Smt. Shiva Leela

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANDUR, VIKARABAD DIST.

Dated this the 07 th day of November, 2025

Present: Smt.Shivaleela S, FAC-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Vikarabad.

O.S. No.30 of 2017

Between:

1.Syed Mujeeb Hussaini, S/o.Syed Sarwar Hussaini, age about 47 Years, Occ: Business,

R/o.H.No.8-8-20/1, Momingally,

Old Tandur, Vikarabad District,

2.K.Samar, S/o.K.Veeraiah Choudary, age about 45 Years, Occ: Business,

R/o.H.No.8-1-299/HT/ADC, Flat No.202,

Aditya Sun Crest Shaikpet, Hyderabad. ….Plaintiffs

And

1.Suresh, S/o.Pandari, age 35 Years, Occ: Gold Smith,

R/o.Tandur, C/o.Babu Jewellery Shop,

Gandhi Chowak, Tandur, Vikarabad District,

2.Praveen Kumar, S/o.Neelkantham, age 30 Years, Occ: Business,

R/o.Bhagaya Laxmi, Electrical Shop,

Saipur, Tandur, Vikarabad District.

…Defendants

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Vijay

Kumar Tirmal Advocate, for the Plaintiffs and Sri.K.Srinivas Advocate, for the 2

Defendants; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for Plaintiffs and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, any person or persons claiming on behalf of the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit land bearing No.9 adm 258 sq.yards in Sy.No.96, 97, 106 & 107 of Saipur

Village, Tandur Mandal, Vikarabad District and to award costs of the suit.

2. The gist of the contents of the plaint is as follows:

That, the plaintiffs are the possessors of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have purchased the suit plot for valuable consideration from its owner under an Agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney. The Vendors of the plaintiffs executed the Agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney in the name of plaintiffs and got it registered before the Sub Register Tandur vide registered document No.1541/2017 on 12-4-2017. On the date of execution of the

Agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney, the physical possession of the suit plot also delivered to the plaintiffs. Since the date Agreement of sale cum

General Power of Attorney the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit plot without any interruption from anybody. After purchase, the plaintiffs went to the suit plot on 14-4-2017 along with labour with an intention to get fencing to the suit plot in order to save the suit plot from the encroachment by the land 3 grabbers. At about 11.30 A.M when the plaintiffs were busy with the work of fencing to suit plot with the assistance of labour, the defendants came to suit plot along with their henchmen and tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit plot by way of trying to stop the fencing work of the plaintiffs. That the defendants without any right or title what so ever in and over the suit plot are tried to take the forcible possession of the suit plot by disposing the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs with great difficulty and with the assistance of the well-wishers and labour foisted the illegal attempt of the defendants and maintained their possession over the suit plot. The defendants being failed in their illegal attempt went away saying that, certainly they will take the forcible possession of the suit plot whenever the time is favourable to them. The plaintiffs apprehend danger to their property in the hands of the defendants as the defendants is associated with anti- social elements of the Tandur town.

3.The defendants filed the written statement by denying all the allegations made in the plaint and put forth their positive contentions are as follows:

(a)That originally one P.Ananthaish was the original owner, pattedar and possessor of land Sy.No.96/ఈ & 107/ ఉ of Shaipur Village as per pattedar passbook

No.385813 and title deed No.4344077, patta No.131. The above said P.

Ananthaiah died and after his death his legal heirs i.e.,1) Smt.P.Suvarna, w/o.Late

Ananthaiah, 2) P.Naveen Kumar, S/o.Late P.Ananthaiah, 3) P.Swetha D/o.Late

P.Ananthaiah, 4) P.Swathi D/o.Late P.Anananthaiah, all residents of Shaipur Village

Tandur, succeeded and inherited the above said lands. Thereafter the above said 4 legal heirs of deceased P.Ananthaiah, appointed PENDYALA KRISHNA,

S/O.P.LAXMINARAYANA, R/o.Peddemul Village as their lawful attorney holder and authorized to executed and register sale deed/s in respect of Open Plot admeasuring 402 sq. yards in land Sy.No.96/ఈ & 107/ఉ of Shaipur Village in favour of the respective purchasers to present the sale deed before the registering authority,admit and execute, acknowledge the receipt of sale consideration and get the sale deeds registered in favour of the respective purchaser vide registered GPA No.4603/2016 dated 3-9-2016 of SRO Tandur. (b)

