Mr. Shaik Arif

OS No.126 of 2021 1 Date 02-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-CUM-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NAKREKAL.

Thursday, this the 02nd day of April, 2026

Present:- Sri Shaik Arif

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum

Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal

O.S.No.126 OF 2021

Between :

Narra Veeraiah, S/o : Yallaiah, Age : 58 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o : H.No.355-9 Babansahebgudem 7th ward Nakrekal town and mandal of Nalgonda district.

….. Plaintiff

AND

01. Narra Buggamma, W/o : Late Yallaiah, Age : 94 years, Occ : Nil.

02. Narra Muthamma, D/o : Yallaiah, Age : 55 years, Occ : Coolie.

Both are resident of H.No.22-87/1 Babansahebgudem 7th ward Nakrekal town of Nalgonda District.

03. Vemula Bhadramma, D/o : Yallaiah (W/o : Laxmaiah ), Age : 50 years, Occ : Coolie, R/o : Madharamkalan village of Shaligouraram mandal of Nalgonda District.

04. Narra Peddi Ramulu, S/o : Yallaiah, Age : years, Occ : Farmer, R/o : H.No,22- 62/1 Baban sahebgudem 7th ward of Nakrekal town of Nalgonda District.

...Defendants

This suit coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. N.Mallesham, Advocate for Plaintiff and defendants remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for Partition and separate possession and also for the cancellation of registered gift deeds as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

OS No.126 of 2021 2 Date 02-04-2026

2. The averments of the plaint are :

[a] The plaintiff and defendants belongs to one and same joint family. The defendant No.1 is the mother of the plaintiff, defendants No.2 and 3. One Narra

Maramma is the mother of the defendant No.4. The common ancestor by name

Narra Muthaiah married two wives i.e., defendant No.1 and late Narra Maramma and during his life time, he purchased the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-35 guntas in survey No.144/1/3 and Ac.1-15 guntas in survey No.52/U21, total to an extent of Ac.3-10 guntas situated at Chandampally village, Nakrekal Mandal,

Nalgonda District hereinafter called as suit schedule property. After purchase of the land, said Narra Muthaiah got mutated the land in the revenue records to an extent of Ac.1-35 guntas in survey No.144 on his name and remaining land to an extent of Ac.1-15 guntas in survey No.52 was mutated on the name of the defendant No.1, as such the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. It is further submitted that the common ancestor

Narra Muthaiah died intestate in the year 2017 and plaintiff and defendant No.2 and 4 together performed the marriage of defendant No.3 by giving net cash, gold and silver ornaments equal to her share in joint family properties, as such the land to an extent of Ac.1-35 guntas was mutated as follows: on the name of plaintiff and defendant No.4 land to an extent of Ac.0-24 ½ guntas each and on the name of defendant No.2 land to an extent of Ac.0-26 guntas was mutated.

[b]It is further submitted that even though the land in survey No.144 was mutated on the name of the legal heirs and land in survey No.52 stands on the name of the defendant No.1, the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 jointly cultivating the total lands and sharing the income among themselves. It is further submitted that defendant No.3 already got her total share in the form of the net

OS No.126 of 2021 3 Date 02-04-2026

cash, gold, silver ornaments at the time of her marriage, accordingly the defendant

No.3 has no share in the joint family properties and she is nominally impleaded in the suit as one of the necessary party to the suit. It is also submitted that even though the suit schedule properties are joint family properties, the defendant No.1 without the consent of the other family members illegally transferred the land to an extent of Ac.0-18 ¼ guntas in survey No.52 in favour defendant No.4 through registered gift deed document number 434/2021 and Ac.0-18 ½ guntas in survey

No.52 in favour of the defendant No.2 through registered gift deed document

No.433/2021. It is also submitted that recently the plaintiff came to know that defendant Nos.2 and 4 got illegally transferred the land in survey No.52.

Immediately, the plaintiff demanded the defendant No.1,2 and 4 to come forward for amicable partition of the suit schedule properties with metes and bounds, but they postponed the matter. Finally on 01-07-2021, the plaintiff demanded the defendant No.1,2 and 4 for the partition of the suit schedule properties but they refused for the same. Hence the suit.

3.Even though vakalth filed on behalf of the defendants, Written statement was not filed within statutory period. Hence defendants were set exparte.

