet Singh, Counsel for accused No.1 and Sri Satyanarayana, Counsel for accused No.2 and upon perusing material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This sessions case arose out of charge sheet filed by the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Neredmet Police Station, before learned

X Metropolitan Magistrate, M.M. District, at Malkajgiri, in Crime

No.311/2011 for the offence punishable under section 307 R/w.109

Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

2.Contents of the report:

(i).On 9-7-2011 at 20.30 hours K.Venkat Reddy/Inspector of police received a requisition from LW1/A.Srinivas Reddy stating that,

Page No. 3 of 14

SC No.103 of 2013

on 8-7-2011 at about 23.00 hours his brother A.Ram Chandra Reddy while sleeping in their residence two unknown persons went to his residence by wearing masks, knocked the door, when his brother came out from their house by opening the door, all of sudden they beat him with sticks, caused bleeding injuries and fled away from there and he requested for necessary action.

(ii)Basing on contents of above complaint, on 9-11-2011 at 20.30 hours, PW11 K.Venkat Reddy received a petition from A.Srinivas

Reddy, he registered a case in Cr.No.311/2011, under section 324

R/w.34 IPC and entrusted to SI Vijay Kumar for further investigation.

PW-10/P.Vijay Kumar on 9-7-2011 for further investigation; during his investigation, he recorded statement of LW1/A.Srinivas Reddy, visited Shreya Hospital, Neredmet, where he recorded statement of

LW2/A.Rama Chandra Reddy; he visited scene of offence, where he recorded the statements of A.Chandra Shekar Reddy, Shiva Reddy, CR

Khailash and Prasanna Kumar, he drawn Crime Detail Form and rough sketch in the presence of D.Shantha Ramesh Babu and

T.Pradeep; later he collected SIM cards pertaining to mobile number of suspected persons; as per CDR he apprehended accused No.1 on 7-12-2011 at 17.30 hours at Shanthoshi Nagar, Neredmet; he secured panchas T.Janardhan and Y.Malik, on interrogation accused No.1 confessed his guilt, on his confession, he seized iron rod and one simcard and also apprehend accused No.2; she also confessed to have committed this offence, on her information he seized one simcard; he arrested A1 and A2 and produced before court for judicial custody; he has collected medical certificate from Shreya hospital, as per MC injuries are grievous; as per confession of accused No.1 and 2; he filed alteration memo from Section 324 r/w.34 IPC to 307 r/w.109 of IPC.

After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused.

Page No. 4 of 14

SC No.103 of 2013

3.Prosecution case:

LW-1/A.Srinivas Reddy is complainant and elder brother of

LW-2. The LW-2/A.Rama Chandra Reddy is resident of Surya

Nagar Colony, Safilguda and he is deaf and dumb person; A2 is wife of LW2 and had two children in their conjugal life, LW-2 is working as Govt Ration dealer earlier; earlier the LW-2 stayed in Deendayal

Nagar Colony. Neredmet; now he shifted his residence in newly - constructed building at Surya Nagar Colony, Neredmet; A-1 is native of Mariyala Village, Bommala Ramaram Mandal of Nalgonda

Dist about 15 years ago he came down to Hyderabad and staying near by the house of LW-2; A-1 had illicit intimacy with the A-2 from the last 3 years, used to visit the house of LW-1 in the guise of helping in his needs; thereafter the A-1 procured two Mobile SIM

Cards bearing No.9393332174 & 9393332104 one is for his self and another one to A-2, used to talk and meet with her frequently in the absence of LW-2; thereafter the LW-2 suspected the fidelity of A-2 as she had illicit intimacy with the A-1 and questioned about her illegal activities with the A-1; on that the A-2 informed the same to the A-1 about the behaviour of LW-1 and hatched a plan to do away the LW-2 from his life; according to their plan on 08.07.2011 the A-1 went to the house of LW-1 and used to consume liquor with the LW-2 in their house; according to their plan on the same day prior to 23.00 hrs A-2 kept the Chilly powder and Iron rod in front of their door and slept in their house; at about 23.00 hrs the accused A-1 went to the house of LW-2 knocked the door, when the LW-2 came out by opening the door, all of sudden the A-1 sprinkled the chilly powder into the eyes of LW-2 and beat him with Iron rod Indiscriminately with intention to kill him and fled away from there; while beating him, the LW-2 kept his hands to

Page No. 5 of 14

SC No.103 of 2013

protect from the A-1 as a result the LW-2 sustained severe injuries to his left leg and hand; as per the confessional statements of the

A-1 & A-2 the section of law was altered from 324 r/w 34 IPC to

Sec.307 r/w 109 IPC; thereby the accused A-1 committed offences punishable U/s 307 IPC and the A-2 committed offence U/s 109

IPC.

4.Learned X Metroplitan Magistrate, M.M.District, at Malkajgiri has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 307

R/w.109 IPC vide PRC No.311/2011 and after complying with requirement of furnishing copies of relevant documents U/s. 207

Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has perused the material on record and committed case to the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar as the case is exclusively triable by Hon'ble

Court of Sessions. Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at Ranga Reddy District registered the case as SC No.103 of 2013 and made over it to the Court of Prl.Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at

L.B.Nagar. As per the orders of the Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions

Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar vide Dis.No.2942/2021,

dated 9-6-2021 and On 9-6-2021 on establishment of this Court this

case is transferred to this Court for disposal accordingly.

5.On appearance of accused and on hearing both sides charges framed under two heads for the offence punishable under Sections 307 against accused No.1 and 307 R/w.109 IPC against the accused

No.2, read over and explained to them in Vernacular language, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws. 1 to 11 are examined and

Ex. P1 to 10 are exhibited. M.O.No.1 marked.

Page No. 6 of 14

SC No.103 of 2013

8.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, as required u/s.313 Cr.P.C. the incriminating evidence is read over in vernacular language to which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides. Persued the record.

i.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed written arguments.

ii.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused contended that, the prosecution failed to establish the charges. Hence prayed to acquit the accused.

10.The point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 against A1 and 307 R/w.109 IPC against A2 beyond reasonable doubt or not?