Thereafter the above said attorney P.Krishna applied before the Scheme and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards part of regularization Municipality, Tandur for regularation of above said plot under LRS amount vide receipt

No.1240/1231/LRS dated 31-12-2016, issued by the Commissioner, Municipal

Council, Tandur and the same is under process. There was some mistake in south and west boundary in G.P.A. document No. GPA No. 4603/2016 dated 3-9-2016 of

SRO Tandur, the same got rectified as under: South boundary appeared as

Sy.No.96 & 97 got rectified as Sy.Nos.96 & 107 and West boundary appeared as

Sy.No.96 & 97 got rectified as Sy.No.96 & 107. That is to say that instead of

Sy.No.107 it is wrongly appeared as Sy.No.97 and the same got rectified vide registered rectification deed No.288 of 2017 dated 28-1-2017. Thereafter the above said owners through their registered GPA, P. Krishna, alienated Open Plot, admeasuring 201 sq. yards out of 402 sq. yards in land Sy. No. 96/ఈ & 107/ ఉ of

Shaipur Village, Tandur Municipality, for valuable sale consideration in favour of 5 defendant No.1 through registered sale deed bearing document No.303/2017

dated 30-01-2017 of SRO Tandur and delivered the physical possession of the

above said plot to the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 since from the date of purchase is in possession and enjoyment of the above said plot. The defendant

No.1 to avoid encroachments, constructed boundary wall with stones over his plot. The above said owners through their registered GPA, P. Krishna, also alienated remaining Open Plot, admeasuring 201 sq. yards in land Sy. No. 96/ఈ & 107/ఉ of Shaipur Village, Tandur Municipality, for valuable sale consideration in favour of defendant No.2 through registered sale deed bearing document

No.304/2017 dated 30-01-2017 of SRO Tandur and delivered the physical possession of the above said plot to the defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 since from the date of purchase is in possession and enjoyment of the above said plot.

The defendant No.2 to avoid encroachments, constructed boundary wall with stones over his plot. The vendors of plaintiffs do not have any right or title over the plots of defendants. The plaintiffs are land grabbers and they colluded with their vendors and created a false and sham document with false boundaries without possession with sole intention to grab the plots of defendants. The plaintiffs suppressed the real and material facts and approached before this court with unclean hands. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. To prove the claim of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 himself examined and

PW.1 and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are marked. In spite of several and conditional order, the plaintiff failed to produce further evidence hence the the evidence of plaintiffs 6 closed. No representation on behalf of the defendants in spite of conditional order, hence the evidence of defendants closed.

5.Heard both side.

6.Now the point for consideration is;

a) “Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants prayed for?”

b) ”To what relief”?

7.Admittedly, the present suit is filed for grant of Perpetual Injunction. For the relief of Perpetual Injunction, the Plaintiffs have to establish prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in their favour. At the same time, they have to establish their possession in respect of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The Plaintiffs to support their contention, filed

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A1 is the original agreement of sale cum general power of attorney vide reg.doc.no.1547 dated 12.04.2007, Ex.A2 is the cc of agreement of sale cum general power of attorney vide reg.doc.no.2817 dated 02.06.2016.

8.On the other hand, the defendants failed to produce the evidence on their behalf in spite of conditional order, hence the defendants evidence closed. Thus, the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 remained unchallenged.

9.From the above evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs it is evident, that the plaintiffs are the possessors of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have purchased the suit plot under an Agreement of sale cum General Power of

Attorney vide registered document No.1541/2017 on 12-4-2017. On the date of 7 execution of the Agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney, the physical possession of the suit plot also delivered to the plaintiffs. Since the date

Agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit plot without any interruption from anybody. The defendants without any right or title what so ever in and over the suit plot are tried to take the forcible possession of the suit plot by disposing the plaintiffs.

Since, the Plaintiffs are apprehending danger to their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property in the hands of the Defendants, this court feels it is just and proper to prevent the Defendants from doing so by granting injunction as prayed for by the Plaintiffs.

10.This Court placed reliance on judicial precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court decided in Vidyadhar Vs. Manik Rao and Others reported in 1993 (3)

ALT 1 (SC) held that “where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct”. Whereas, in the case on hand the defendant unchallenged the testimony of plaintiff.

