Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb

1

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SATHUPALLY.

Thursday, this the 16th day of April, 2026.

Present: Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sathupally.

O.S.No.154 of 2024

(Old O.S.No.6 of 2018)

Between:-

Malladi Venkateswarlu, S/o.Bikshalu, Age:50yrs, Occ:Agrl, R/o.Muthagudem(Chinthagudem)village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District.

.…Plaintiff. //And//

1. Malladi Nagadasu, S/o.Bikshalu, Age:60yrs, Occ:Agriculture,

2. Malladai Rukmini, W/o.Nagadasu, Age:52yrs, Occ:Anganwadi Aya

3. Malladi Sulochana, W/o.Late Danaiah, Age:45yrs, Occ:Coolie,

4. Malladi Chinnabikshalu, S/o.Danaiah, Age:20yrs, Occ:Business,

All are R/o.Muthagudem (Chinthagudem)village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District.

.…Defendants.

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 10.4.2026 in the presence of Sri G.Veerabhadram, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri P.Janaki Rama Rao, Advocate for the Defendants; upon perusing the material on record and after hearing the arguments, this Court made the following:-

Page 1 of 19 2

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018 : J U D G M E N T :

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men, servants, agents and all other persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property and award costs of the suit.

2.The brief contents of the plaint, are as follows:-

The plaintiff is the owner, possessor and pattadar of dry land to an extent of Ac.2.39gts out of Sy.No.123 situated in Chintagudem revenue village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District which is more clearly described in the schedule of property annexed to the plaint.

The plaintiff further submits that, the plaintiff got the schedule property from her mother Ravelu through a Will deed, dt:4.10.1980. The mother of plaintiff executed the said Will deed bequeathed the schedule property to the plaintiff. The mother of plaintiff executed the said Will deed in favour of her three sons who are plaintiff, defendant no.1 and husband of defendant no.2 namely Late Danaiah, who is no more.

All the three brothers got separate shares mentioned in the Will deed and the schedule property is allotted towards the share of plaintiff by his mother. The plaintiff name was mutated in online revenue

Page 2 of 19 3

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018 pahanies and also obtained ROR Pattadar passbook and title deed for the said property. The plaintiff has been cultivating the said property by raising paddy crop on every year. The plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property without any interruption from anybody.

While the matter stood thus on 10.01.2018 while the plaintiff tried to plough the schedule properties with a tractor to raise paddy crop, the defendants along with their henchmen forcibly came to the suit schedule property with an intention to occupy the same and obstructed the ploughing work of plaintiff and they warned the plaintiff that if the plaintiff will not left the schedule property they will see the end of life of plaintiff. The defendant hatched a plan to occupy the suit schedule property of plaintiff due to hike of prices of lands, the defendants illegally interfered into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

The plaintiff with the help of coolies resisted the illegal acts of defendants for time being with great difficulty. That the defendants making his illegal attempts against the plaintiff with the help of anti social elements in the village having no right or interest whatsoever over the suit schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiff has no option to approach this court to file this suit against the defendants for grant of perpetual injunction. Hence, this suit.

Page 3 of 19 4

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018

3.On receipt of the summons, D1 to D4 appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement jointly and denied the averments of the plaint and interalia contended that the mother of Pw1 never executed any Will, dt:4.10.1980 infavour of the Plaintiff, defendant no.1, and husband of the D2 and also denied the defendants got their separate shares of their properties by virtue of the Will is false and invented by plaintiff.

The allegation that the mother of plaintiff Malladi Rahelu @

Ravelu wife of Bikshalu executed the will deed and gave away the suit schedule property to plaintiff is false and invented by plaintiff with the help of his supporters. Indeed, the Will deed said to be executed on 4.10.1980 by Malladi Rahelu @ Ravelu is a forged and fabricated document.

The contention of the defendants are that one Malladi Bikshalu @

Bikshmaiah @ Chinnabbai resident of Koduru village near Khammampadu of Krishna District married one Rahelu daughter of Garinapudi

Yalamanda, R/o.Muthagudem, Chinthagudem village of Penuballi Mandal,

Garinapudi Rahelu is popularly called as Rayelu @ Rayelamma @

Rayalamma and she is only issue to her parents, hence Malladi Bikshalu with his wife joined his parents in law at Muthagudem village and migrated to Muthagudem village.

The defendants further submits that they were blessed with three sons and three daughters. Nagadasu, Danaiah and Venkateswarlu are the

Page 4 of 19 5

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018 sons whereas Nagamma, Rukminamma and Durga @ Durgamma are the daughters. Malladi Sulochana i.e. defendant no.3 is wife of Danaiah and they were blessed with three daughters and a son. Rahelu @ Ravelu,

Mariyamma and Sunitha are the daughters whereas Bikshalu @ Chinna

Bikshalu I..e, defendant no.4 is the son of Danaiah.

The defendants further submits that the elder daughter of Rahelu @

Ravelu namely Nagamma married Garinapudi Maisaiah resident of

Muthagudem village and they were blessed with four daughters and a son and two daughters died out of four. Garinapudi Nagamma died about four years ago. Malladi Rahelu @ Ravelu died on 4.3.1975 at Muthagudem village leaving sons, daughters and the husband of her legal heirs and successors. As Malladi Rahelu @ Ravelu is the only daughter of her parents she succeeded to their properties.

And further submits that after the death of Malladi Rahelu @

Ravelu, her husband Malladi Bikshalu and his children sold away some of the properties except the Ac.3.00 out of Sy.No.123 of Muthagduem

Village. Malladi Rahelu @ Ravelu’s dead body was cremated in

Muthagudem burial ground which is located in Marlakunta village road. A tomb was also constructed for deceased Rahelu.

After the death of his wife/Rahelu @ Ravelu, Malladi Bikshalu married another woman after 20 years of the death of the Rahelu @

Ravelu. Indeed, suit schedule property is the only property available for

Page 5 of 19 6

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018 partition and it was not partitioned among the legal heirs of Malladi

Rahelu and Malladi Rahelu died suddenly and the allegation that she executed the Will is false and fabricated by plaintiff. There was no any property out of Sy.No.125 and 158 of Chintagudem village available to joint family and Ravelu @ Rahelu has Ac.3.00 land in Sy.No.123 left by

Malladi Rahelu @ Ravelu. She died intestate. By creating a fiction that she has a land in Sy.No.125 and 158, plaintiff and his men fabricated will deed as if she executed it for all the sons. The suit schedule property is the property of Malladi Rahelu and it is liable for partition among plaintiff, defendants and other legal heirs and that without the notice and knowledge of the legal heirs, plaintiff misguided the revenue authorities and obtained passbook and title deed for the suit schedule property in his name. Hence, request the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.In view of the pleadings of the both parties the following issues are framed by the Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, Sathupally for settlement of trial on 1.7.2021.

(i)Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of instituting the suit?

(ii)If, so Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(iii)Whether the will deed dt:4.10.1980 is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

(iv)To what relief?

Page 6 of 19 7

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018

5.Initially, this suit was filed and registered as OS.No.6 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Sathupally, later, this case was transferred to Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Sathupally as per

Orders of the Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Khammam vide

Proceedings in Dis.No.4364/2024, dt.14.11.2024 and this case was received by this court on 31.12.2024 at stage of cross examination of Pw1 and re-numbered as a OS.No.154 of 2024.

6.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as

Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 and Pw1 also examined Pws2 to 4.

7.On behalf of the Defendants, the 2nd defendant namely

M.Rukmini examined as Dw1 and got marked Ex.B1 in the cross examination of the Dw2 by the counsel for the defendant and Ex.B1 is the photograph of the Tomb of M.Rayalamma.

8.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record.