POINT:

This court framed the charges hereunder:

FIRSTLY: It is alleged that you accused No. 1 having illicit intimacy with you/A2 wife of Aerva Rama Chandra Reddy/LW2 injured hatched a plan to kill Rama Chandra Reddy/LW2 by abetting and conspiracy and on or about the 8th day of July 2011 at 23.00 hours you/A1 went to the house of Rama Chandra Reddy/LW2 injured at Surya Nagar Colony where you/A2 kept chilly powder and iron rod ready for you/A1 and further on opening the door by LW2/Rama Chandra Reddy, you/A1 sprinkled chilly powder into his eyes and beat him with iron rod indiscriminately as a result of which LW2/Rama Chandra Reddy sustained severe grievous injuries to his left leg and hand and you accused No. 1 thereby attempted to murder LW2/Rama Chandra Reddy and committed an offence punishable under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code within my cognizance.

Page No. 7 of 14

SC No.103 of 2013

And I hereby direct that you accused No. 1 be tried by this court for the sar charge of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

SECONDLY: It is alleged that you accused No. 1 having illicit intimacy with you/A2 wife of Aerva Rama Chandra Reddy/LW2 hatched a plan to kill Rama Chandra Reddy/LW2 with and on or about the 8th day of July, 2011 at 23.00 hours, you/A2 in furtherance of your criminal conspiracy kept Iron rod and chilly powder in front of the door of house of you/A2 situated at Surya Nagar Colony and on that you/A1 went there and sprinkled chilly powder into the eyes of Rama Chandra Reddy/LW2 and also beat him with iron rod indiscriminately as a result of which LW2/Rama Chandra Reddy sustained severe grievous injuries to his left leg and hand and you accused No. 2 abetted the accused No. 1 by your act of instigation, conspiracy and aiding by your act/illegal ommissions of wife of LW2/Rama Chandra Reddy and abetted the offence or attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby you accused No. 2 committed an offence punishable under Sec.307 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct that you accused No. 2 be tried by this court for the said charge of Section 307 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

11.The prosecution in order to bring the accused home of guilt produced PW1 to 11. PW1 is the complainant, PW2 is the injured,

PW3 to PW6 are circumstantial witnesses, PW7 is panch witness for scene of offence, PW8 is panch witness for confession and seizure of

A1 and A2, PW9 is doctor who treated PW2, PW10 and PW11 are investigation officers. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW7/D.S.Ramesh Babu and closed the evidence of

LW10/Y.Mallik.

Page No. 8 of 14

SC No.103 of 2013

12.As per the prosecution case, the victim is running ration shop.

Accused No.2 is wife of victim. Accused No.1 is developed illicit relation with accused No.2. Accused No.1 purchased simcards on his name and one provided to accused No.2 and used to touch through such phones. Accused No.1 and victim are friends. On 8-7-2011 accused No.1 went to the house of victim and consumed liquor to the victim in his house. As per their plan, accused No.2 kept the chilli powder and iron rod in front of their door and slept in their house. At about 23.00 hours accused No.1 went to the house of victim knocked the door and victim came out by opening the door. All of sudden accused No.1 sprinkled the chilli powder in to the eyes of victim, bet him with iron rod indiscriminately with intention to kill him and fled away. Victim received severe injuries.

13.As per the prosecution case the incident occurred in the house of victim and A2 about 2300 hours. Therefore, now see identification of culprit.

14.Victim is testified as PW2. PW2 is undisputedly deaf and dump.

The investigation officer had taken assistance of special educator and while recording chief evidence too this court has taken assistance of

Y.Sneha who is the School Assistant of Deaf and Dumb School,

Malakpet.

15.The testimony of PW2 is that, accused No.2 is his wife, PW1 and

PW3 are his brothers; he had asked accused No.1 for return of Rs.6 lakhs as he gave him for purchasing lorry and regarding money there was some quarrel between himself and accused No.1. The statement

Page No. 9 of 14

SC No.103 of 2013

of PW2, will go to show the acquaintance between accused No.1 and victim.

16.The testimony of PW2 further go to show that, on 8-7-2011 in the night hours somebody has knocked the door and he opened the door and A1 has sprinkled chilli powder in his house and bet him with iron rod and he has sustained fracture injury to his left hand and left leg besides bleeding injuries.

17.As seen statement of victim before police that, we may notice that, he stated before police that, one person sprinkled chilli powder.

Whereas before this court he deposed that, accused No.1 sprinkled chilli powder. The identification of accused No.1 before this court is nothing but exaggeration. As per the confession of accused No.1 and 2, the investigation officer added accused No.2 in this case.

However, the victim deposed nothing against accused No.2. even learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought permission from court and declared the PW2 as hostile and further examined. During further examination also the victim PW2 deposed that, he has not deposed anything against his wife. Victim denied the suggestion that, he has taken before police that, there is close relationship between A1 and A2 and stated to the same to the police as in Ex.P2 and now deposed false to help his wife. As per prosecution victim/PW2 consumed liquor on that day. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 as to the identity of accused No.1 is not substantiate peace of evidence.

18.Srinivas Reddy who is the brother of victim brought the law into motion by way of lodging report vide Ex.P1. Srinivas Reddy testified as PW1 proved contents in Ex.P1 report. Ex.P1 is not an encyclopedia to have all facts. In the same Ex.P1, it is reported that, one unknown

Page No. 10 of 14

SC No.103 of 2013

persons wearing face masks bet his brother. The testimony of PW1 is hearsay evidence.

19.Chandra Sekhar Reddy who is another brother of PW1 and PW2 is testified as PW3. His evidence as to the occurrence of offence is also hearsay evidence. PW3 deposed that, accused No.1 had taken loan of Rs.7 or 8 lakhs from PW2 and PW2 insisted to return the amount. This statement will go to show the acquaintance of accused and PW2. As per the prosecution case, the incident occurred on 8-7-2011 whereas he was examined by police on 15-7-2011.

Therefore, there are chances of implication of accused No.1 and 2 during the alleged incident i.e., 8-7-2011 to 15-7-2011. However, PW3 is not an eye witness to the occurrence. PW1 and 3 deposed that, son of PW2 informed about the incident. Prosecution has not produced son of PW2 as witness.

20.R.Prasanna Kumar who is another circumstantial witness testified as PW4. His evidence will go to show that, accused No.1 and victim are known persons. His oral testimony as to the incident that, he received phone call from PW3 that, somebody attacked on PW2.

Therefore, the evidence of PW4 is also hearsay evidence to the occurrence.