RESULT:

11.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by granting the perpetual injunction by restraining the defendants, their agents, any person or persons claiming on behalf of the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession 8 and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit land bearing No.9 adm 258 sq.yards in Sy.No.96, 97, 106 & 107 of Saipur Village, Tandur Mandal, Vikarabad District.

Typed to my dictation on computer to Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07 th day of November,

2025.

FAC-ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANDUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW.1: Syed Mujeeb HussainNil

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 is the original agreement of sale cum general power of attorney vide reg.doc.no.1547 dated 12.04.2007, 9

Ex.A2 is the cc of agreement of sale cum general power of attorney vide reg.doc.no.2817 dated 02.06.2016.

For Defendants:

Nil

FAC-ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANDUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT TANDUR, VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Present:Smt.Shivaleela S, FAC-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, Vikarabad.

Dated this the 19 th day of November, 2025.

C.C. NO.187 of 2017

Between:

The State - Rep., through the Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Tandur.

.....Complainant

And

Abdul Razak, S/o.Abdul Jalal, age: 45 years, Occ: Lorry Driver, R/o.NTR Colony, Tandur. ….Accused

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 17.11.2025 in the presence of A.P.P for the State and Sri.P.Ram Reddy in the presence of counsel for accused and after having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Inspector of Police, Tandur Police Station filed charge sheet in

Crime No.18/2017 against the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 353, 504 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (herein after referred as ‘IPC’ in brevity).

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 29.01.2017 at 0130 hours, the complainant/G.Buggaiah, HC 2559 of PS Tandur, Vikarabad District that on the night of 28.01.2017 at 0900 pm he along with Rakshak driver

Nayum HG 54 started night patrolling at about 0030 hours, when they 2 were coming from William Moon X road to Indira Chowk, they found some persons creating nuisance at BC complex near Venkateswara wine shop.

They blow siren and went there. On seeing police, all the persons escaped from there except one person. When he asked him to as to why they were creating nuisance in the odd hours of night and asked him to go to his house, on which the person abused him and thrown water on his uniform and pushed him and obstructed him from discharging his legitimate duties.

3. That on enquiry he came to know the name of that person as Razak

S/o.Jalal, R/o.NTR colony. Immediately he informed the same to crime beat PC’s 2928 Dastappa and 3623 Shiva Kumar by phone by the time, they arrived to the scene Rajak pushed him and fled away. Finally the complainant requested to take necessary action. Basing on the above complaint, LW9 registered a case in Crime No.18/2017 U/Sec.353 IPC and investigation entrusted to LW10. During the course of the investigation

LW10 examined and recorded u/sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of LW1 to LW5 and visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn roght sketch of the scene and seized empty water bottle from the scene in presence of LW6 and 7. The accused was arrested on 29.01.2017 and sent him to judicial remand. After completion of the investigation, LW10 filed the charge sheet before this court against the accused for theoffences Punishable U/Sec.323, 504 IPC. Hence, the case.

3

4.Cognizance was taken by my predecessor for the offence punishable

U/s. 323, 504 IPC against the accused.

5.On the appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/s.251 of

Cr.P.C., he denied the allegations. Hence, the charges U/s.323 and 504 IPC is framed read over and explained to the accused in vernacular. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and

Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are marked.

PW1 deposed that previously he worked as Head constable in Tandur

Police Station from 2017 to 2019. He knows Lw2/MA.Nayum,

Lw3/N.Dasthappa, LW4/H.Shiva Kumar, Lw5/S.Mani, LW6/C.

Madhusudhan Goud, On 28-01-2017, he was during the petroling duty from Villam Chowrastha to Ghandhi Chowrastha at Muncipal Complex near Venkateshawar wine shop from people where in drunken stage and creating nuisance on the roof of Venkateshwara wine shop. When they approach to the said place some person ran away from there. One person was present there when he questioned him about the nuisance he throw water on his uniform by abusing him. When he called LW3 and LW4 with the scene of offence, by that time that the person pushed him and escaped from the scene of offence, the name of the said person is Abdul Razaq 4

R/o.N.T.R Colony. He came to police station and lodged complaint against the accused. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