9.ISSUE No.1 & 2:-

It is the case of the Plaintiff is that he is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property i.e., an extent of Ac 2.39gts out of Sy.No.123 situated at Chinthagudem revenue village and same was bequeathed from his mother by virtue of the Will deed dt:4.10.1980 on the same will her mother also bequeathed the property to the defendant no.1 and husband of the defendant no.2 and after getting his share, the

Page 7 of 19 8

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018 plaintiff name was mutated in the revenue records and the revenue authorities also issued pattadar passbook, revenue records and he filed

before this court and as the defendants without any manner of right

trying to interfere with the peaceful possession on 10.1.2018. Hence, he filed the suit for perpetual injunction.

10.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as

Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A10 and also relied upon the evidence of

Pws2 to 4.

On the other hand, the contention of the defendants are that the suit schedule property is originally belongs to Malladi Rahelu who is the wife of M.Bikshalu and she died intestate leaving the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property is liable to be partitioned among the plaintiff, defendants and other legal heirs and further contended that she never executed any Will particularly on 4.10.1980 and the plaintiff mislead the revenue authorities and obtained passbooks, title deed. Hence, request the court to dismiss the suit.

11.To substantiate the case of the defendants, the 2nd defendant herself examined as Dw1 and also examined M.Venkateswar Rao as Dw2 and got marked Ex.B1 Photograph.

12.The suit is filed by the Plaintiff to grant Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property herein.

Page 8 of 19 9

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018 Hence, this court did not go in deep discussion about the title over the suit schedule property, as the suit was not for the Declaration of the title.

13.The burden of proof is always on the person who asserts positively. The expression burden of proof denotes legal burden and it never shifts, where as the onus of proof on the other hand means evidential burden it shifts, basing on the evidence adduced by parties in the suit. In the suit on hand, the plaintiff's are seeking the equitable relief of permanent injunction. In a suit for injunction what becomes relevant is the factum of possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Except, as a semblance of legal right to remain in possession, the law does not insist on existence of title in favour of the plaintiff's in a suit of that nature. Reference in title will be only to ensure that the possession claimed by the plaintiff's are not of an out right trespasser or encroacher, but is by a person having semblance of right, any one who wants pronouncement upon the title in his favour, must file a suit for declaration of title.

14. The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants. Under such circumstances the relevant factum of possession over the suit schedule property as on date of filing of the suit has to be established.

15. The plaintiff relied upon Ex.A1 to A10 and also the evidence of Pws2 to 4.

Page 9 of 19 10

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018

The plaintiff himself examined as Pw1 and deposed in toto averments, got mentioned in the plaint and got marked ExA1 to A10.

Ex.A1 is the Original Will deed, dt:4.10.1980 executed by his mother infavour of him, defendant no.1 and husband of D2, Ex.A2 Pahany copy

dt:11.1.2018 issued by Tahasildar, Penuballi through Mee seva for the

Fasli year 1427, Ex.A3 is Pahany copy dt:11.1.2018 issued by Tahasildar,

Penuballi through Mee seva for the Fasli year 1426, Ex.A4: Pahany copy

dt:11.1.2018 issued by Tahasildar, Penuballi through Mee seva for the

Fasli year 1425, Ex.A5: Pahany copy dt:11.1.2018 issued by Tahasildar,

Penuballi through Mee seva for the Fasli year 1424, Ex.A6: Pahany copy

dt:11.1.2018 issued by Tahasildar, Penuballi through Mee seva for the

Fasli year 1423, Ex.A7:Pahany copy dt:11.1.2018 issued by Tahasildar,

Penuballi through Mee seva for the Fasli year 1422, Ex.A8: Pahany copy

dt:11.1.2018 issued by Tahasildar, Penuballi through Mee seva for the

Fasli year 1421, Ex,.A9: Pahany copy dt:11.1.2018 issued by Tahasildar,

Penuballi through Mee seva for the Fasli year 1420 and Ex.A10: Original

Pattadar passbook cum title deed dt;19.4.2018.

16. Pw2/K.Pullamma, Pw3/G.Narayana, both are stated in their chief affidavits that they are his relatives and further stated that Pw1 is the possessor and pattedar of dry land to an extent of Ac.2-39 gts situated in Muthagudem and the said property was got from his mother and since 30 years he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.

Page 10 of 19 11

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018

17.Pw4/S.Rammohan Rao, though the plaintiff filed his chief affidavit

before this court on 16.10.2025 and the case is coming for cross

examination by the defendants as the Pw4 did not attend for cross examination of the defendants as on 18.12.2025, his evidence is eschewed by this court.

18.To prove the contention of the defendants as stated supra, the 2nd defendant herself examined as Dw1 and reiterated the same facts got mentioned in her written statement and she also examined one

M.Venkateswar Rao who is the close relative of both the parties as a

Dw2.

19.The contention of the defence is that the suit schedule property is the absolute property of mother of the Pw1 and it is liable to be partitioned in between the plaintiff, defendants and their legal heirs and the mother of Pw1 never executed Ex.A1 will dt:4.10.1980 infavour of

Pw1, D4 and husband of D2. And further contention of the defendants are that Ex.A1 Will is a fabricated and created by the Pw1 and Pw1 influenced the revenue authorities and he obtained Ex.A2 to A10 revenue records. Hence, request the court to dismiss the suit.

20.Admittedly, by the Pw1 and other defendants are that the suit schedule property is the absolute property of the mother of the Pw1 and as she was died intestate, the suit schedule property is liable to be

Page 11 of 19 12

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018 partitioned among the plaintiff, D1 and husband of the D2 and other legal heirs of her.

21.It is not the case of the defendants are that the suit schedule property belongs to them, but they claims that the suit schedule property is not belongs to the Pw1. But it is belongs to mother of the Pw1 and also admitted that revenue records stands in the name of the Pw1.

22.As discussed supra, it is a suit filed by the plaintiff to grant

Permanent injunction restraining the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property herein. So, the prime issue to grant perpetual injunction the plaintiff has to establish his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. But the suit was not for the declaration of the title. As such this court not go in a deep discussion in respect of the title. The contention of the Pw1 is that, by virtue of the

Will deed dt:4.10.1980, himself, D1 and the husband of D2 bequeathed the properties. And Pw1 bequeathed the suit schedule property as his share by virtue of Ex.A1 Will. But the Ex.A1 will deed is disputed by the defendants. As this is a simple suit for perpetual injunction, this court did need not go in a deep discussion about the title in respect of the Ex.A1

Will. But court has to see whether the plaintiff has been possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on date of filing of the suit is main prime factor.

Page 12 of 19 13

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018

23.Admittedly, the defendants are not claiming any possession over the suit schedule property, but their claim is that the suit schedule property is belongs to the mother of the Pw1 and it is liable for the partition between the Pw1, D1 and husband of the D2 and other legal heirs.

To prove the possession over the suit schedule property the Pw1 relied upon the Ex.A2 to A10 Pahanies and pattadar passbook cum title deed, and also relied upon the evidence of Pws2 and Pw3 and Ex.A1

Will.

24.There is no single document filed by the defendants that they are in the possession of the suit schedule property but as stated supra, their contention is the suit schedule property is the absolute property of the mother of the Pw1 and it is liable to be partitioned. As she was died intestate leaving her legal heirs.

25.To prove that the suit schedule property is absolute property i..e, mother of Pw1 and it is liable for partition, the defendants did not file no single document to show plaint schedule property is the absolute property of the mother of Pw1. But admittedly the suit schedule property is the mother of Pw1. But the claim of Pw1 is that he bequeathed said property from her mother under Ex.A1 will deed.