21.C.R.Kailash who is another circumstantial witness categorically deposed that, A1 and PW2 are friends. He came to know about the occurrence on 8-7-2011 at about 11.30 pm. His testimony will go to show that, he is also hearsay witness.

22.SCENE OF OFFENCE:

PW10 who was Sub-Inspector of police with P.S.Neredmet from

June, 2009 to August, 2012, visited the scene of offence, recorded the

Page No. 11 of 14

SC No.103 of 2013

statements of A.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Shiva Reddy, C.R.Kailash and

Prasanna Kumar; he drawn CDF and rough sketch in the presence of

D.Shana Ramesh Babu and T.Praveen. T.Praveen testified as PW7 and he deposed that, on 10-7-2011 at 9.00 am when he was proceeding to house of PW2 then police called him to his house, they conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence drawn rough sketch. The evidence of PW7 is not shuttered. Therefore, the scene of offence is corroborated.

22.S EIZURE OF PROPERTY:

The seizure of property in the present case must be discovered basing on confession of accused No.1 and as per Section 27 of Indian

Evidence Act. The incident occurred on 8-7-2011. The FIR is issued on 9-7-2011. The investigation officer apprehended the accused No.1 on 7-12-2011 brought him to police station, Neredmet where the investigation officer has chosen T.Janardhan and Y.Mallik as independent inhabitants. As per confession of A1, the investigation officer seized simcards, found the accused No.2. Therefore, the evidence of independent witnesses are very much crucial to support prosecution case.

23.T.Janardhan is testified as PW8. PW8 deposed that, he is a politician used to go police station; Vijay Kumar, SI obtained his signature at police station. PW8 identified his signatures vide Ex.P5 to P8. As PW8 turned hostile learned Assistant Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court to declare him as hostile, accordingly permitted and further examined. In further examination, PW8 denied that, police conducted confession on 7-12-2011 at P.S.Neredmet later police seized one iron rod, reliance simcards.

Page No. 12 of 14

SC No.103 of 2013

24.The evidence of Y.Mallik is closed. As scrutinized the evidence of PW8, the seizure of iron rod, simcards and founding of accused

No.2 in Lungerhouse is not established. As per section 25 of Indian

Evidence Act, confession cannot be proved therefore, the seizure is not established.

25.I NJURIES:

As per prosecution case, Dr.A.Srinath examined the injured and testified before this court as PW9. He deposed that, he is the

Managing Director of Sriya Multi Speciality Hospital. He deposed that, on 8-7-2011, A.Ramachandra Reddy was brought to his hospital through his brother at 11.45 pm; his duty doctor treated injured person and issued injury certificate. He deposed that, he can identify duty doctor signature, accordingly identified vide Ex.P9. Therefore, the injuries to A.Rama Chandra Reddy are proved.

26.The evidence of PW10 being a investigation officer is that, he collected simcards pertaining to mobile number of suspected persons.

In his cross-examination, PW10 admitted that, he did not collect the documents to show on whose name the simcards are issued. He deposed that, as per CDF he apprehended accused No.1 on 7-12-2011 at 1730 hours at Santoshi Nagar, Neredmet. As I discussed above, about the seizure of iron rod, simcard and apprehension of accused

No.2 that, the seizure is not established.

27.As far as concerned evidence of victim who is deaf and dumb.

PW10 clarified that, he has taken assistance of translator. This court while recording evidence of PW2 has also taken assistance of special educator. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 is not suffered from any infirmities. But PW2 could not identified culprit. However, such evidence is not vidographed.

Page No. 13 of 14

SC No.103 of 2013

28.PW11 who registered the case and handed over to PW10 for further investigation.

OTIVE: M

29.In each and every case presence of motive is not necessary. As per the prosecution case, victim and accused No.2 are husband and wife. Victim and accused No.1 are acquainted each other. The prosecution alleged that, accused No.1 developed illegal intimacy with accused No.2 and they conspired to eliminate victim. Except the oral evidence of PW1 to 4, there is no material to establish the evil motive and mensrea. The seizure of simcards are not supported by independent witnesses. Earlier this case was on the file of

III Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Assistant Sessions

Judge, R.R.District, Hon’ble VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District and prior to that, On receipt of this file, my predecessor and myself addressed a letter Dis No.319/2024, dated 22-7-2024 to the III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,

Lr.Dis No.512/2024, dated 20-11-2024 Lr.Dis. No.33/2025, dated 20-01-2025. VII Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, R.R.District but the property has not yet transferred.

30.Having discussed above, in my considered opinion, the prosecution failed to establish identity of accused No.1, failed to prove nexus between the accused and injuries vide Ex.P9 muchless through

M.O.No.1. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, which is weak peace of evidence. Accordingly, the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond all reasonable doubt.

31.In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 307 against accused No.1 and

Page No. 14 of 14

SC No.103 of 2013

307 R/w.109 IPC against accused No.2, they are acquitted for the same offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused

are ordered to be in force for a period of 6 months U/s.437-A

Cr.P.C. M.O.No.1/Iron rod shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer G-II directly on the computer and after corrections, pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 22 nd day of April, 2026.

Assistant Sessions Judge, M.M. District, at Kushaiguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:- ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:- P.W1Srinivas Reddy-Nil- PW2A.Ramachandra Reddy PW3Chandra Shekar Reddy PW4Rudra Prasanna Kumar PW5Kailash PW6Shiva Reddy PW7T.Praveen PW8T.Janardhan PW9Dr.A.Srikanth PW10P.Vijay Kumar PW11K.Venkat Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:- Ex.P1 Report Ex.P2Sec.161 Cr.P.C.statement content of PW2 Ex.P3Scene of offence Ex.P4 Rough sketh Ex.P5 to 8 Signatures of PW8 on confession statement of accused Ex.P9MLC Ex.P10FIR ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:- -Nil- MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:- M.O.1Iron rod

Assistatnt Sessions Judge, M.M. District, at Kushaiguda.

Page No.1 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUSHAIGUDA

Present : Sri Ravinder Sattu, Prl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

Monday, 27th day of April, 2026.

I.A.No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

Between : Smt. Musku Sathamma, W/o. Biksham Reddy, Aged about : 65 Yrs., Occ : Housewife, R/o.H.No.2-6-435, Jaipuri Colony, Nagole, Uppal Mandal, MM District – 500 068.