PW2 deposed that he knows PW1, LW3/N.Dasthappa, LW4/H.Shiva

Kumar. He do not know LW5/S.Mani and LW6/C.Madhusudhan Goud. On 22.01.2017, he was doing patrolling duty in the night, he is the driver of the police vehicle, while coming from William Moon to Indra Chowk, on the way, there is one Wine shop and they heard some noise from the said wine shop. They went to the said wine shop by seeing them, some persons escaped from there and they caught one person and asked him about the nuisance created by them but he abused them and pushed PW1 and tried to ran away from that place, at that time, he thrown water on the uniform of PW1. PWI called LW3 and LW4 and they came to the scene of offence and caught the said person and brought to the Police station. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

PW3 deposed that he worked as Constable at PS Tandur from 2016 to 2018. He knows PW1 and PW2. He knows LW4/H.Shiva Kumar. He do not know LW5/S.Mani, LW6/C.Madhusudan Goud. On 28.01.2017, he was doing patrolling duty along with LW4, at that time, PWI called him and asked him to come to Venkateshwara Wines. As such, they went to the said place and found that some persons were escaping from there and PW1 informed them that one person throwed water on him and ran away from the said place. They tried to caught hold that person but he escaped from 5 that place. They enquired about the said person and they came to know the name of the said person is Razak. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

PW4 deposed that he knows PW1 to PW3. He knows LW5/S.Mani,

LW6/C.Madhusudhan Goud. Previously he was working as Constable in PS

Tandur from 2016 to 2018. On 28-01-2027, he and PW3 was on crime beat duty. In the night time. PW1 called to PW3 and informed that from unknown persons are creating nuisance at B.C. complex neat

Venkateshwara wine shop. When they reached to the scene of offence, all the persons ran away from the scene of offence. PW1 informed them that one person by name Razak thrown water on his face and pushed him by abusing him in filthy language and ran away. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

PW5 deposed that previously, he worked as SI of Police, Tandur PS from 31.01.2013 30.09.2017. On 29.01.2017, at 0130 hours,

LW9/N.Venkat Ramaiah received a complaint from PW1. Basing on complaint, he registered FIR in Cr.No.18/2017 U/S.353 and 504 IPC. Ex.P2 is FIR and handed over the entire CD tile to him. He has recorded the statement of PW1 to PW4. Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence cum seizure panchanama in the presence of

LW7/K.Bhanu Prakash and LW8/D.Narsimha. He seized one empty water bottle. On 30.01.2017, he arrested the accused persons and produced 6

before this court. On 31.01.2017, he recorded the statement of

LW5/S.Mani and LW6/C.Madhusudhan Goud. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet before this court.

7. After closer of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined U/sec.

313 Cr.P.C for which the Accused denied the allegation, he never chosen to adduce any defense witness.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/s.323, 504

IPC?

10. POINT:

During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are marked. The prosecution cited as many as ten witnesses and examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. PW1 is the complainant, PW2 is the eye witness, PW3 and PW4 are the witness,

PW5 is the Investigation Officer who filed the charge sheet. In spite of conditional order, the police failed to produce the evidence of LW5 to LW8 hence the evidence of LW5 to LW8 closed. The learned APPO had given up the evidence of LW9, hence the evidence of LW9 closed. The prosecution choose to examine PW1 to PW5 wherein PW1 to PW5 are the official witnesses deposed supporting the case of the prosecution against the accused but the proseuction did not examine any independent or eye 7 witness to corroborate their version with PW1 to PW5 to hold that the accused committed the alleged offences. Non examination of the eye and independent witnesses is a fatal to the case.

This court cannot rely only on the evidences of PW1 to PW5 without any corroboration evidence. There is no cogent, reliable and substantial evidences against the accused. The prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused through the evidences produced by him. Therefore, this court is of considered view that there is no substantial evidence on record to hold that the accused committed an offence punishableU/s.323, 504

IPC.Hence, this court held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.323, 504 IPC and accordingly the accused is acquitted U/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 19 th Day of November,

2025.

FAC-ADDL.JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TANDUR.