A perusal of the Ex.A1 to A9, Ex.A1 is the Will deed executed by the mother of Pw1, dt:4.10.1980 and a perusal of Ex.A2 to A9 i..e,

Page 13 of 19 14

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018 pahany copies dt:11.01.2018 issued by the Thasildar, Penubally through

Mee-seva for the Fasli 1427, 1426, 1425, 1424, 1423, 1422, 1421, 1420 i.e., years pertaining to the 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010. So all these pahanies clearly shows that the plaintiff/Pw1 is the possessor and Pattedar of the land an extent of Ac.2-39gts in Sy.no.123.

And further a perusal of Ex.A10 Pattadar passbook cum title deed of plaintiff/Pw1, he is the pattadar under Khatha no. 510/Chinthagudem village and it indicates that he had a an extent of Ac 2.39gts in Sy.no.123 and the land particulars furnished in the said Ex.A10 as on 19.4.2018 as patta land. So, as per Ex.A2 to A9 revenue pahanies and Ex.A10 pattadar passbook cum title deed of Pw1, he is the pattadar, possessor of the suit schedule property i.e. Ac 2.39gts in Sy.no.123. And moreover, thr defendants cross examined the Pws1 to 3, but no material points were elicited from the mouth of the Pws1 to 3 to suit the defence of the defendants.

26.In the cross examination of the Dws1 and 2, the counsel for the plaintiff elicited some material points which are favourable to the case of the plaintiff. In the cross examination of the Dw1, she admitted that she is not the legal heir of the mother of the Pw1 and D1, but she is the daughter-in-law of Ravelu and further Dw1 admitted that Pw1 name was mutated in the revenue records as a pattadar and possessor. And also admitted that she did not take any steps for the cancellation of Ex.A10 pattadar passbook cum title deed before the revenue authorities and she further admitted that on 10.1.2018 they went to the suit schedule

Page 14 of 19 15

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018 property and questioned the Pw1 but not obstructed him on that day. It is true that on 10.1.2018, Pw1 presented a report against them before the

SHO, PS VM Banjara and a criminal case was registered and the said case was acquitted. So, as stated by the Pw1 on 10.1.2018 the defendants interfered and tried to obstruct the ploughing of the tractor for raising a paddy crop. So, the above admissions and the Pw1 given a police report against them itself indicates that interference over the suit schedule property of the plaintiff on 10.1.2018 and Pw1 proved the interference of the defendants over the suit schedule property.

27.The counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued that the

Dw2/M.Venkateswar Rao who is the son of the sister of the mother of the

Pw1 categorically admitted the real facts in the cross examination of the plaintiff and as that witness admitted the real facts which are posed by the counsel for the plaintiff. As such, the counsel for the defendants request the Hon’ble court to treat the witness as hostile, since he changed his earlier version and the Hon’ble court permitted to him for cross examination of Dw2 i.e.,his own witness, but no material points were elicited from the witness. As Dw2 stated real facts in his cross- examination. So, considering the said material points and request the court to decree the suit.

28.There is a force on arguments advanced by the counsel for the plaintiff and in cross examination of Dw2, he admitted that the Pw1 got the plaint schedule property from his mother and also admitted that Pw1

Page 15 of 19 16

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018 got plaint schedule property by virtue of Will deed executed by his mother and since death of his mother Pw1 has been cultivating the suit schedule property. So, these admissions strengthening the case of the plaintiff i.e., he was the possessor of the suit schedule property. So, the evidence of Pw1 is coupled with the evidence of Pws 2 and Pw3. And also the contents of Ex.A1 to A10.

29.As the evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 further disclosed that the defendants interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on 10.1.2018, which cannot be entertained. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction. Accordingly these issues are answered infavour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

ISSUE No.3:-

30. As it is a suit for perpetual injunction to decide the suit on basis of the actual possession over the suit schedule property on the date of the filing of the suit only, but not on the Ex.A1 Will. In view of the same, there is no necessity to answer whether the Ex.A1 Will is a true, genuine and binding on the defendants. As this a suit for simple permanent injunction, but not the declaration of the title. So, this court could not discussed in respect of the title of the suit schedule property in respect of

Ex.A1 Will. So, this issue is not answered as it is related to the aspect of title.

Page 16 of 19 17

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018

31.ISSUE No.4:-

In view of my above foregoing discussion, findings in issue nos.1 to 3 and facts and circumstances of the case, this court comes to conclusion that, the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants, as prayed for.

32. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting Perpetual

Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants and all other persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Grade-II Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2026.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLI.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE : : WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :

Pw.1: M.Venkateswarlu, Dt:3.5.2024. [ Pw.2: K.Pullamma, dt:13.8.2025.

Pw.3: G.Narayana, dt:3.9.2025.

Pw.4: S.Ram Mohan Rao, dt:16.10.2025 (Eschewed the evidence of Pw4 on 18.12.2025).

Page 17 of 19 18

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018 : WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT :

Dw1: Malladi Rukmini, dt:13.2.2026.

Dw2:M.Venkateswara Rao, dt:13.3.2026.

: DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1: Original will deed dt:4.10.1980 executed by his mother infavour of him, defendant no.1 and husband of D2, Ex.A2: Pahany copy dt:11.1.2018 issued by Tahasildar, Penuballi through Mee seva for the Fasli year 1427, Ex.A3: Pahany copy dt:11.1.2018 issued by Tahasildar, Penuballi through Mee seva for the Fasli year 1426, Ex.A4:Pahany copy dt:11.1.2018 issued by Tahasildar, Penuballi through

Mee seva for the Fasli year 1425,

Ex.A5:Pahany copy dt:11.1.2018 issued by Tahasildar, Penuballi through

Mee seva for the Fasli year 1424,

Ex.A6: Pahany copy dt:11.1.2018 issued by Tahasildar, Penuballi through

Mee seva for the Fasli year 1423,

Ex.A7:Pahany copy dt:11.1.2018 issued by Tahasildar, Penuballi through

Mee seva for the Fasli year 1422,

Ex.A8:Pahany copy dt:11.1.2018 issued by Tahasildar, Penuballi through

Mee seva for the Fasli year 1421,

Ex.A9:Pahany copy dt:11.1.2018 issued by Tahasildar, Penuballi through

Mee seva for the Fasli year 1420,

Ex.A10: Original Pattadar passbook cum title deed, dt;19.4.2018.

Page 18 of 19 19

O.S.No.154 of 2024

in Old OS No.6 of 2018 : DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT :

Ex.B1 : Photographs two in number.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLI.

Page 19 of 19

1

O.S.No.123 of 2024

in Old OS No.62 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SATHUPALLY.

Thursday, this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Present: Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sathupally.

O.S.No.123 of 2024

(Old O.S.No.62 of 2017)

Between:-

1. Regalla Narsa Reddy, S/o.Ranga Reddy, Age:63yrs, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Kallurugudem village of Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District.

2. Regalla Rusha Vathi, W/o.Narsa Reddy, Age:55yrs, Occ:Housewife, R/o.Kallurugudem village of Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District.

.…Plaintiffs. //And//

1. Gosa Narasimha Rao, S/o.Ramulu, Age:50yrs, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Kallurugudem village of Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District.

2. Velisala SidDaiah, S/o.Ramaiah, Age:60yrs, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Kallurugudem village of Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District.

3. Mamilla Lakshmaiah, S/o.Tirapathaiah, Age:60yrs, Occ:Agriculture, R/o..Kallurugudem village of Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District.

4. Potlapogula Venkanna, S/o.Pitchaiah, Age:45yrs, Occ:Agriculture, R/O..Kallurugudem village of Vemsoor Mandal,

Page 1 of 11 2

O.S.No.123 of 2024

in Old OS No.62 of 2017 Khammam District.

.…Defendants.

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 27.4.2026 in the presence of Sri G.Deendayal, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri P.Janaki Rama Rao, Advocate for the Defendants; upon perusing the material on record and after hearing the arguments, this Court made the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men, servants, associates and any other persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property and award costs of the suit.