4.To prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A13 and also got examined PW2.

6. Heard learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

POINT

7. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got filed his chief examination affidavit as PW.1 in lieu of his chief examination and reiterated the averments of the plaint. It is the evidence of the PW1 that his father is the common ancestor by name Narra Muthaiah has purchased the suit land and after purchase, he got

OS No.126 of 2021 4 Date 02-04-2026

mutated the land to an extent of Ac.1-35 guntas in survey No.144 on his name and remaining land to an extent of Ac.1-15 guntas in survey No.52 on the name of the defendant No.1 and said lands are joint family properties of the plaintiff of the plaintiff and defendants. The common ancestor was died intestate in the year 2017 leaving behind them and he along with defendant No.2 and 4 together performed the marriage of defendant No.3 by giving net cash, gold and silver ornaments equal to her share in joint family properties. It is also the evidence of PW1 that out of the land to an extent of Ac.1-35 guntas in survey number 144, the land to an extent of

Ac.0-24 ½ guntas is recorded on his name, Ac.0-26 guntas is recorded on the name of the defendant No.2 and Ac.0-24 ½ guntas is recorded on the name of the defendant No.4. It is also the evidence of PW1 that even though the suit land was mutated on the name of the legal heirs, the plaintiff, the defendant No.1,2 and 4 are jointly cultivating the suit land and defendant No.3 has no share in the suit schedule property as she already got share in the form of net cash, gold and silver ornaments. While the things stood thus, without the consent of the joint family members, the defendant No.1 illegally transferred part of the suit land in survey

No.52 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 4 by way of registered gift deeds and same are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and liable to be cancelled. Even though he approached the defendants for amicable partition, they did not came forward. Hence the suit.

8.Even though the defendants remained exparte, the burden is still upon the plaintiff to establish the case on his own strength. A perusal of Exs.A1 to A11 pahanies clearly shows there is inconsistency with the extents of the suit land in the suit survey number mentioned in the plaint pleadings with that of the extents in the suit survey numbers mentioned in the pahanies. The plaintiff has pleaded

OS No.126 of 2021 5 Date 02-04-2026

in the plaintiff that the common ancestor Narra Muthaiah has married two wives i.e., defendant No.1 and Narra Maramma. But the perusal of Exs.A1 to A13 clearly shows the name of the husband of defendant No.1 as Yellaiah. Moreover, the plaintiff has not even filed a single document showing the suit land in survey

No.144 was standing on the name of Narra Muthaiah at any point of time to establish his case. The plaintiff has not filed the death certificate of the common ancestor Narra Muthaiah. It is clear that there are inconsistencies in the pleadings of the plaint with that off documentary evidence. Furthermore, the plaintiff has also not mentioned the relief of cancellation of gift deeds in the prayer portion of the plaint. It is also clear that in the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that the land in survey No.144 was mutated on his name and defendant No.2 and 4 to an extent of

Ac.0-24 ½ guntas each and Ac.0-26 guntas respectively. But the plaintiff has not filed any document to establish the said fact. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to establish that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and he is also having share in the same. Accordingly, the point is answered against the plaintiff.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs.

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

court on this the 02 th day of April, 2026)

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT PW1 : N.Veeraiah PW2 : R.Rakesh

OS No.126 of 2021 6 Date 02-04-2026

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS : Ex.A1 is the CC of pahani for the year 1980-81 issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Nakrekal Ex.A2 is the CC of pahani for the year 1985-86 issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Nakrekal Ex.A3 is the CC of pahani for the year 1990-91 issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Nakrekal Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani for the year 1995-96 issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Nakrekal Ex.A5 is the CC of pahani for the year 2000-01 issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Nakrekal Ex.A6 is the CC of pahani for the year 2005-06 issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Nakrekal Ex.A7 is the CC of pahani for the year 2010-11 issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Nakrekal Ex.A8 is the CC of pahani for the year 2014-15 issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Nakrekal Ex.A9 is the CC of pahani for the year 2017-18 issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Nakrekal Ex.A10 is the CC of pahani for the year 2019-20 issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Nakrekal Ex.A11 is the CC of pahani for the year 2013-14 issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Nakrekal Ex.A12 is the CC of registered gift settlement deed vide Doc.No.433/2021 dated 04-06-2021 Ex.A13 is the CC of registered gift settlement deed vide Doc.No.434/2021 dated 04- 06-2021

FOR DEFENDANT

Nil

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

Junior Civil Judge

Page 1 of 6 C.C.No.316 of 2025

Date: 08.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NALGONDA DISTRICT AT

NAKREKAL

Present: Smt. Neelima Muddasani

Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nalgonda District at Nakrekal.