...Petitioner /Plaintiff

AND

1. Sri.Musku Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Biksham Reddy, aged about 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o R/o.H.No.2-6-435, Jaipuri Colony, Nagole, Uppal Mandal, MM District – 500 068.

2. Smt. Surideedi Sruti, D/o.Sri.S.K.Durga Prasad, Aged about : 38 Yrs., Occ : Pvt.Employee, R/o.H.No.11-8-221/A, Kranthi Nagar, Saroor Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, TS.

.... Respondents/Defendants

This Petition is coming up before me for final hearing on 27-04-2026 in the presence of Sri J.Narsmiha, Counsel for Petitioner/Plaintiff and M/s.J.Ananth Ram, Counsel for Respondent No.2 Defendant No.2 and Respondent No.1 / Defendant no.1 set exparte and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

Page No.2 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

O R D E R

1.This petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/w. section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short "code") praying this Court to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, family members, legal heirs, successors, from interfering into her peaceful possession of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. The Petitioner is hereinafter referred as plaintiff. The Respondents are hereinafter referred as defendants.

2.Brief facts of affidavit:

(i).Smt.Musku Sathamma who is plaintiff filed affidavit and submitted that, she was the mother of Defendant No.1 and she along with her husband (Both are senior citizens) and Defendant No.1 first wife (Shobha) and their two children residing at House bearing No.2-6-435/1 (PTI No.1030211792), admeasuring 124 Sq. yards or 103.66 Sq.mtrs.

situated at Ward No.2, Block No.6, Jaipuri Colony, Nagole, under GHMC,

Hayathnagar Circle, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and the

Defendant No.1 left her first wife and their two children and while the

Family Divorce OP was Pending, Defendant No.1 illegally married Second wife, who is Defendant No.2 herein, the said marriage is not valid.

(ii).She submitted that, she was the absolute Owner and Possessor of the House bearing No.2-6-435/1 (PTI No. 1030211792), admeasuring 124 Sq. yards or 103.66 Sq.mtrs, situated at Ward No.2. Block No.6,

Jaipuri Colony. Nagole, under GHMC, Hayathnagar Circle, Uppal

Mandal. Medchal-Malkajgiri District (which is more fully described in the SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY and hereinafter called as the SUIT

SCHEDULE PROPERTY).

Page No.3 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

(iii).She submitted that, the Government of Telangana had Assigned the Patta for Land under below poverty vide Proceedings

No.B/NAGOLE/03/15 & RDO/B/433/2015 Dated 30-05-2015 after due enquiry in favour of the Plaintiff and fulfillment of the terms and conditions of G.O.Ms.No.58 and recommendation made by the

Committee of assignment Dated 29-03-2015 under the Chair

Person-ship of Revenue Divisional Office, Malkajgiri Division.

(iv).She submitted that, Defendant No.1 is her son hatched a Plan and forced her that he will obtain loan and complete house construction; she submitted that, she believed his version and transferred the Suit

Schedule Property in his name on 14-02-2022 vide document

No.2651/2022 registered at S.R.O. Uppal for obtaining loan only by him and he had given Undertaking Affidavit on Rs.100/- Non-Judicial Stamp

Paper stating that the Gift Deed was obtained for availing loan only.

(v). She submitted that, Defendant No.1 had cheated her instead of taking the loan he had transferred the Suit Schedule Property in favour of the Defendant No.1 through Registered Sale Deed bearing document

No.7498/2024, dated 04-06-2024 registered at S.R.O. Uppal and later upon enquiry it came to her notice that the Defendant No.2 is second and illegal wife of Defendant No.1, have hatched plan and trying to knock out her from the said house and Defendants stated that she will face dire consequences if she along with her husband and Defendant

No.1 first wife and children not leave the house; she submitted that, the

Suit Schedule Property was assigned Patta Land it was only heritable, but not transferable to any person.

Page No.4 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

(vi). She submitted that, she registered the gift deed for limited purpose only, and she has not delivered physical possession of the schedule property to the Defendant No.1 and she was still enjoying the physical possession of the schedule property without interruption from anybody.

(vii). She submitted that, on 01-03-2025 the Defendants along with their supporter trying to interfere into her Peaceful Possession, she and her family members resisted their interference and the Defendants threatened her and her family members to dispossess the same and left the place.

(viii). She submitted that, again on 04-07-2025 Defendants along with their henchmen again entered into Suit Scheduled Property to take possession of the same illegally; she resisted their efforts with the help by and friends; on meeting resistance neighbors Defendants left the place but while leaving he threatened that he will be coming again with more man power and force and dislodge her from the Possession of Suit

Scheduled Property; she submitted that, she made police complaint but the police instead of taking cognizance, advise her to approach Civil

Court for proper relief.

(ix).She submitted that, she was a Senior Citizen and she has no any shelter to stay at his stage, the Defendants No.1 & 2 trying to from the

Suit Schedule Property and the dispossess her Defendant No.2 is trying to alienate the Suit schedule Property to the third parties.

(x) She submitted that, under these circumstances she has no alternative except to approach this Hon'ble Court for Declaration of Suit

Page No.5 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

by seeking to cancellation of the document bearing Nos.2651/2022 and declare the Document No.7498/2024 are null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff and grant perpetual injunction against the

Respondents/Defendants; she submitted that, she has got prima-facie case and having balance of convenience in her favour and the Hon'ble court having ample powers to allow the above petition. Hence the petition.

3.Counter affidavit filed by the defendant No.1 and submitted that the plaintiff voluntarily gifted the suit schedule property to Defendant

No.1 by executing a registered Gift Deed bearing Document

No.2651/2022, registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Uppal; thereafter, in order to clear their financial liabilities, the plaintiff and

Defendant No.1 decided to sell the said property to third parties.

(ii).Defendant No.1 submitted that, the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 requested Defendant No. 2 and her father either to identify a purchaser or to purchase the property themselves; accordingly, the father of

Defendant No. 2 paid the entire sale consideration, and in that manner

Defendant No. 2 purchased the suit schedule property through a registered Sale Deed, dated 07-06-2024, bearing Document No. 7498 of 2024, registered before the Sub-Registrar, Uppal, out of the amounts paid by her parents; in view of the above facts, the contention of the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property is false and untenable; after the purchase of the property, the defendant herein permitted the plaintiff and other family members to reside in the said property, and therefore the plaintiff and other family members are in permissive possession of the suit schedule property.