8

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1 is Sri.G.Buggaiah Nil

P.W.2 is Sri.MA Nayum

P.W.3 is Sri.N.Dasthappa

P.W.4 is Sri.H.Shiva Kumar

P.W.5 is Sri.P.Nagarjuna

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Complaint

Ex.P2: FIR

FOR DEFENCE

Ex.D1:

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL –

FAC-ADDL.JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TANDUR.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TANDUR,VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

CALENDER CASE NO.187 OF 2017

1. Date Of Offence : 29.01.2017

2. Date of Complaint : 29.01.2017

3. Date of Apprehension : 23.10.2018

4. Commencement of Trail : 17.02.2025

5. Closure of Trial on : 22.08.2022

6. Date of Judgment : 19.11.2025

7. Complainant : The State of T.S. through P.S. Tandur

8. Name of the accused : Abdul Razak

9. Offence : U/s.324, 504 r/w 34 IPC

10. Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

11. Result : The accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.323, 504 IPC and accordingly the accused is acquitted U/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time, as per Section 437-A of

Cr.P.C.

FAC-ADDL.JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TANDUR.

Copy Submitted to: 1.The Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, At Vikarabad, Vikarabad District. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANDUR, VIKARABAD.

Dated this the 29 th day of December, 2025.

Present: Smt.Shivaleela S, Prl.Junior Civil Judge Tandur, Vikarabad.

O.S. No.196 of 2023

Between:

1)Sujatha Anne, W/o.Susheel Anne, aged about 59 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.5-45, Basheerabad Village & Mandal, Vikarabad District, T.S.,

2)P.Sunanda, W/o.P.Sathender Patel, aged about 44 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.7-2-100, Seetharampet, Tandur, Vikarabad District, T.S.,

3)Sunaina Anne, W/o.Deepak, aged about 34 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.5-46, Basheerabad Village & Mandal, Vikarabad District, T.S. ….Plaintiff

And

1)Gopal Reddy, S/o.Laxma Reddy, aged about 60 years,

2)Pratap Reddy, S/o.Ail Reddy, aged about 58 years,

3)Kistamma, W/o.Laxmappa, aged about 60 years,

4)Venkat Reddy, S/o.Hanmanth Reddy, aged about 58 years,

5)Padmamma, W/o.Late Thippanna, aged about 60 years, 2

6)Mogulamma, W/o.Late Thippanna, aged about 55 years,occ: Agriculture, D1 to D6 R/o.Gangwar Village, Basheerabad Mandal, Vikarabad District,

7)Balappa, S/o.Shanthappa, aged about 50 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o.Navandgi village, Basheerabad Mandal.

….Defendants

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Srinivas Advocate for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

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

[1].This suit is filed for Perpetual Injunction by restraining the defendants, their family members, agents, henchmen and anybody claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

[2]. The gist of the contents of the plaint is as follows:

(a)That the plaintiff No. 2 & 3 are the daughters of plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of agricultural land

Sy.No.101/C/3, extent 1 acre 15 guntas, situated at Gangwar Village, 3

Basheerabad Mandal, Vikarabad District. The plaintiff No.1 purchased the above said land with Sy.No.101/C, from one Anne Shanti, W/o.Anne Sudhil,

R/o.Bakaram, Hyderabad through registered sale deed bearing document

No.6218/2019 dated 19-07-2019 of SRO Tandur. The sale deed has been implemented in revenue records and the plaintiff No. 1 has been recorded as the pattedar and possessor of the above said land with separate sub-division

No.101/C/3. Basing on the title and possession, the plaintiff No.1 has been issued with e-pattedar passbook and title deed No. T07020030167, Khata

No.60118, issued by the Tahsildar, Basheerabad Mandal. The name of plaintiff

No. 1 is also recorded as pattedar and potsessor of the above said land in online dharani land details and online form No.1 B ROR. Since then the plaintiff No.1 has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the above said land without any objection or obstruction from anybody.