Thursday, this the 08 th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No.316 of 2025

Between:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Shaligouraram.

....Complainant

A N D

Ganta Veeraiah S/o Ramaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Perkakondaram village of Shaligouraram Mandal.

....Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and Sri P.Shambaiah, learned counsel

for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this

day, this court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Shaligouraram filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.106/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 106(1) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (herein after referred to as BNS).

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 12.06.2025 at 0630 hours PW1/defacto Complainant lodged a complaint stating that on 11.06.2025 at 1600 hours, his elder brother namely Vajja Bixamaiah coming from Shaligouraram to

Thakkellapahad on his Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No. AP 24 P 3893 by

Page 2 of 6 C.C.No.316 of 2025

Date: 08.05.2026

attending his personal work, while he was riding between Bhairavuni Banda X road and Vaddipamula village towards Shaligouraram in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road. He collided head on with his brother’s vehicle, causing his brother to sustain severe bleeding injuries to his head. The accident was witnessed by veeputi Paramkusham, who immediately informed the complainant about the incident. Upon receiving the information, they rushed to the scene and shifted the injured to Area Hospital, Nakrekal. After preliminary examination, the duty doctors advised shifting him to Government General Hospital, Nalgonda for better treatment. Later he was referred and shifted to Icon Hospital, Nalgonda for further medical care. However while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries at around 1800 hours on the same day. Due to their presence at the hospital and emergency situation, he is submitting the petition belatedly.

3. Based on the contents of the complaint, PW5 has registered a case in Crime

No.88/2025 under Section 106(1) BNS and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, PW5 has examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and Inquest panchanama in the presence of mediators LW6 and LW7. Further, PW5 went to Government Hospital, Nalgonda along with two mediators LW8 and LW9 and conducted Inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased and LW10/Dr.

Abdule Rahman Omer Siddiqui, Assistant Professor has conducted Postmortem to the deceased body and he opined that the cause of death was due to “Head injury”.

Further he gave requisition to LW11/B.Chiranjeevi, AMVI to inspect the crime vehicle, accordingly he inspected the same and opined that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects. On 19.07.2025, PW5 served the notice under section 35(3) of B.N.S.S. to the accused and after completion of investigation, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused.

Page 3 of 6 C.C.No.316 of 2025

Date: 08.05.2026

4. Based on the report of the Police, cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence U/Sec 106(1) BNS and issued summons to the accused.

5. On appearance of the accused before the court, he was furnished with the copies of the documents as required U/Sec.230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSS). Further, the accused was examined U/Sec.274

BNSS and substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution in support of its case has examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P10. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW3. The evidence of

LW6,8 to 11 are closed by this court since prosecution failed to produce them in spite of granting sufficient time. Prosecution side evidence is closed.

7. After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, accused was examined

U/Sec.351 BNSS, explaining the incriminating material that appeared against him in the prosecution case. The accused denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for the accused. Perused the record.

Now the point for determination is as follows:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.106(1) BNS , beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9. To prove its case, prosecution has examined PWs’1 to 6. PW1 is the complainant and circumstantial witness. PW2 is the wife of deceased and circumstantial witness. PW3 and PW4 are the Eye witness. PW5 is the investigating officer.

Page 4 of 6 C.C.No.316 of 2025

Date: 08.05.2026

10. PW1, who is the complainant and PW2 who is the circumstantial witness deposed that at about 11 months back, they came to know that while deceased was proceeding on the bike, when he reached near Bairavonibanda ross road, he met with an accident and deceased was sustained injuries and shifted to Government

Hospital, Nakrekal, from there he was shifted to ICON hospital, Nalgonda. While undergoing treatment he was died on the same day due to the injuries. But they do not know how the accident was occurred and on whose negligence. They do not know the bearing number of crime vehicle and also its driver and turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution. Through this witness prosecution got marked Ex.P1 signature on the report. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are their 161 Cr.P.C.

statements.