2.The brief contents of the plaint, are as follows:-

The plaintiffs and defendants are the residents of

Kallurugudem village of Vemsoor Mandal of Khammam District. The plaintiff no.1 is husband of Plaintiff no.2. Plaintiff no.1 is the owner and possessor of dry land (wet-cultivation) out of Sy.No.826/AA an extent of

Ac.2.00 situated at Kallurugudem revenue village, Vemsoor Mandal,

Khammam District and Plaintiff no.2 is the owner and possessor of dry land (Neem Garden) out of Sy.No.827/A an extent of Ac.4.29gts and Ac 1.21gts of Dry land (wet cultivation) out of Sy.No.827/AA situated at

Kallurugudem revenue Village, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District.

Page 2 of 11 3

O.S.No.123 of 2024

in Old OS No.62 of 2017 Ac.3.00 is Neem garden out of Ac 4.29gts and remaining is wet cultivation. The land of Plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no.2 both comprises in one compact bit and total comes to an extent of AC.6.10gts. The said land is morefully described in the annexed to the plaint and hereinafter called as suit schedule property. The plaintiff no.1 and 2 succeeded the suit schedule property from their Grand parents 40 years back. The plaintiff applied for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed for their respective property as mentioned above before the then Mandal Revenue

Officer, Vemsoor about 20 years ago under ROR Act. The then Mandal

Revenue Officer, Vemsoor issued pattadar passbook and title deed infavour of plaintiffs after due enquiry under ROR Act for their respective lands. The names of the plaintiffs have been entered in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor for the respective suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are acquired valid title to the suit schedule property.

There is a R & B road, which leads from Kallurugudem to Kistaram village, there is a vacant land of Government is situated towards western side of R & B road, About 50 years ago, a village Rastha has been formed by the Grand parents of plaintiffs through the Government land, which is about 45 yards length and 5 yards width into the suit schedule property from R & B road. The plaintiffs have been using the said village rastha to enter into the suit schedule property from the R & B road.

Except this way, there is no other way to the plaintiffs to ingress and engress to reach the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property

Page 3 of 11 4

O.S.No.123 of 2024

in Old OS No.62 of 2017 and village rastha is shown in the rough sketch filed herewith for kind perusal of the court. The village rastha shown in the rough sketch is a dire necessity for the plaintiffs for ingress and engress to enter into the suit schedule property for cultivation and other purposes.

The defendants and their men tried to occupy village rastha and the land of plaintiffs, in a process they started to disturb the village rastha on 25.6.2017. The plaintiffs and Villagers obstructed the illegal acts of the defendants with great difficulty. The defendants are causing obstruction to the plaintiffs to pass through village rastha for trafficking their men, cattle, tractor etc. to enter into their lands. The Defendants are causing such obstructions since 10 days with a view to disturb the village rastha and to occupy the rastha as well as the land of plaintiffs without having any right or title or possession over the suit schedule property. The

Plaintiffs demanded the defendants to left the schedule property. Hence, request the court to grant perpetual injunction against the defendants.

Hence, this suit.

3.On receipt of the summons, Defendants no.1 to 4 they jointly filed their written statement through their counsel and denied all the averments got mentioned in the plaint. The Contention of the defendants no.1 to 4 are that the alleged Government land is a Graveyard of Repallewada of

Kallurugudem village. For the last 50 years and more the villagers have been using it as burial ground. It is located abutting the R & B road on

West and to the East of Gudurucheruvukattu Kaluva. The burial ground is located in an extent of approximately Ac 0.20gts and the same has been

Page 4 of 11 5

O.S.No.123 of 2024

in Old OS No.62 of 2017 used for cremation, burial of deceased and removal of bangles, pasupu kunkuma, etc of the widows. In the year 2002 the Grama panchayat

Kallurugudem (with VFS Funds) sunk a tube well in the burial ground and installed a hand pump. The relations of the deceased after completing the last ceremonies have been bathing by drawing water from bore well and the allegation that there is a village raastha as alleged by plaintiffs is false. Hence, request the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.In view of the pleadings of the both parties the following issues are framed for settlement of trial on 22.1.2026.

(i)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(ii)To what relief?

5.Initially, this suit was filed and registered as OS.No.62 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Sathupally, later, this case was transferred to Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Sathupally as per Orders of the Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Khammam vide Proceedings in Dis.No.4364/2024, dt.14.11.2024 and this case was received by this court on 31.12.2024 at stage of pending IAs and re- numbered as a OS.No.123 of 2024.

Page 5 of 11 6

O.S.No.123 of 2024

in Old OS No.62 of 2017

6.On behalf of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and posted for cross examination of the

Pw1 as a last chance to 2.4.2026 on that day, D1 to D4 called absent, no representation on their part. Hence, cross examination of Pw1 is treated as “Nil” and plaintiff side no further evidence reported and the evidence of plaintiff side is closed on 15.4.2026 and posted for evidence of defendants side to 22.4.2026. On 22.4.2026 defendant nos.1 to 4 called absent, no representation on their part. Hence, defendants side evidence is closed. Posted for arguments to 27.4.2026 and today posted for pronouncement of the Judgment.

7.Heard arguments.

8.ISSUE No.1:-

It is the case of the Plaintiff is that, Pw1 and his wife are the pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property total an extent of Ac 6.10gts and the revenue authorities also issued a pattadar passbooks and pahanies in their names and the said suit schedule property succeeded from their Grand parents 40 years back. The plaintiff applied for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed for their respective property as mentioned above before the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Vemsoor about 20 years ago under ROR Act. The then Mandal Revenue Officer, Vemsoor issued pattadar passbook and title deed infavour of plaintiffs after due enquiry under ROR Act for their respective lands. The names of the plaintiffs have been entered in the revenue records as pattadar and

Page 6 of 11 7

O.S.No.123 of 2024

in Old OS No.62 of 2017 possessor for the respective suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are acquired valid title to the suit schedule property.

There is a R & B road, which leads from Kallurugudem to Kistaram village, there is a vacant land of Government is situated towards Western side of R & B road, About 50 years ago, a village Rastha has been formed by the Grand parents of plaintiffs through the Government land, which is about 45 yards length and 5 yards width into the suit schedule property from R & B road. The plaintiffs have been using the said village rastha to enter into the suit schedule property from the R & B road.

Except this way, there is no other way to the plaintiffs to ingress and engress to reach the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property and village raastha is shown in the rough sketch filed and the defendants and their men tried to occupy the same. The defendants and their men tried to occupy village rastha and the land of plaintiffs, in a process they started to disturb the village rastha on 25.6.2017. The plaintiffs and

Villagers obstructed the illegal acts of the defendants with great difficulty.

The defendants are causing obstruction to the plaintiffs to pass through village rastha for trafficking their men, cattle, tractor etc. to enter into their lands. The Defendants are causing such obstructions since 10 days with a view to disturb the village rastha and to occupy the rastha as well as the land of plaintiffs without having any right or title or possession over the suit schedule property. The Plaintiffs demanded the defendants to left the schedule property. Hence, he filed the suit.

Page 7 of 11 8

O.S.No.123 of 2024

in Old OS No.62 of 2017

9.To Substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff filed his chief affidavit examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. And the

Pw1 reiterated the same facts of the plaint. Ex.A1 is pattadar passbook of the Pw1 issued by the Tahsildar, Vemsoor, Ex.A2 pattadar passbook of the 2nd plaintiff issued by Tahsildar, Vemsoor, Ex.A3 to A5 are mee seva pahanies F 1424 to 1426, dt:4.7.2017 (2014 to 2016) number in 3 each.