(b)That the plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of agricultural land Sy.No.101/C/2/1, extent 2-00 acres, situated at Gangwar

Village, Basheerabad Mandal, Vikarabad District. The plaintiff No.2 purchased the above said land with Sy.No.101/C, from one Anne Shanti, W/o.Anne Sudhil,

R/o.Bakaram, Hyderabad through registered sale deed bearing document

No.6216/2019 dated 19-07-2019 of SRO Tandur. The sale deed has been implemented in revenue records and the plaintiff No. 2 has been recorded as the pattedar and possessor of the above said land with separate sub-division 4

No.Sy.No.101/C/2/1. Basing on the title and possession, the plaintiff No. 2 has been issued with e-pattedar passbook and title deed No. T07020030160, Khata

No. 60120, issued by the Tahsildar, Basheerabad Mandal. The name of plaintiff

No. 2 is also recorded as pattedar and possessor of the above said land in online dharani land details and online form No.1 B ROR. Since then the plaintiff No.2 has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the above said land without any objection or obstruction from anybody. The plaintiff No.3 is the absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of agricultural land Sy.No.101/C/2/2, extent 2- 00 acres, situated at Gangwar Village, Basheerabad Mandal, Vikarabad District.

The plaintiff No.3 purchased the above said land with Sy.No.101/C, from one

Anne Shanti, W/o.Anne Sudhil, R/o.Bakaram, Hyderabad through registered sale deed bearing document No.6217/2019 dated 19-07-2019 of SRO Tandur.

The sale deed has been implemented in revenue records and the plaintiff No.3 has been recorded as the pattedar and possessor of the above said land with separate sub-division No.Sy.No.101/C/2/2. Basing on the title and possession, the plaintiff No.3 has been issued with e-pattedar passbook and title deed

No.TO2020030168, Khata No.60119, issued by the Tahsildar, Basheerabad

Mandal. The name of plaintiff No. 3 is also recorded as pattedar and possessor of the above said land in online dharani land details and online form No.1 B ROR.

Since then the plaintiff No. 3 has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the above said land without any objection or obstruction from anybody.

5

(c)That the lands recorded in the names of plaintiffs i.e. agricultural land

Sy.No.101/C/3, extent 1 acre 15 guntas recorded in the name of plaintiff No.1, land Sy.No.101/C/2/1, extent 2-00 acres recorded in the name of plaintiff No.2 and land Sy.No.101/C/2/2, extent 2-00 acres recorded in the name of plaintiff

No.3, all totally admeasuring 5 acres 15 guntas, situated in one compact at

Gangwar Village, Basheerabad Mandal, Vikarabad District are hereinafter called as suit lands. The defendants are no way concerned to the suit lands in any manner. The defendants with malafide and dishonest intention are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit lands with an intention to occupy the suit lands. On 19-05-2023, at 10.30 a.m., while the plaintiffs were cleaning the suit lands making the suit lands ready for sowing next crop, the defendants along with their henchmen came to the suit lands and tried to damage the bunds of suit lands and tried to occupy the suit lands by force, but the plaintiffs with the help of adjacent land owners and well-wishers foiled the illegal acts of the defendants. While leaving the suit lands the defendants threatened that they will come again with more men and occupy the suit lands by hook or crook. The defendants are more in number and are having money and muscle power. The defendants have taken law into their own hands and bent upon to cause loss and injury to the plaintiffs. The above acts of the defendants are illegal and injurious to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit lands. The plaintiffs are in actual and exclusive 6 possession and enjoyment of the suit lands, and they are entitled to protect their possession over the suit lands. The plaintiffs have common cause of action against the same defendants over the suit lands as such the plaintiffs united together and filed one suit against the defendants by paying separate court fee.

Hence the suit.

[3].No representation from the defendants in spite of service of summons hence the defendants set exparte.

[4].To prove the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff No.1 herself examined as

PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked and PW1 also adduced the evidence of PW2 and PW3.

[5].Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

[6].Now the point for consideration is;

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual

injunction as prayed for or not?”

Point:- [7].To prove their case, PW-1 to PW-3 filed their chief-examination affidavit, wherein they deposed in support of all contents of the plaint and further filed the documents i.e., Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the CC of Regd.Sale Deed bearing doc.no.6218/2019 dated 19.07.2019 of SRO, Tandur, Ex.A2 is the CC of

Regd.Sale Deed bearing doc.no.6216/2019 dated 19.07.2019 of SRO, Tandur,

Ex.A3 is the CC of Regd.Sale Deed bearing doc.no.6217/2019 dated 19.07.2019 of SRO, Tandur. The documents Exs.A1 to A3 establish prima-facie in favour of 7 the plaintiff which shows that the Plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. PW2 and PW3 also deposed supporting the version of the PW1.