11. PW3 and PW4 are the eye witnesses deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case and accused never committed any offence in their presence and they do not witness any incident and turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution, Through this witness prosecution got marked

Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 are their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. The learned APP though cross examined at length nothing could be elicited in favour of the prosecution.

12. PW5 is the Investigating Officer who testified as to the line of investigation.

Through this witness prosecution got marked Exs.P6 to P10 i.e. the FIR, CDF,

Inquest Panchanama and PME report and MVI Report.

13. The accused is not seriously disputing with regard to the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident. It is his specific defence that he was not the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of alleged accident. Though there is ample evidence with regard to the death of the deceased but there is no evidence with regard to identity of the driver of the crime vehicle or as to the rashness or negligence of the accused.

Page 5 of 6 C.C.No.316 of 2025

Date: 08.05.2026

PW1 to PW4 have turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

14. In the absence of any evidence as to the rashness or negligence of the accused or as to the identity of the accused that he was the person who was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time, there is nothing further to discuss except to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused with which he is charged. Accordingly the point is answered against the prosecution.

15. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 106(1)

BNS and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under Section 278(1)

BNSS. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of (06) months as per Sec.481 BNSS.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08 th day of May, 2026

Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nalgonda District at Nakrekal.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

PW1/V.Srinivas. - Complainant and circumstantial witness. PW2/V.Andalu. - Circumstantial witness and wife of deceased. PW3/V.Paramkush. - Eye witness PW4/E.Nagaiah. - Eye witness. PW5/D.Saidulu. - Investigating Officer

For Defence:

- None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the signature on the Report

Ex.P2 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P3 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3

Page 6 of 6 C.C.No.316 of 2025

Date: 08.05.2026

Ex.P4 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4 Ex.P5 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW5 Ex.P6 is the FIR Ex.P7 is the Inquest panchanama. Ex.P8 is the Postmortem Report Ex.P9 is the Crime Details form. Ex.P10 is the MVI Report.

For Defence:

-NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil –

Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nalgonda District at Nakrekal.

O.S.No.140 of 2024 1 02-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-CUM-JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, NAKREKAL.

Thursday, this the 02 th day of April, 2026

Present:- Sri Shaik Arif

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal

O.S.No. 140 OF 2024

Between :

Burri Krishnamohan Reddy, S/o : Chandra Reddy, Age : 57 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/ o : Kothapeta village of Kethepally mandal of Nalgonda District.

….. Plaintiff.

AND

01. Chintha Maisaiah, S/o : Dasu, Age : 40 years, Occ : Agriculture

02. Chintha Paul, S/o : Dasu, Age : 35 years, Occ : Driver

Both are resident of Kethepally village and mandal of Nalgonda District. …. defendants

This suit coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Sudini Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff, and defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has de- livered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession and also for perpetual injunction.

2. The averments of the plaint are :

[a]The plaintiff is the absolute owner and exclusive possessor of the agricultural wet land to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas in survey number 217/Uu situated at Kethepally vil- lage and mandal of Nalgonda District along with other lands. Originally the grand father of the plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule land along with other lands and his name was entered as owner and possessor in the revenue records. After the demise of the grand father of the plaintiff, the land to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas was mutated on the name of the plaintiff through ROR proceedings and suit land was acquired by the plain- tiff from the family partition about 20 years back. It is further submitted that after the said family partition, the suit land and other lands were mutated on the name of the plaintiff in all revenue records and revenue authorities have also issued pattedar pass-

O.S.No.140 of 2024 2 02-04-2026

book and he is getting rhythu bandu scheme and he is cultivating the suit land by rais- ing crops like paddy.

(b) It is further submitted that the when the plaintiff went to Hyderabad in month of

April, 2024 to see his son and stayed at Hyderabad for about one month. When the plaintiff came to village and found that land to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas was illegally occupied by the defendants, immediately plaintiff approached the defendant in the month of the May,2024 and questioned about their illegal occupation and requested to vacate the land, but the defendant were refused the same and threatened with dire conse- quences. Hence the suit.

3.Even though vakalth filed, written statement not filed. Statutory period completed and there was no representation. Hence defendant is set exparte.

4. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 marked and also got examined PW2.