As per the evidence of the PW1, himself and 2nd plaintiff are the pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property and a perusal of the

Ex.A1 and A2 and pattadar passbooks of Pw1 and Plaintiff no.2, they are the pattadars of the suit schedule property. And Ex.A3 to A5 are also reveals that the Pw1 and 2nd plaintiff are the pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule properties stand in their name. Their contention is that there is vacant land of Government situated towards the western side of R & B road to the suit schedule property, the said rastha is formed by grand parents of the plaintiff through the government land and the said

Raastha using as a village Raastha to enter into the suit schedule property to R &B road and there is no other way to the plaintiffs to ingress and engress to reach the suit schedule property. But the defendants are disturbing enjoyment of the village Rastha. Hence, request the court to grant injunction against the defendants.

10. As seen from the evidence of Pw1, the evidence of Pw1 is coupled with the contents of Ex.A1 to A5. The evidence of Pw1 is not challenged by the defendants and though this court has given an opportunity to the

Page 8 of 11 9

O.S.No.123 of 2024

in Old OS No.62 of 2017 defendants for cross examination of the Pw1 and posted as a last chance to 2.4.2026 on that day, the defendants no.1 to 4 called absent no representation on their part. Hence, cross examination of Pw1 is treated as “Nil”. The plaintiff reported no further evidence on 15.4.2026. So, the case is posted for defendants side evidence to 22.4.2026, on that day D1 to D4 called absent, no representation on their part. As such their evidence was closed by this court and posted for arguments to 27.4.2026.

and today for pronouncement of the judgment.

This court had given several opportunities to the defendants, but the defendants did not turn-up and not taken any legal steps for adducing their evidence and not cross examined the Pw1. So, the evidence of Pw1 is unchallenged. So, the evidence of Pw1 is coupled with the contents of

Ex.A1 to A5. And further the evidence of Pw1 discloses that the defendants are interfering with the village Raastha, which cannot be entertained. So, the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of perpetual injunction.

Accordingly this issue was answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

ISSUE No. 2 : -

11.In view of the above foregoing discussion, the facts and circumstances of the case this court comes to conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for.

Page 9 of 11 10

O.S.No.123 of 2024

in Old OS No.62 of 2017

12. In the Result, the suit is decreed with costs granting perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiffs restraining the defendants, their men, servants, associates and any other person or persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Grade-II Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of April, 2026.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLI.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE : : WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS :

Pw.1: R.Narsareddy, Dt:11.3.2026. [ : WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS :

- None- : DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS :

Ex.A1: Pattadar passbook of him issued by Thasildar, Vemsoor,

Ex.A2: Pattadar passbook of 2nd plaintiff issued by Thasildar, Vemsoor,

Ex.A3: Meeseva pahany for the Fasli 1424 number in 3 issued by Tahasildar, Vemsoor, dt:4.7.2017,

Page 10 of 11 11

O.S.No.123 of 2024

in Old OS No.62 of 2017 Ex.A4: Meeseva pahany for the Fasli 1425 number in 3 issued by Tahasildar, Vemsoor, dt:4.7.2017,

Ex.A5: Meeseva pahany for the Fasli 1426 number in 3 issued by Tahasildar, Vemsoor, dt:4.7.2017.

: DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS : -Nil-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLI.

Page 11 of 11

1

O.S.No.143 of 2024

(Old O.S.No.54 of 2017.)

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SATHUPALLY.

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026.

Present: Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sathupally.

O.S.No .143 of 2024 (Old O.S.No.54 of 201 7) Between:

Akkineni Sivarama Krishna, S/o.Murali Muktheswara Rao, Age:35yrs, Occ:Agriculture and Tax consultant, R/o.Bheemavaram village, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammm District. ….Plaintiff. //And//

1. Panthangi Satyavathi, W/o.Appa Rao, Age:45yrs, Occ:Housewife and properties, R/o.Bheemavaram village, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District.

2. Devarakonda Srilaxmi, W/o.Ramesh, Age:26yrs, Occ:Housewife, R/o.Dammapeta village and Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.

….Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 15.4.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Krishna Prasad, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri V.Rama Krishna, Advocate for Defendant No.1 and D2 remained exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court passed the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the D1 and D2 under Order

VII Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 26 of Civil Procedure Code for recovery of 2

O.S.No.143 of 2024

(Old O.S.No.54 of 2017.) money of Rs.1,72,000/- (One lakh Seventy two thousand Only) with costs and future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree @ 6 %PA from the date of decree to till the date of realization, total amount against estate of deceased/P.Apparao which is lying in the hands of the defendants basing on the promissory note and award costs of the suit.

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

The husband of the first defendant and the father of 2nd defendant namely P.Appa Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for his family necessities on 27.6.2014 from him and promised to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum compoundable with early rests either to the plaintiff or his order on demand, and he got executed a pronote infavour of the plaintiff on the same day. Having borrowed the said amount he did not discharge the said amount and died intestate on 26.7.2014 leaving behind the defendants no.1 and 2 who are the wife and daughter. The estate of the deceased Appa Rao is devolved on the defendants. Hence, they are liable to discharge the debt of

Panthangi Appa Rao due to the plaintiff under the pronote dt:27.6.2014.

The plaintiff approached the defendants one month after the death of

Appa Rao and requested to pay the amount due under the Pronote dt:27.6.2014 and both the defendants promise to discharge within two months to him, but failed to pay the same to him inspite of several requests made by the plaintiff and postpone the same one pretext or the other and finally the plaintiff got issued legal notice but the defendants did not choose to pay the said amount.

Hence, he filed the suit for recovery of the money against the defendants.

3

O.S.No.143 of 2024

(Old O.S.No.54 of 2017.)

3. After receipt of the summons of D1 and D2 on 20.10.2017, D2 called absent and she was set exparte on that day and defendant no.1 appeared through his counsel and filed her written statement and interalia contended that denied all allegations mentioned in the plaint and specifically denied that her husband namely P.Appa Rao during his lifetime never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff particularly on 27.6.2014 and further contended that he has no necessity to borrow the said amount, and the plaintiff never approached them after death of her husband namely P.Appa Rao. The plaintiff forged the promissory note with the help of scribe and attestors and filed false suit in order to wrongful gain.

Further contended that the signatures appearing on suit pronote are not pertains to deceased/husband of first defendant. And the defendants reserves their right to send the alleged suit promissory note to the hand writing expert for their opinion in later stage. Hence, request the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.In view of pleadings of the both parties, the following issues are framed by the Junior Civil Judge, Sathupally for settlement of trial on 3.4.2018.

Issue No: 1: Whether the suit promissory note is true, genuine and supported by consideration? Issue No:2: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit amount? Issue No:3: If so, to what Relief?

4

O.S.No.143 of 2024

(Old O.S.No.54 of 2017.)

5.Initially the suit was filed and registered as OS No.54/2017 on the file of Prl.JCJ Court, Sathupally, later this case was transferred to Senior Civil

Judge’s Court, Sathupally as per the orders of the Hon’ble Prl.District Judge,

Khammam vide proceedings in Dis.No.4364/2024 dt:14.11.2024 and this case was received by this court on 31.12.2024 at the stage of IAs and renumbered as OS No.143/2024.

6.In order to prove the suit claim before this court, the plaintiff(Pw1) filed his chief affidavit and examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. The plaintiff also examined scribe of Promissory note namely P.Subba Rao as Pw2.

7.On behalf of the Defendant, the first defendant filed her chief- affidavit and examined as a Dw1 and no documents are marked on her behalf.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides and counsel for the D1 filed his written arguments. perused the entire record.

9.ISSUE Nos.1 & 2 :

The burden of proof of these issues lies upon the plaintiff to prove that the suit pronote is true, valid and supported by consideration and binding on the defendants, for which, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and also examined the scribe as a Pw2 and relied upon Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.A1: Original

Promissory Note, Dt: 27.06.2014. Ex.A2: Office copy of the legal notice, Dt:

15.6.2017, Ex.A3: Postal receipts 2 in number and Ex.A4: Postal

Acknowledgment received from defendant no.1.