Page No.6 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

(iii).Defendant No.1 submitted that, the defendant herein also permitted the plaintiff (mother-in-law) to let out three shutters measuring 30 x 30 feet situated in H. No. 2-6-435, Jaipuri Colony,

Nagole, Hyderabad, to a tenant; as per the instructions of the plaintiff, the said premises were let out for carrying on business under the name and style of "Mahalaxmi Electrical (Hardware, Paints, an Sanitary)" on a monthly rent of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only), which has since been enhanced, and the present monthly rent is Rs. 42,000/- (Rupees Forty-Two Thousand only).

(iv).Defendant No.1 submitted that, with malafide intention, the plaintiff brought the ex-wife of Defendant No. 1 to the suit schedule property and permitted her to reside along with them; the plaintiff thereafter started abusing Defendant No. 2 and frequently picked quarrels with her, as a result of which the defendants were constrained to reside separately.

(v).Defendant No.1 submitted that, the plaintiff, in collusion with her daughters, has been disputing the title of Defendant No.2; the daughters of the plaintiff have filed a suit seeking partition of the suit schedule property, vide O.S.No. 672 of 2024, on the file of the learned Principal

Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District at L.B. Nagar, without having any legitimate right, title, or interest over the suit schedule property; the said suit is pending adjudication.

(vi).Defendant No.1 submitted that, the plaintiff and her husband filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional

Page No.7 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

Magistrate, Keesara Division, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, functioning as

the Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and

Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, seeking relief of monthly maintenance from Defendant No. 1 and also seeking cancellation of the

Gift Deed and Sale Deed, which are the very reliefs prayed for in the present suit; upon receipt of notice, Defendant No. 2, along with her father, attended the hearing before the R.D.O. on 25-04-2025; after completion of the hearing, while Defendant No. 2 and her father were at their car, a Honda Amaze bearing Registration No.TS-08-EK 8353, the plaintiff, her husband, the ex-wife of Respondent No.1, namely Shobha, and three other individuals verbally abused Defendant No. 2 using filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences; thereafter, the husband of the plaintiff, namely Biksham Reddy, picked up a granite stone and threw it at the said car, causing damage; the ex-wife of

Defendant no.1, Shobha, and the plaintiff also threw stones at the vehicle, further damaging it; consequently, Defendant No.2 lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Keesara Police Station, and a case was registered as FIR No. 381 of 2025, which is pending on the file of the Hon'ble III Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at

Kushaiguda; it is further submitted that on 28-05-2025, the R.D.O.

passed an order directing Defendant No.1 to pay maintenance of

Rs. 10,000/- per month to his parents by depositing the same into their bank account on or before the 5th day of every month; the relief of cancellation of the Gift Deed and Sale Deed was specifically rejected; the plaintiff neither challenged the said order before the Appellate Tribunal (District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District) nor disclosed the said proceedings before this Hon'ble Court and has thus suppressed material facts, and filed the present suit seeking the same relief of cancellation of

Page No.8 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

the Gift Deed bearing Document No.2651/2022 and the Sale Deed bearing Document No. 7498/2024, both registered at S.RO., Uppal.

(vii). Defendant No.1 submitted that, having failed in their attempt

before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the plaintiff has filed the present

suit against the defendants with false, frivolous, and baseless allegations, solely for wrongful gain and with an ill intention to grab the suit schedule property; accordingly, the defendant herein caused a legal notice dated 09-09-2025 to be issued to the plaintiff herein through her advocate by registered post to her address, calling upon the plaintiff and other family members to vacate and hand over vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property to Defendant No. 2 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice; the notice further made it clear that from the 16th day onwards, i.e., after expiry of the said 15 days, the possession of the plaintiff and other family members would be treated as illegal and unauthorized, rendering them trespassers, and that they would be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs:1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) per month for use and unauthorized occupation of the suit schedule property till delivery of vacant possession.

(viii). Defendant No.1 submitted that, even after receipt of the said legal notice, the plaintiff and other family members failed to comply with the same and instead issued a false reply notice dated 29-10-2025; despite service of notice, the plaintiff and other family members have intentionally and deliberately failed to vacate the suit schedule property, with a mala-fide intention to deprive Defendant No. 2 of her lawful right, title, and possession over the suit schedule property and to unlawfully enrich themselves; hence, the defendant herein was constrained to file a suit seeking declaration that Defendant No. 2 is the absolute owner of

Page No.9 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

the suit schedule property and for a consequential direction to the plaintiff and other family members/defendants therein to vacate and hand over vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property, and also for an award of damages at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till delivery of vacant possession, in the interest of justice.

(ix).Defendant No.1 submitted that, the plaintiff, without any valid right or title, is unlawfully collecting rent at the rate of Rs. 40,000/-per month from a tenant, namely "Mahalaxmi Electricals (Hardware, Paints, and Sanitary)", in respect of the ground floor consisting of three shutters measuring 30 x 30 feet of the said property; documentary proof evidencing the said tenancy and receipt of rental income is annexed herewith for the kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.Defendant no.1 set exparte.

5.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petition is liable to be allowed or not”?

6.POINT:

The plaintiff in order to get temporary injunction should establish three cardinal principles those are prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.

7. Learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the defendant no.1 played fraud in obtained gift deed and dishonestly transferred in favour of defendant no.2 who is claiming as second wife of defendant no.1;

Page No.10 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

First wife of defendant no.1 along with plaintiff are in possession of petition schedule property, hence prayed to allow this petition.

8. Learned counsel for defendant no.2 submitted that the plaintiff and her husband misrepresented that defendant no.1 got divorce with his first wife; father of defendant no.2 paid total sale consideration to the defendant no.1, hence the defendant no.2 permitted the plaintiff to stay and the plaintiff is collecting rents from tenants; the plaintiff approached RDO to cancel the gift deed but the same is dismissed; the plaintiff and her daughters colluded with each other filed another suit for Partition and now filed the present suit, therefore, the plaintiff suppressed material fact, hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

9. This is the suit filed for cancellation of gift deed no.2651/2022, dt.14-02-2022 and declare document no.7498/2024 dt.7-06-2024.