5. Heard learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of posses- sion as prayed for”? Point:

7. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of chief examination as PW1 by reiterating the contents of the plaint. It is the evi- dence of the PW1 that originally his grand father was the owner of the suit land and other lands and after the demise of his grand father, the plaintiff has acquired the suit land and other lands during family partition about 20 years back and since then he is cultivating the same and his name was entered in the revenue records and he was issued pattedar passbook and also getting rhythu bandu. In the month of the April, 2024, the plaintiff went to Hyderabad to see his son and stayed for about one month and taking the advantage of the same, the defendant have illegally occupied the suit land. When the plaintiff came back to the village and found that the suit land was illegally occupied by

O.S.No.140 of 2024 3 02-04-2026

the defendant, immediately in the month of May, 2024, the plaintiff approached the de- fendant and requested to vacate the same but the defendant refused to vacate the said land. Hence the suit. PW2 who is the third party has supported the version of the PW1.

8. A perusal of the EX.A1 to A14 clearly shows that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas in survey number 217 and title has been clearly flow in his favour. A perusal of Ex.A15 and A16 sketch map of the suit land clearly shows about the identity of the suit land which is illegally occupied by the defendans. The evi- dence of Pws 1 and 2 remained unchallenged since the defendant remained exparte. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A6 clearly shows the lawful possession of title of the plaintiff over the total suit land and also illegal occupation of the suit land by the defendants. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs and defendants are directed to de- liver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff within two months from the date of this order. Failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to execute the same under due process of law. The suit is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants, their henchmen, supporters any persons acting on their be- half not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands.

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

on this the 02 nd day of April, 2026)

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT :

PW1 : B.Krishna Mohan Reddy

PW2 R.Muthyalau None

O.S.No.140 of 2024 4 02-04-2026

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS : FOR DEFENDANT :

Ex.A1: is the specimen copy of pattedar passbook of plaintiff along with 1-B Namoona and Dharani Pahani

Ex.A2: is the True copy of pahani for the year 1992-93

Ex.A3: is the True copy of pahani for the year 2000-01

Ex.A4: is the True copy of pahani for the year 2002-03

Ex.A5: is the True copy of pahani for the year 2006-07

Ex.A6: is the True copy of pahani for the year 2007-08

Ex.A7: is the True copy of pahani for the year 2008-09

Ex.A8: is the True copy of pahani for the year 2009-10

Ex.A9: is the True copy of pahani for the year 2010-11

Ex.A10: is the True copy of pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex.A11: is the True copy of pahani for the year 2003-04

Ex.A12: is the True copy of pahani for the year 2012-13

Ex.A13: is the True copy of pahani for the year 2013-14

Ex.A14: is the Mee seva 1 B ROR Namoona dated 28-09-2019

Ex.A15: is the Sketch map

Ex.A16: is the Sketch map of the suit land

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal

OS No. 16 of 2024 1 02-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-CUM-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NAKREKAL.

Thursday, this the 02 nd day of April, 2026

Present:- Sri Shaik Arif

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal

O.S.No. 16 OF 2024

Between :

Devulapally Narsimha, S/o : Late Ramulu, Age : 60 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o : Pittampally village of Kattangur mandal of Nalgonda district.

….. Plaintiff

AND

Devulapally Satyanarayana, S/o : Late Ramulu, Age : 58 years, Occ : Legal practitioner and agriculture R/o : H.No.6-2-395/2/9/2 Srinagar colony, Nalgonda town and district. …. defendants

This suit coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Dr.Sheri Chatrpathi, Advocate for Plaintiff and defendants remained exparte, and upon perusing the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for Partition and separate possession.

2. The averments of the plaint are :

[a]The plaintiff and defendant are own brothers and children of late Ramulu.

The plaintiff and defendant are the absolute owners and exclusive possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas in survey number 187/92 situated at Pittampally village of Kattangur mandal of Nalgonda district, herein after called as suit schedule property. Originally the Kartha of the family i.e., father of the plaintiff and defendant Devulapally Ramulu was landless person and hails from a weaker section as such Government assigned the suit land vide proceeding No.A5/586 of 1972 in favour of the said Ramulu and since then he has been in the actual possession and enjoyment of the suit land. Thereafter, his name was entered in the revenue records and he was issued pattedar passbook. On 29-

OS No. 16 of 2024 2 02-04-2026

02-1996, the father of the plaintiff and defendant was died leaving behind them as sole legal heir. The plaintiff and defendant are Hindus belongs to the Hindu

Mitaskhara school of law and they are jointly in the actual possession of the suit land and they used to share the expenses and income equally. It is also submitted that since the value of the suit property is being increasing day by day, the defendant developed malafied intention and managing the suit land as per his will and wish and not giving the share to the plaintiff and causing hurdle to the plaintiff. Accordingly, on 24-09-2023 and 14-10-2023, the plaintiff demanded the defendant for partition but the defendant did not came forward. Finally on 26-12- 2023, the plaintiff demanded the defendant for final partition, but he refused the same. Hence the suit.