[8]. Whereas the defendants did not choose to contest or deny the claim of the plaintiffs during the proceedings and it can be infer that there is no defence from them and the case set up by the plaintiffs is found to be true. The un-challenged evidence of the plaintiffs both oral and documentary evidence established the claim of the plaintiffs and Prima-facie case is in favour of Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff appears that they came to the court with clean hands and they are entitled the relief of perpetual injunction for restraining the defendants, their family members, agents, henchmen and anybody claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

[9].Further, this Court placed reliance on judicial precedent of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court decided in Vidyadhar Vs. Manik Rao and Others reported in 1993 (3) ALT 1 (SC) held that“where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct”. Whereas, in the case on hand the defendants remained ex-parte and un-challenged the testimonies of plaintiff/PW.1.

8

RESULT:

[10].In the result, the suit is exparte decreed by granting the perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiffs by restraining the defendants, their family members, agents, henchmen and anybody claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. However, there is no order as to costs. IAs. Pending if any stands closed.

Typed to my dictation on computer to Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of December, 2025.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANDUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW-1: Smt.Sujatha Anne ---NIL---

PW-2: Smt.P.Sunanda

PW-3: Smt.Sunaina Anne

Exhibits marked For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 is the CC of Regd.Sale Deed bearing doc.no.6218/2019 dated 19.07.2019 of SRO, Tandur, 9

Ex.A2 is the CC of Regd.Sale Deed bearing doc.no.6216/2019 dated 19.07.2019 of SRO, Tandur,

Ex.A3 is the CC of Regd.Sale Deed bearing doc.no.6217/2019 dated 19.07.2019 of SRO, Tandur.

Defendants:

---NIL---

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ,

TANDUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT TANDUR, VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Present:Smt.Shivaleela S, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, Vikarabad.

Dated this the 31 st day of December, 2025.

C.C. NO.698 of 2024

Between:

The State - Rep., through the Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Yalal.

.....Complainant

And

1.Md.Omer, S/o.Late Mahaboob, age: 22 Years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o.Rahamth Nagar, Indra Nagar,Tandur.

2.Mohammed Kutboddin, S/o.Siraj, age: 20 Years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o.Gandhi Nagar, Tandur.

….Accused No.1 and 2

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 30.12.2025 in the presence of A.P.P and Sri.K.Gopal Advocate for the Accused No.1 and 2 and after having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Inspector of Police, Yalal Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.117/2023 against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 457, 380 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 25.07 2023 at 12:00 hrs, the complainant/Sri.Narender Parthani lodged a complainant that he has stone polishing unit at Hyderabad road, Since six months, 2 the said stone Polishing unit was closed. The office of the stone policing unit using for house works. On 22.07.2023 at about 19:00 hrs went to above said office and after locked the office and went to home next day on 23.07.2023 at about 10:00 hrs, the complainant went to this polishing unit, he observed lock of the office was break, the complainant went inside the office and observed missed the store room keys from office desk after that the complainant went to store room and saw from the store room 10 high polish machine (Motors) was missed from the store room the machine worth rupees sixty thousand. The complainant suspecting unknown offenders has stolen the above said machines and requesting for necessary action. Basing on the complaint, LW-08 has been registered a case in Cr.No.117/2023, U/s 457, 380 IPC and took up the investigation.

3. During the course of investigation, LW-08 has examined and recorded u/sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of LW-1 and LW-08 visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence in presence of LW-4 & 5. On 27/07/2023 at 09.00 hrs, LW-08 found A1 & A2 coming on without number plate Bajaj Auto (Black & Yellow color) and asked to produce the vehicle documents on that the accused person did not produce the concerned documents. then the police checked the auto and they found the high polish machine (motors), when 3 asked where they cannot give a correct answer, as such LW-08 along with his staff brought them to police station. On questioning,

LW-08 conducted the confession panchanama of A1 & A2 in presence of LW6 and LW7. LW-08 arrested the accused persons at 12.00 hrs by issuing arrest memos. The intimation of arrest was given to his kith and kin under proper acknowledgement U/Sec, 50 and 50 (A) CrPC. After completion of the investigation, LW-08 filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable u/sec.457 and 380 IPC. Hence, the case.

4.Cognizance was taken by my predecessor for the offence punishable U/Sec.457 and 380 IPC against the accused No.1 and 2.