5

O.S.No.143 of 2024

(Old O.S.No.54 of 2017.)

10.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, Pw1 filed his chief-affidavit and categorically stated that on 27.6.2014, the husband of the first defendant i.e., deceased namely P.Appa Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from him on the same day he executed a Ex.A1 promissory note infavour of Pw1 in the presence of Pw2 and other attestors and Ex.A1 pronote scribed by the Pw2 and deceased husband of first defendant namely P.Appa Rao agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24 % PA and subsequently the said Appa Rao was died intestate on 26.7.2014 and thereafter he demanded the defendants about the debt covered under Ex.A1 for which they did not pay any amount. Hence, he filed the suit for recovery of amount.

11. PW.2/P.Subba Rao filed his chief affidavit and categorically stated that the deceased/P.Appa Rao who is the husband of first defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Pw1 on 27.6.2014 in his presence and other attestors namely A.Sudarshan and N.R.Satyanarayana and himself scribed the promissory note and deceased/P.Appa rao executed Ex.A1 pronote infavour of

Pw1. And he agreed to repay the same with interest to Pw1.

12.The defence counsel cross examined Pws1 and Pw2, to discredit their evidence but the defendants failed to elicited any matter in support of his defence to disprove the case of the plaintiff as well as transactions covered under Ex.A1 suit pronote except given suggestions to the Pw1 and Pw2.

13.To substantiate the case of the defendants the first defendant 6

O.S.No.143 of 2024

(Old O.S.No.54 of 2017.) (Dw1) herself filed her chief affidavit and reiterated the same facts and got mentioned in her written statement and further stated that her husband not borrowed any amount from Pw1 and no necessity to borrow that amount and after the death of her husband, Pw1 forged and created the Ex.A1 promissory note with the help of attestors and Pw2(scribe) and got filed this false case against them.

In the cross examination of Dw1 admitted that her deceased husband is having a land to an extent of Ac 5.00gts and the same is inserted after death of her husband by herself and D2 as being legal heirs.

14.Though the Dw1, taken plea that her husband namely P.Appa Rao never executed the Ex.A1 pronote infavour of Pw1 and she denied her husband signature on Ex.A1 pronote. Though she filed the petition in IA 412/2018 in IA 359/2018 in OS No.54/2017, the said petition for sending the documents to FSL are dismissed on 22.2.2019 he did not take any steps against that petition and the same was dismissed by this court and so also IA 3/2025 was also dismissed by this court, but the defendant did not take any steps against the aggrieved orders to send the disputed signature of Ex.A1 to FSL for comparison with her husband admitted signatures. In the absence of the same, the contention of the

Dw1 cannot be accepted that her husband signature was forged by the Pw1.

The counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued that the Dw1 simply stated that her deceased/husband never executed Ex.A1 suit pronote and further stated that the evidence of Pw1 is coupled with the evidence of Pw2 and also 7

O.S.No.143 of 2024

(Old O.S.No.54 of 2017.) the contents of Ex.A1, Ex.A2, A4 to prove the case of the plaintiff/Pw1. Hence, request the court to pass the decree infavour of the plaintiff.

15.There is a force on arguments advanced by the counsel, it is rightly pointed out that the defendant did not take any steps for revision of dismissal orders passed in IA 412/2018 in IA 359/2018, Dt:22.02.2019 and IA 3/2025

dt:6.4.2026. So simply denied her husband signature on Ex.A1 suit pronote. So,

the contention of the Dw1 is not accepted.

16.A perusal of the evidence of Pws1 and Pw2 the evidence of Pw1 is coupled with the evidence of Pw2 and also the contents of Ex.A1 and A2 proved that Ex.A1 suit pronote executed by the deceased husband of Dw1 on 27.6.2014 infavour of Pw1 and received the consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Pw1 in the presence of Pw2.

So, consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- is passed to the deceased/P.Appa Rao who is the husband of Dw1.

17.So, in view of the my above foregoing discussion, the plaintiff (Pw1) successfully proved that husband of Dw1 namely P.Apparao borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Pw1 and he executed a Ex.A1 promissory note in the presence of Pw2 and attestors on 27.6.2014. Accordingly these issues are answered infavour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

8

O.S.No.143 of 2024

(Old O.S.No.54 of 2017.) Issue no. 3 :

18.So, In view of my above finding in Issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled for Decree.

19.In the result, the suit is decreed for sum of Rs.1,72,000/- (Rupees

One lakh Lakh Seventy two Thousand Only) with costs and subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) from the date of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a,. from the date of decree till realization against the estate of the deceased namely

Panthangi Appa Rao which is lying in the hands of D1 and D2.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of April, 2026, under

the hand and seal of this court.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLY.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1: A.Siva Ramakrishna, Dt.29.12.2021.Dw1:P.Satyavathi, dt:16.2.2023.

PW.2: P.Subbarao, dt:9.6.2022.

Documents marked:

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original Promissory Note, Dt: 27.06.2014.

9

O.S.No.143 of 2024

(Old O.S.No.54 of 2017.) Ex.A2: Office copy of the legal notice, Dt: 15.6.2017.

Ex.A3: Postal receipts 2 in number.

Ex.A4: Postal Acknowledgment received from defendant no.1

For Defendant:

-Nil-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLY.

1

O.S.No.158 of 2024

in Old OS No.24 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SATHUPALLY.

Thursday, this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Present: Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sathupally.

O.S.No.158 of 2024

(Old O.S.No.24 of 2018)

Between:-

Annepu Nageswara Rao, S/o.Late Chitteiah, Age:55yrs, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Kandukuru Village, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District.

.…Plaintiff. //And//

Bingi Madhusudhana Rao, S/o.Narayana, Age:40yrs, Occ:Agrl, R/o.Kandukuru Village, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District.

.…Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 27.4.2026 in the presence of Sri Ch.Krishna Prasad, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Sk.Bujji Saheb, Advocate for the Defendant; upon perusing the material on record and after hearing the arguments, this Court made the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his men, supporters, agents and any other person or persons claiming through him from interfering with the peaceful

Page 1 of 9 2

O.S.No.158 of 2024

in Old OS No.24 of 2018 possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property and award costs of the suit.

2.The brief contents of the plaint, are as follows:-

The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the land in

Sy.No.1130/140 to an extent of Ac.1.00gts situated at Kandukuru revenue village of Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District.

And further submits that one Annepu Chitteiah the father of the plaintiff cleared the bushes and made the said land into cultivation about 50years. On that the government of Andhra Pradesh granted assignment patta infavour of father of plaintiff and entered the name of father of plaintiff at Vemsoor Mandal Revenue records as pattadar and possessor.

After demise of the said Chitteiah the name of the plaintiff entered as pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property in revenue records.

Further, the plaintiff submits that he raised cotton crops in an extent of Ac 1.00gts every year and the defendant is resident of same village and he approached the plaintiff and requested to lease out the schedule property to him but the plaintiff refused the same. Since the plaintiff is having only the said property and also assignee. On that the defendant developed grudge against the plaintiff and trying to interfering into the agricultural operations of plaintiff in the suit schedule property.

Page 2 of 9 3

O.S.No.158 of 2024

in Old OS No.24 of 2018 In that juncture on 15.2.2018 when the plaintiff was in the schedule property for agricultural operations, all of sudden the defendant along with his followers came into the schedule property and they tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. And the interference of the defendant is having political influence, with that political influence, they are trying to interfere in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff could not enjoy the suit schedule property peacefully without the lawful help of the court as again and again the defendant is trying to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence, he filed this suit against the defendant for grant of perpetual injunction. Hence, this suit.