3. Summons of the defendant which was sent through registered post to the defendant were returned as door locked and unclaimed. Held sufficient service and defendant called absent. Hence defendant was set exparte.

4. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and marked exhibits Exs.A1 to 4 and also got examined PW2.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

POINT

7. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of chief examination as PW1 by reiterating the contents of the plaint. It is the evidence of PW1 that originally the suit land was allotted by the

Government to their father in the year 1972 and since then their father was in the possession and enjoyment of the same and his name was entered in the revenue records. After the death of the father of the plaintiff and defendant on 29-02-1996, the plaintiff and defendant who are own brothers have became joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and they jointly used to share the expenses and income equally. It is also the evidence of PW1 that plaintiff and

OS No. 16 of 2024 3 02-04-2026

defendant are entitled for the equal share in the suit schedule property. In view of rising in the value of the suit schedule property, the defendant developed in different attitude against the plaintiff and not giving share in the suit schedule property and also not coming forward for amicable partition. On 24-09-2023, 14- 10-2023 and 26-12-2023, when he approached the defendant for amicable partition but he did not came forward and refused for the same. Hence the suit.

PW2 who is third party have supported the version of PW1.

8. A Perusal of the Ex.A1 the death certificate of deceased Ramulu shows that the deceased Ramulu died on 05-02-1996 and date of registration as 29-02-2026. A perusal of Ex.A3 Certified copy of the amendment register for the year 2018-19 shows that the suit schedule property was mutated on the names of the defendant from the name of their father Devurapally Ramulu under pouthi. A perusal of

Ex.A4 Pahanies shows that the suit land is standing on the name of the defendant.

9. From the above oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that both the plaintiff and defendant are own brothers and the suit schedule property was devolved upon the defendant from their father under pouthi proceedings. It is also clear that the originally the property was standing on the name of the father of the plaintiff and defendant and after his death straight away the suit land was mutated on the name of the defendant alone without giving any share to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff and defendant are entitled for the equal share in the suit schedule property as per Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the plaintiff established his right and share over the suit schedule property. The evidence of PW1 coupled with

Ex.A1 to A4 remained unchallenged as the defendant remained exparte. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

OS No. 16 of 2024 4 02-04-2026

IN THE RESULT, the suit is preliminary decreed without costs declaring the plaintiff and defendant are entitled for the 1/2 share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are at liberty to file separate petition for a final decree.

(Dictated to my my Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court on this the 02 th day of April, 2026)

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT : PW1 : D.Narsimha

PW2 : Shaik Jani Pasha

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS : Ex.A1 is the Original death certificate of Devulapally Ramulu

Ex.A2 is the CC of pahani for the year 2012-13

Ex.A3 is the CC of pahani for the year 2018-19

Ex.A4 is the Dharani Pahanies ( 2 in number )

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-

Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal

Page 1 of 5

O.S.No.132 of 2025

Date: 11.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NALGONDA DISTRICT AT

NAKREKAL

Present: Smt. Neelima Muddasani

Junior Civil Judge Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nalgonda District at Nakrekal.

th day of May, 2026 Wednesday, this the 11

O.S. No.132 of 2025

Between:

State Bank of India, Aitipamula Branch, Represented by its Branch Manager. …Plaintiff

A N D

Bandaru Anand R/o: H.No.1-36, Pamanagundla village, Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda district.

…Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Pulijala Kartheek, learned counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant was set ex-parte and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: :: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a suit for recovery of money of Rs.1,54,040/- (Rupees one Lakh fifty four Thousand forty only) along with interest and costs.