10. The undisputed facts are that plaintiff is owner of petition schedule property it is evident as per gift deed bearing no.2651/2022, and the same is admitted by defendant no.2.

11. The frima pacie case is whether the defendant no.1 cheated while execution of gift deed bearing no.2651/2022 stating that the purpose of gift deed was only to obtain loan. As seen Ex.P.6,

M. Biksham Reddy reduced into writing stating that the House no.2-6- 435/1 is registered on the name of Sudhakar Reddy for purpose of loan.

The genuinity of Ex.P6 cannot be decided at this stage since it is unregistered document.

Page No.11 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

12. As seen sale deed no.7498/2024 dt.07-06-2024, the vendor is defendant no.1. The counter case of the defendant no.2 is that the plaintiff and her husband including defendant no.1 represented that the defendant no.l got divorce with his first wife and married defendant no.2.

Further case of defendant no.2 is that the defendant no.1 and 2 blessed a male child on 14-11-2023 namely : Nairit.

13. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant no.1 obtained gift deed for purpose of loan. Now the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove material to show the defendant no.1 approached any bank for loan. As seen from the record there is no material to show that defendant no.1 approached any bank and made application. The Gap between gift deed and sale deed will clearly show that the purpose of execution of gift deed appears to be to show some security to the defendant no.2. The reason is that there is no rejoinder filed by the plaintiff denying the marriage and birth of child to the defendant no.2 through defendant no.1. Like wise there is no rejoinder as to the approach of plaintiff before RDO to cancel the gift deed. Even there is no disclosure of Partition Suit filed by daughter’s of plaintiff in respect of same suit schedule property.

14. This is the suit for cancellation of gift deed basing on cheating.

However the plaintiff approached RDO for cancellation of gift deed but the same is dismissed. The plaintiff suppressed the filing of Partition

Suit by her daughter. In a suit for cancellation of document u/s.31 of

Specific relief Act, the parties are expected to approach this court with clean hands and free from blemish.

Page No.12 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

15. However as per counter the plaintiff, first wife of defendant no.1 and tenants are in possession of suit schedule property. It is evident further that the defendant no.2 filed suit for recovery of possession.

Therefore, the possession of plaintiff cannot be disturbed until ending legal proceedings.

16. Having discussed above in my considered opinion the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property. Accordingly point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

17.In the result, this petition is allowed, restrained the defendants from interfering into the petition schedule property till disposal of plaintiff’s recovery of possession suit. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by Typist directly on the computer and after corrections, pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

M.M. District at Kushaiguda.

FOR THE Petitioner / Plaintiff FOR THE Respondent / Defendant s

-None--None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE Petitioner / Plaintiff :

Ex.P1:Gift Deed dt. 14-02-2022. Ex.P2:Sale Deed dt: 07-06-2024. Ex.P3 to Ex.P.5 Photographs Ex.P6: Undertaking Affidavit. Ex.P7: Encumbrance Certificate.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

M.M. District at Kushaiguda.

Page No.1 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT KUSHAIGUDA

Present : Sri Ravinder Sattu, Prl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

Monday, 27th day of April, 2026.

I.A.No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

Between : Smt. Musku Sathamma, W/o. Biksham Reddy, Aged about : 65 Yrs., Occ : Housewife, R/o.H.No.2-6-435, Jaipuri Colony, Nagole, Uppal Mandal, MM District – 500 068.

...Petitioner /Plaintiff

AND

1. Sri.Musku Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Biksham Reddy, aged about 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o R/o.H.No.2-6-435, Jaipuri Colony, Nagole, Uppal Mandal, MM District – 500 068.

2. Smt. Surideedi Sruti, D/o.Sri.S.K.Durga Prasad, Aged about : 38 Yrs., Occ : Pvt.Employee, R/o.H.No.11-8-221/A, Kranthi Nagar, Saroor Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, TS.

.... Respondents/Defendants

This Petition is coming up before me for final hearing on 27-04-2026 in the presence of Sri J.Narsmiha, Counsel for Petitioner/Plaintiff and M/s.J.Ananth Ram, Counsel for Respondent No.2 Defendant No.2 and Respondent No.1 / Defendant no.1 set exparte and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

Page No.2 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

O R D E R

1.This petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/w. section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short "code") praying this Court to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, family members, legal heirs, successors, from interfering into her peaceful possession of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. The Petitioner is hereinafter referred as plaintiff. The Respondents are hereinafter referred as defendants.

2.Brief facts of affidavit:

(i).Smt.Musku Sathamma who is plaintiff filed affidavit and submitted that, she was the mother of Defendant No.1 and she along with her husband (Both are senior citizens) and Defendant No.1 first wife (Shobha) and their two children residing at House bearing No.2-6-435/1 (PTI No.1030211792), admeasuring 124 Sq. yards or 103.66 Sq.mtrs.

situated at Ward No.2, Block No.6, Jaipuri Colony, Nagole, under GHMC,

Hayathnagar Circle, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and the

Defendant No.1 left her first wife and their two children and while the

Family Divorce OP was Pending, Defendant No.1 illegally married Second wife, who is Defendant No.2 herein, the said marriage is not valid.

(ii).She submitted that, she was the absolute Owner and Possessor of the House bearing No.2-6-435/1 (PTI No. 1030211792), admeasuring 124 Sq. yards or 103.66 Sq.mtrs, situated at Ward No.2. Block No.6,

Jaipuri Colony. Nagole, under GHMC, Hayathnagar Circle, Uppal

Mandal. Medchal-Malkajgiri District (which is more fully described in the SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY and hereinafter called as the SUIT

SCHEDULE PROPERTY).

Page No.3 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

(iii).She submitted that, the Government of Telangana had Assigned the Patta for Land under below poverty vide Proceedings

No.B/NAGOLE/03/15 & RDO/B/433/2015 Dated 30-05-2015 after due enquiry in favour of the Plaintiff and fulfillment of the terms and conditions of G.O.Ms.No.58 and recommendation made by the

Committee of assignment Dated 29-03-2015 under the Chair

Person-ship of Revenue Divisional Office, Malkajgiri Division.