3.On receipt of the summons, Defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement and interalia contended and denied the allegations got mentioned in the plaint and further contended that himself purchased the land an extent of Ac.1.00gts out of Sy.No.1130/140 situated at Kandkuru revenue village, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District from the plaintiff on 24.9.2016 through unregistered posessory agreement of sale infavour of his wife namely Bingi Lakshmi, since then the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the said land till date. On the basis of said agreement, the defendant made repeated applications to the

Tahasildar, vemsoor for regularize the said document. Taking this undue advantage, the plaintiff filed the above suit to grab away the land of him.

In fact the defendant is cultivated the dry crops in the land got purchased from the plaintiff and this year also raised cotton crop in the said land.

Page 3 of 9 4

O.S.No.158 of 2024

in Old OS No.24 of 2018 And further submits that the Government never assigned any land to the father of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff having the land in Sy.No.1130/140 an extent of Ac 1.00gts and the same was entered in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor and the said land was purchased by him as per the agreement of sale, dt:24.9.2016. Hence, request the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.In view of the pleadings of the both parties, the following issues are framed by the Addl.Jr.Civil Judge, Sathupally for settlement of trial on 22.7.2021.

(i)Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of instituting the suit?

(ii)If, so Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction, as prayed for?

(iii)To what relief?

5.Initially, this suit was filed and registered as OS.No.24 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Sathupally, later, this case was transferred to Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Sathupally as per Orders of the Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Khammam vide Proceedings in Dis.No.4364/2024, dt.14.11.2024 and this case was received by this court on 31.12.2024 at stage of pending IA’s and re- numbered as a OS.No.158 of 2024.

Page 4 of 9 5

O.S.No.158 of 2024

in Old OS No.24 of 2018

6.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as

Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9.

7. Defendants cross examined in part of Pw1 and when the case is coming for continuation of cross examination of Pw1 by the defendant posted as a finally on 21.4.2026 and on that day defendant called absent.

No representation on his part. Hence, remaining cross examination of Pw1 treated as “NIL” and no further evidence reported and posted for defendant side evidence to 23.4.2026. On 23.4.2026, the defendant called absent, no representation on his part. Hence, the evidence of defendant side is closed. Posted for arguments to 27.4.2026 and today for pronouncement of the Judgment.

8.Heard arguments.

9.ISSUE NO.1 & 2:-

It is the case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaint schedule property is originally belongs to his father and the Government granted assignment patta to him and after demise of his father his name was entered in revenue records as Pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property and when the defendant approached him to leased out the said property and he refused to give to him, as such the defendant grudge upon the plaintiff and on 15.2.2018 the defendant along with his henchmen interfered over the Plaint Schedule Property. Hence, he filed the suit.

Page 5 of 9 6

O.S.No.158 of 2024

in Old OS No.24 of 2018 To prove the possession over the suit schedule property, the Pw1 relied upon Ex.A1 to A9.

10.To Substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed his chief affidavit and examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A9. Ex.A1 to A8 are the Mee-seva Pahanies for the Fasli years 1420 to 1427, dt:25.2.2018 and Ex.A9 is the certified copy of 1-B namuna, Sathupally, dt:15.11.2017.

11.Though the defendant filed his written statement and participated in the trial and he cross examined the Pw1 in-part and no material points were elicited from the mouth of the witness and though this court posted as finally for remaining cross examination of the Pw1, the defendant did not turn-up on 21.4.2026, as such this court closed the cross-examination of the Pw1. And the plaintiff reported no further evidence on that day, as such the plaintiff evidence closed and posted for defendant side to 23.4.2026. On 23.4.2026 the defendant called absent, no representation on his part. Hence, the evidence is closed by this court on 23.4.2026 and posted to 27.4.2026 for arguments and today for pronouncement of the judgment.

The defendant did not take any steps to adduce his evidence. It indicates that he has no interest to prosecute the case.

As stated supra, there is no evidence adduced by the defendant to rebut the evidence of Pw1. And the Pw1 relied upon Ex.A1 to A9

Page 6 of 9 7

O.S.No.158 of 2024

in Old OS No.24 of 2018 revenue records and a perusal of Ex.A1 to A8 Fasli i.e, 2010 to 2017 clearly indicates that the Pw1 is the pattadar and possessor of the land an extent of Ac 1.00gts in Sy.no.1130/140 of the suit schedule property. And

Ex.A9 1- B Namuna (ROR) also indicates that the Pw1 is pattadar of the suit schedule property i.e., an extent of Ac 1.00gts in Sy.No.1130/140 and having a khata No.237, Ex.A1 to A8 all the pahanies all the pahanies also revealed that the nature of the land of Patta is a ‘assignment patta’. So, the evidence of Pw1 is coupled with the contents of Ex.A1 to A9. It shows that the plaintiff is the pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property. And there is no evidence adduced by the defendant and the evidence of Pw1 is not challenged by the defendant.

12.The plaintiff/Pw1 by filing the Ex.A1 to A8 pahanies and 1-B

Namuna (Ex.A9) clearly establishes the possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff (Pw1) is entitled for perpetual injunction. As stated supra, the evidence of Pw1 is coupled with the contents of Ex.A1 to A9. And further the evidence of

Pw1 disclosed that defendant interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which cannot be entertained.

Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction.

Accordingly, these issues are answered infavour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Page 7 of 9 8

O.S.No.158 of 2024

in Old OS No.24 of 2018 ISSUE No.3:-

13.In view of the above foregoing discussion and the facts and circumstances of the case this court comes to conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendant, as prayed for.

14. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting Perpetual

Injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant and his men, supporters, agents and any other person or per- sons claiming through him from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Grade-II Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of April, 2026.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLI.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE : : WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :

Pw.1:A.Nageswar Rao, Dt:30.12.2022. [ : WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT :

-None - : DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF :

Page 8 of 9 9

O.S.No.158 of 2024

in Old OS No.24 of 2018 Ex.A1:Mee seva pahanies for the fasli year 1420 dt:25.2.2018,

Ex.A2:Mee seva pahanies for the fasli year 1421 dt:25.2.2018,,

Ex.A3: Mee seva pahanies for the fasli year 1422 dt:25.2.2018

Ex.A4:Mee seva pahanies for the fasli year 1423 dt:25.2.2018,

Ex.A5:Mee seva pahanies for the fasli year 1424 dt:25.2.2018,

Ex.A6:Mee seva pahanies for the fasli year 1425 dt:25.2.2018,

Ex.A7:Mee seva pahanies for the fasli year 1426 dt:25.2.2018,

Ex.A8:Mee seva pahanies for the fasli year 1427 dt:25.2.2018,

Ex.A9:CC of 1-B issued by Tahasildar, Sathupally dt:15.11.2017.

: DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT :

-NIL-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SATHUPALLI.

Page 9 of 9

1

HMOP No.01/2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT MADHIRA.

Dated this the 04th day of April, 2025.

Present: Sri Sk.Meera Khasim Saheb,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sathupalli. FAC:Senior Civil Judge, Madhira.

H.M.O.P.No.01 of 2025

Between:- Dara Sai Anvesh, S/o.Srinivasa Rao, Age: 30 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H.No.11-213/B/1, Near New Bus Stand, Wyra Town and Mandal, Khammam District.

….Petitioner //AND//

Dara Lakshmi Pujitha @ Parisa Lakshmi Pujitha, W/o.Dara Sai Anvesh, D/o.Parisa Gurunadha Rao, Age: 27 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.9-47, Vyshyula Vari Veedhi, Gampalagudem Village and Mandal, NTR District, A.P.

….Respondent

This petition is coming before me on 28.03.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Subramanyam, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri B.Pullarao, Advocate for the respondent; upon perusing the material on record, and after hearing on petitioner side, this Court made the following:- : O R D E R :

1.This petition is filed by the Petitioner/Husband against his

Wife/Respondent U/Sec.13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce on the ground of ‘Cruelty’.