2. The Plaintiff is a bank having its one of the branches at Aitipamula branch.

The Defendant has approached the Plaintiff bank for personal loan through online

YONO SBII. The plaintiff bank on 06.01.2024 sanctioned an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- vide loan A/c No.4259198567 with the terms and conditions mentioned in the sanction letter and same was accepted by the defendant through online. Evidencing the said transaction the defendant on 06.01.2024 executed loan agreement through

Page 2 of 5

O.S.No.132 of 2025

Date: 11.05.2026

online and agreed to repay the said loan in 36 equated monthly installments of

Rs.6,865/-. The plaintiff bank further submits that defendant has agreed to open to his saving bank account vide No.11529025286 in the Bank and permit to the plaintiff

Bank to Auto credit system or Auto transfer of his Monthly installment amounts in every month from the defendants salary account to personal loan amount. Thus the plaintiff disbursed the loan amount on 06.01.2024 to above said loan amount.

3. He further submitted that the defendant failed to repay the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The plaintiff made several demands to repayment loan amount. Inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiff bank, defendant loan account was irregular. The defendant loan account was recalled and the said account was declared NPA as on 07.04.2025. Further, the

Plaintiff issued legal notice, dated 09.06.2026 to the Defendant to repay the loan amount. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay Rs.1,54,040/- as on 05.06.2025 along with interest. Hence, the suit.

4. After registering the suit, summons were served on the Defendant, but he did not choose to appear before this court and hence, the Defendant was set ex-parte.

5. In support of the case, the Plaintiff bank got examined its Branch Manager as

PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff. Perused the material available on record and the written arguments on behalf of the Plaintiff.

7. Now the point for my determination is:

Whether the suit is entitled to be decreed as prayed for?

POINT:

8. As per the gist of the plaint and from the chief affidavit of PW1 and arguments of the counsel for the Plaintiff, the Defendant has approached their branch for

Page 3 of 5

O.S.No.132 of 2025

Date: 11.05.2026

personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. Considering their request and after verification of the necessary documents, the bank had sanctioned said loan. Further, the Defendant has executed all the necessary documents and subsequently he failed to repay the loan amount and he fell due to an amount of Rs.1,54,040/- (Rupees one Lakh fifty- four Thousand forty only).

9. The Field officer of the Plaintiff Bank is examined as PW1 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A5 Ex.A-1: Online with attested pre-approved personal loan application.

The loan was obtained by the defendant through online and as such I am filing the online copy of the loan application of the defendant and the same was downloaded from the computer used by the bank and there is no distortion in the accuracy of the contents of the online loan application and I have issued certificate under Section 63 of B.S.A to that effect. Ex.A-2: Original legal notice along with postal receipt. Ex.A-3

Original acknowledgement card. Ex.A-4: Online copy of Statement of account. Ex.A- 5: Authorization letter of Field Officer from SBI Bank.

10. From the above material, it is clear case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant has approached the YONO SBI for the loan amount and agreed to all the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff bank. All the documents under Exs.A1 to A5 goes to show that the Defendant has taken the loan amount through online and failed to repay the loan amount.

11. Though, summons were served on the Defendant, he did not choose to ap- pear before the court. The evidence of PW1 and the documents vide Exs.A1 to A5 remained unchallenged and unrebutted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the Plaintiff. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

12. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, by directing him to pay a sum of Rs.1,54,040/- (Rupees one

Page 4 of 5

O.S.No.132 of 2025

Date: 11.05.2026

Lakh fifty four Thousand forty only) to the Plaintiff with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

Typed to Dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11 th day of May, 2026

Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nalgonda District at Nakrekal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff:

PW1/ Mamila Laxmi Narasimha representing on behalf of SBI, ACB, Aitipamula

For Defendant:

- None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs: Ex.A-1: Online with attested pre-approved personal loan application. The loan was obtained by the defendant through online and as such I am filing the online copy of the loan application of the defendant and the same was downloaded from the computer used by the bank and there is no distortion in the accuracy of the contents of the online loan application and I have issued certificate under Section 63 of B.S.A to that effect.

Ex.A-2: Original legal notice along with postal receipt.

Ex.A-3 Original acknowledgement card.

Ex.A-4 Online copy of Statement of account.

Ex.A-5 Authorization letter of Field Officer from SBI Bank.

For Defendants: - NIL –

Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nalgonda District at Nakrekal

Page 5 of 5

O.S.No.132 of 2025

Date: 11.05.2026