(iv).She submitted that, Defendant No.1 is her son hatched a Plan and forced her that he will obtain loan and complete house construction; she submitted that, she believed his version and transferred the Suit

Schedule Property in his name on 14-02-2022 vide document

No.2651/2022 registered at S.R.O. Uppal for obtaining loan only by him and he had given Undertaking Affidavit on Rs.100/- Non-Judicial Stamp

Paper stating that the Gift Deed was obtained for availing loan only.

(v). She submitted that, Defendant No.1 had cheated her instead of taking the loan he had transferred the Suit Schedule Property in favour of the Defendant No.1 through Registered Sale Deed bearing document

No.7498/2024, dated 04-06-2024 registered at S.R.O. Uppal and later upon enquiry it came to her notice that the Defendant No.2 is second and illegal wife of Defendant No.1, have hatched plan and trying to knock out her from the said house and Defendants stated that she will face dire consequences if she along with her husband and Defendant

No.1 first wife and children not leave the house; she submitted that, the

Suit Schedule Property was assigned Patta Land it was only heritable, but not transferable to any person.

Page No.4 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

(vi). She submitted that, she registered the gift deed for limited purpose only, and she has not delivered physical possession of the schedule property to the Defendant No.1 and she was still enjoying the physical possession of the schedule property without interruption from anybody.

(vii). She submitted that, on 01-03-2025 the Defendants along with their supporter trying to interfere into her Peaceful Possession, she and her family members resisted their interference and the Defendants threatened her and her family members to dispossess the same and left the place.

(viii). She submitted that, again on 04-07-2025 Defendants along with their henchmen again entered into Suit Scheduled Property to take possession of the same illegally; she resisted their efforts with the help by and friends; on meeting resistance neighbors Defendants left the place but while leaving he threatened that he will be coming again with more man power and force and dislodge her from the Possession of Suit

Scheduled Property; she submitted that, she made police complaint but the police instead of taking cognizance, advise her to approach Civil

Court for proper relief.

(ix).She submitted that, she was a Senior Citizen and she has no any shelter to stay at his stage, the Defendants No.1 & 2 trying to from the

Suit Schedule Property and the dispossess her Defendant No.2 is trying to alienate the Suit schedule Property to the third parties.

(x) She submitted that, under these circumstances she has no alternative except to approach this Hon'ble Court for Declaration of Suit

Page No.5 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

by seeking to cancellation of the document bearing Nos.2651/2022 and declare the Document No.7498/2024 are null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff and grant perpetual injunction against the

Respondents/Defendants; she submitted that, she has got prima-facie case and having balance of convenience in her favour and the Hon'ble court having ample powers to allow the above petition. Hence the petition.

3.Counter affidavit filed by the defendant No.1 and submitted that the plaintiff voluntarily gifted the suit schedule property to Defendant

No.1 by executing a registered Gift Deed bearing Document

No.2651/2022, registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Uppal; thereafter, in order to clear their financial liabilities, the plaintiff and

Defendant No.1 decided to sell the said property to third parties.

(ii).Defendant No.1 submitted that, the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 requested Defendant No. 2 and her father either to identify a purchaser or to purchase the property themselves; accordingly, the father of

Defendant No. 2 paid the entire sale consideration, and in that manner

Defendant No. 2 purchased the suit schedule property through a registered Sale Deed, dated 07-06-2024, bearing Document No. 7498 of 2024, registered before the Sub-Registrar, Uppal, out of the amounts paid by her parents; in view of the above facts, the contention of the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property is false and untenable; after the purchase of the property, the defendant herein permitted the plaintiff and other family members to reside in the said property, and therefore the plaintiff and other family members are in permissive possession of the suit schedule property.

Page No.6 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

(iii).Defendant No.1 submitted that, the defendant herein also permitted the plaintiff (mother-in-law) to let out three shutters measuring 30 x 30 feet situated in H. No. 2-6-435, Jaipuri Colony,

Nagole, Hyderabad, to a tenant; as per the instructions of the plaintiff, the said premises were let out for carrying on business under the name and style of "Mahalaxmi Electrical (Hardware, Paints, an Sanitary)" on a monthly rent of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only), which has since been enhanced, and the present monthly rent is Rs. 42,000/- (Rupees Forty-Two Thousand only).

(iv).Defendant No.1 submitted that, with malafide intention, the plaintiff brought the ex-wife of Defendant No. 1 to the suit schedule property and permitted her to reside along with them; the plaintiff thereafter started abusing Defendant No. 2 and frequently picked quarrels with her, as a result of which the defendants were constrained to reside separately.

(v).Defendant No.1 submitted that, the plaintiff, in collusion with her daughters, has been disputing the title of Defendant No.2; the daughters of the plaintiff have filed a suit seeking partition of the suit schedule property, vide O.S.No. 672 of 2024, on the file of the learned Principal

Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District at L.B. Nagar, without having any legitimate right, title, or interest over the suit schedule property; the said suit is pending adjudication.

(vi).Defendant No.1 submitted that, the plaintiff and her husband filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional

Page No.7 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

Magistrate, Keesara Division, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, functioning as

the Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and

Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, seeking relief of monthly maintenance from Defendant No. 1 and also seeking cancellation of the

Gift Deed and Sale Deed, which are the very reliefs prayed for in the present suit; upon receipt of notice, Defendant No. 2, along with her father, attended the hearing before the R.D.O. on 25-04-2025; after completion of the hearing, while Defendant No. 2 and her father were at their car, a Honda Amaze bearing Registration No.TS-08-EK 8353, the plaintiff, her husband, the ex-wife of Respondent No.1, namely Shobha, and three other individuals verbally abused Defendant No. 2 using filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences; thereafter, the husband of the plaintiff, namely Biksham Reddy, picked up a granite stone and threw it at the said car, causing damage; the ex-wife of

Defendant no.1, Shobha, and the plaintiff also threw stones at the vehicle, further damaging it; consequently, Defendant No.2 lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Keesara Police Station, and a case was registered as FIR No. 381 of 2025, which is pending on the file of the Hon'ble III Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at

Kushaiguda; it is further submitted that on 28-05-2025, the R.D.O.

passed an order directing Defendant No.1 to pay maintenance of

Rs. 10,000/- per month to his parents by depositing the same into their bank account on or before the 5th day of every month; the relief of cancellation of the Gift Deed and Sale Deed was specifically rejected; the plaintiff neither challenged the said order before the Appellate Tribunal (District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District) nor disclosed the said proceedings before this Hon'ble Court and has thus suppressed material facts, and filed the present suit seeking the same relief of cancellation of

Page No.8 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

the Gift Deed bearing Document No.2651/2022 and the Sale Deed bearing Document No. 7498/2024, both registered at S.RO., Uppal.