2

HMOP No.01/2025

2. It is stated in the petition that, the respondent is the legally wedded wife of petitioner and their marriage was performed on 20.08.2022 at Shabari

Gardens, Wyra Town and Mandal, Khammam District, as per Hindu customs and rites usage prevailed in their community. Their marriage was consummated. After the marriage the respondent joined with the society of the petitioner at Wyra Village and Mandal. The respondent and petitioner have no issues.

It is further stated that in the petition that, petitioner and respondent lived happily hardly for (3) months, during in this 3 months also the respondent to picked-up quarrel with the petitioner on petty reasons and leave the house without intimation. That the respondent attitude with the petitioner is very rude, from the very beginning of matrimonial life. The mother of the petitioner died prior to marriage. The respondent started forcing the petitioner to shift the family to Hyderabad and she further demanded the petitioner to keep the father of the petitioner away from the family. The petitioner is the only son and he has got moral obligation to look after his old aged father, but the respondent since from beginning she has got disrespect towards her father- in-law. The respondent forced the petitioner to leave his father to his fate.

It is further submitted that the respondent forced the petitioner to buy lavish articles and to finish the salary within (30) days. In the month of

October, 2022 the respondent openly revealed that she is not interested the marriage with petitioner and further she stated that her parents forcefully got marriage with the petitioner and she further forced the petitioner to shift the family to Hyderabad and she further threatened the petitioner if he shift the 3

HMOP No.01/2025

family to Hyderabad then only she will join the company of the petitioner and left the house and went to her parents house. The petitioner fell sick and he was admitted in Arogya Hospital, Khammam, the father of the petitioner informed to the respondent, but the respondent did not come to see the petitioner.

It is further submitted that the elders of the petitioner as well as the father of the petitioner informed the respondent and her parents that they will come to take back the respondent, but the respondent and her parents bluntly refused to join the company of the petitioner, the petitioner and elders of the petitioner and father and Grandfather went to the house of the respondent and convinced the parents of the respondent and bring back the respondent. Even after coming back into the matrimonial fold there is no change in the attitude of the respondent, she again started harassing the petitioner by saying that he has no mother as such he was brought up by his father with no morals.

The respondent started harassing the petitioner to transfer the house in her name which stands in the name of the petitioner. The respondent again started forcing the petitioner to shift the family to Hyderabad by leaving his father. Finally on 15.05.2023 the respondent left the company of the petitioner without intimation by taking away gold worth of Rs.20,00,000/- and other valuable articles. The petitioner alone went to the house of the respondent to bring back the respondent but the respondent threatened the petitioner that she will file a criminal case against the petitioner and his father.

It is further submitted that respondent started harassing the petitioner by keeping whatsapp status by using abusing words and abusing posts and 4

HMOP No.01/2025

extorting the petitioner by posting criminal cases which were reported in daily news papers. The respondent further threatening the petitioner that she will file false criminal cases against the family of the petitioner. The petitioner send the elders to bring back the petitioner reluctantly refused to join with the company of the petitioner. Under these circumstances there is no other go to the petitioner except taking divorce. There is no hope of any good from the respondent, as such the petitioner is constrained to file the petition seeking for granting divorce on the ground of Cruelty. Hence, this petition.

3.After receipt of the Notice, Sri B.Pulla Rao, Advocate filed vakalath for respondent on 07.3.2025 and filed a memo and the matter was posted to 21.3.2025 for hearing. On 21.3.2025, the respondent filed a memo stating that she has no objection to give Divorce and permanent alimony is also received by the respondent and in view of the memo filed by the respondent, this matter is posted for enquiry to 28.3.2025.

4. To prove his claim, the petitioner himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4.

5.Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether it is a fit case to grant decree of divorce, as prayed for?

7. POINT:-

The case of the petitioner is that, the respondent is the legally wedded wife of petitioner and their marriage was performed on 20.08.2022 at Shabari

Gardens, Wyra Town and Mandal, Khammam District, as per Hindu customs 5

HMOP No.01/2025

and rites usage prevailed in their community. Their marriage was consummated. After the marriage the respondent joined with the society of the petitioner at Wyra Village and Mandal. The respondent and petitioner have no issues. It is further stated that in the petition that, petitioner and respondent lived happily hardly for (3) months, during in this (3) months also the respondent to picked-up quarrel with the petitioner on petty reasons and leave the house without intimation. That the respondent attitude with the petitioner is very rude, from the very beginning of matrimonial life. The respondent started forcing the petitioner to shift the family to Hyderabad and she further demanded the petitioner to keep the father of the petitioner away from the family. The petitioner is the only son and he has got moral obligation to look after his old aged father, but the respondent since from beginning she has got disrespect towards her father-in-law. The respondent forced the petitioner to leave his father to his fate.

It is further submitted that In the month of October, 2022 the respondent openly revealed that she is not interested the marriage with petitioner and further she stated that her parents forcefully got marriage with the petitioner and she threatened the petitioner if he shift the family to

Hyderabad then only she will join the company of the petitioner and went to her parents house. Though the petitioner fell sick and admitted in Arogya

Hospital, Khammam, but the respondent did not come to see the petitioner. It 6

HMOP No.01/2025

is further submitted that the petitioner, along with his Father, Grandfather and elders went to the house of the respondent and convinced the parents of the respondent and bring back the respondent. Even after coming back into the matrimonial fold there is no change in the attitude of the respondent. The respondent started harassing the petitioner to transfer the house in her name which stands in the name of the petitioner. The respondent again started forcing the petitioner to shift the family to Hyderabad by leaving his father.

Finally on 15.05.2023 the respondent left the company of the petitioner without intimation by taking away gold worth of Rs.20,00,000/- and other valuable articles. The petitioner alone went to the house of the respondent to bring back the respondent but the respondent threatened the petitioner that she will file a criminal case against the petitioner and his father. Under these circumstances there is no other go to the petitioner except taking divorce.

There is no hope of any good from the respondent, as such the petitioner is constrained to file the petition seeking for granting divorce.

To prove his case, the petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and he reiterated the contents of petition and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. Ex.P1 is Original wedding Card, Ex.P2 is Marriage photographs Number in 2, Ex.P.3 is Photostat copy of Aadhar card of P.w.1 (compared with original, after marking the said original Aadhar card returned to the PW1) and Ex.P4 is photocopy of Certificate of Marriage dated 06.04.2023 of the both the parties (compared with original, after marking the said original Marriage Certificate 7

HMOP No.01/2025

returned to the PW1). The counsel for the respondent reported that cross- examination of Pw1 is reported as ‘Nil’.

The above documents goes to show the relationship of petitioner and respondent as husband and wife. The above said oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner(Pw1) remained unchallenged and unrebutted in as much as the respondent did not choose to contest the case and also filed a memo by stating that she has no objection to grant divorce to the petitioner. Considering the above evidence, this court holds that, petitioner has made out his case for grant of divorce on the ground of Cruelty. Point is answered accordingly.

8.In the result, this petition is allowed without costs, Decree of

Divorce is granted U/Sec.13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent, dated 20.08.2022.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 04th day of April, 2025.

FAC.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MADHIRA.

8

HMOP No.01/2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Petitioner:- Respondent:

P.W.1: Dara Sai Anvesh, Dt.28.03.2025 – EXP–

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

Ex.P.1 : Wedding Card. -- Nil --

Ex.P.2: Marriage Photographs number in 2.

Ex.P.3: Photostat copy of Aadhar card of P.w.1 (compared with original, after marking the said original Aadhar card returned to the PW1).

Ex.P4: Photocopy of Certificate of Marriage dated 06.04.2023 of the both the parties (compared with original, after marking the said original Marriage Certificate returned to the PW1)

FAC.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MADHIRA.