(vii). Defendant No.1 submitted that, having failed in their attempt

before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the plaintiff has filed the present

suit against the defendants with false, frivolous, and baseless allegations, solely for wrongful gain and with an ill intention to grab the suit schedule property; accordingly, the defendant herein caused a legal notice dated 09-09-2025 to be issued to the plaintiff herein through her advocate by registered post to her address, calling upon the plaintiff and other family members to vacate and hand over vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property to Defendant No. 2 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice; the notice further made it clear that from the 16th day onwards, i.e., after expiry of the said 15 days, the possession of the plaintiff and other family members would be treated as illegal and unauthorized, rendering them trespassers, and that they would be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs:1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) per month for use and unauthorized occupation of the suit schedule property till delivery of vacant possession.

(viii). Defendant No.1 submitted that, even after receipt of the said legal notice, the plaintiff and other family members failed to comply with the same and instead issued a false reply notice dated 29-10-2025; despite service of notice, the plaintiff and other family members have intentionally and deliberately failed to vacate the suit schedule property, with a mala-fide intention to deprive Defendant No. 2 of her lawful right, title, and possession over the suit schedule property and to unlawfully enrich themselves; hence, the defendant herein was constrained to file a suit seeking declaration that Defendant No. 2 is the absolute owner of

Page No.9 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

the suit schedule property and for a consequential direction to the plaintiff and other family members/defendants therein to vacate and hand over vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property, and also for an award of damages at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till delivery of vacant possession, in the interest of justice.

(ix).Defendant No.1 submitted that, the plaintiff, without any valid right or title, is unlawfully collecting rent at the rate of Rs. 40,000/-per month from a tenant, namely "Mahalaxmi Electricals (Hardware, Paints, and Sanitary)", in respect of the ground floor consisting of three shutters measuring 30 x 30 feet of the said property; documentary proof evidencing the said tenancy and receipt of rental income is annexed herewith for the kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.Defendant no.1 set exparte.

5.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petition is liable to be allowed or not”?

6.POINT:

The plaintiff in order to get temporary injunction should establish three cardinal principles those are prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.

7. Learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the defendant no.1 played fraud in obtained gift deed and dishonestly transferred in favour of defendant no.2 who is claiming as second wife of defendant no.1;

Page No.10 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

First wife of defendant no.1 along with plaintiff are in possession of petition schedule property, hence prayed to allow this petition.

8. Learned counsel for defendant no.2 submitted that the plaintiff and her husband misrepresented that defendant no.1 got divorce with his first wife; father of defendant no.2 paid total sale consideration to the defendant no.1, hence the defendant no.2 permitted the plaintiff to stay and the plaintiff is collecting rents from tenants; the plaintiff approached RDO to cancel the gift deed but the same is dismissed; the plaintiff and her daughters colluded with each other filed another suit for Partition and now filed the present suit, therefore, the plaintiff suppressed material fact, hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

9. This is the suit filed for cancellation of gift deed no.2651/2022, dt.14-02-2022 and declare document no.7498/2024 dt.7-06-2024.

10. The undisputed facts are that plaintiff is owner of petition schedule property it is evident as per gift deed bearing no.2651/2022, and the same is admitted by defendant no.2.

11. The frima pacie case is whether the defendant no.1 cheated while execution of gift deed bearing no.2651/2022 stating that the purpose of gift deed was only to obtain loan. As seen Ex.P.6,

M. Biksham Reddy reduced into writing stating that the House no.2-6- 435/1 is registered on the name of Sudhakar Reddy for purpose of loan.

The genuinity of Ex.P6 cannot be decided at this stage since it is unregistered document.

Page No.11 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

12. As seen sale deed no.7498/2024 dt.07-06-2024, the vendor is defendant no.1. The counter case of the defendant no.2 is that the plaintiff and her husband including defendant no.1 represented that the defendant no.l got divorce with his first wife and married defendant no.2.

Further case of defendant no.2 is that the defendant no.1 and 2 blessed a male child on 14-11-2023 namely : Nairit.

13. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant no.1 obtained gift deed for purpose of loan. Now the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove material to show the defendant no.1 approached any bank for loan. As seen from the record there is no material to show that defendant no.1 approached any bank and made application. The Gap between gift deed and sale deed will clearly show that the purpose of execution of gift deed appears to be to show some security to the defendant no.2. The reason is that there is no rejoinder filed by the plaintiff denying the marriage and birth of child to the defendant no.2 through defendant no.1. Like wise there is no rejoinder as to the approach of plaintiff before RDO to cancel the gift deed. Even there is no disclosure of Partition Suit filed by daughter’s of plaintiff in respect of same suit schedule property.

14. This is the suit for cancellation of gift deed basing on cheating.

However the plaintiff approached RDO for cancellation of gift deed but the same is dismissed. The plaintiff suppressed the filing of Partition

Suit by her daughter. In a suit for cancellation of document u/s.31 of

Specific relief Act, the parties are expected to approach this court with clean hands and free from blemish.

Page No.12 of 12

IA No.1545 of 2025 in

O.S.No.543 of 2025

15. However as per counter the plaintiff, first wife of defendant no.1 and tenants are in possession of suit schedule property. It is evident further that the defendant no.2 filed suit for recovery of possession.

Therefore, the possession of plaintiff cannot be disturbed until ending legal proceedings.

16. Having discussed above in my considered opinion the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property. Accordingly point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

17.In the result, this petition is allowed, restrained the defendants from interfering into the petition schedule property till disposal of plaintiff’s recovery of possession suit. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by Typist directly on the computer and after corrections, pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

M.M. District at Kushaiguda.

FOR THE Petitioner / Plaintiff FOR THE Respondent / Defendant s

-None--None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE Petitioner / Plaintiff :

Ex.P1:Gift Deed dt. 14-02-2022. Ex.P2:Sale Deed dt: 07-06-2024. Ex.P3 to Ex.P.5 Photographs Ex.P6: Undertaking Affidavit. Ex.P7: Encumbrance Certificate.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

M.M. District at Kushaiguda.