5.On the appearance of accused No.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

The accused No.1 and 2 examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C., they denied the allegations. Hence, the charges U/Sec.457 and 380 IPC against the accused No.1 and 2 are framed read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 in vernacular. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW5 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are marked.

PW1 deposed that he do not know LW2/Balram, LW3/Naresh.

He has one stone polishing unit at Hyderabad road since from 4 months, the said stone polishing unit was closed. On 22-7-2023, he 4 went to above said office and after completion of the work, he locked the office and went to home on the next day on 23-7-2023 at about 9:30 to 10:00 am, he went to the polishing unit and observed lock of the office was broken and he went inside office store room and observed the store room keys is also broken and he went to the store room and found 10 high polish machine motors were missed from the store room. The total machines worth Rs.60,000/- to

Rs.70,000/-. He has lodged police complaint. Ex.P1 is complaint.

Police examined him and recorded his statement.

PW2 deposed that he do not know LW7/K.Raju. He do not know the contents of confession cum seizure panchanama. Police obtained his signature on the same. Ex.P2 is the said signature.

PW3 deposed that he do not know LW4/M.Shiva Shankar. He do not know the contents of Crime Detail Form. Police obtained his signature on the same. Ex.P3 is the said signature.

PW4 deposed that he knows PW2. He do not know the contents of confession cum seizure panchanama and A1, A2 did not confessed before him about the alleged incident occurred and nothing was seized in his presence. Police obtained his signature on the same. Ex.P3 is the said signature.

PW5 deposed that previously, he worked as S.I. Yalal P.S. from

March, 2022 to 24-01-2024. He has received complaint from PW1 basing on the complaint on 25-7-2023. He registered a case in 5

Cr.No.117/2023 U/sec.457, 380 of IPC. Ex.P5 is FIR. On the same day, he proceeded to scene of offence and conducted CDF panchanama in the presence of PW3, LW4/M.Shavankar and recorded the statement of PW1. On 27-7-2023, he conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of Al and A2 in the presence of

PW2 and PW4. On the same day, he produced Al and A2 before this court for judicial custody. A3 is absconding till date A3 is not apprehended. He has seized 15 polishing motors worth of

Rs.60,000/-. He has send 5 polishing motors out of 15 to Karankote

P.S. in Cr. No.136/2023. After completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet before this court.

7.After closer of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C for which the accused No.1 and 2 denied the allegation. They never chosen to adduce any defense witness.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.457, 380

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:

During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are marked. The prosecution cited as many as eight witnesses and examined PW1 to PW5 and Ex.P1 to 6

Ex.P5 are marked. The prosecution has given up the evidence of

LW2 to LW4 as such the evidence of LW2 to LW4 closed. PW1 is the complainant, PW2 and PW4 are the panch for confession and seizure panchanama, PW3 is the panch for CDF, PW5 is the

Investigation Officer who filed the charge sheet before this court.

The prosecution choose to examine PW1 to PW5 wherein PW1 is the complainant who deposed the facts of the case against the accused, to corroborate his version, PW2 to PW4 were also examined but nothing was elicited out of them hence they were declared hostile by the prosecution. PW5 only supported the case by reiterating the investigation done by him in his chief examination. Having gone through all testimonies, this court cannot rely only on the evidences of PW1 and PW5 without any reliable testimonies. In the absence of any corroboration evidence from the other witnesses, the accused

No.1 and 2 are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Therefore this court is of considered view that there is no substantial evidence on record to hold that the accused No.1 and 2 committed an offence punishableU/Sec.457, 380 IPC.Hence, this court held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.457, 380 IPC and accordingly the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted U/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail 7 bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-III, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this 31 st Day of

December, 2025.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TANDUR.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1 is Sri.P.Narender Nil

P.W.2 is Sri.Babu Naik

P.W.3 is Sri.Nitin

P.W.4 is Sri.K.Raju

P.W.5 is Sri.A.Aravind

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is complainant

Ex.P2 is the signature of PW2 on the confession cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P3 is the signature of PW3 on the crime detail form

Ex.P4 is the signature of PW4 on the confession cum seizure panchanama

FOR DEFENCE

Nil 8

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL –

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TANDUR.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TANDUR, VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

CALENDER CASE NO.698 OF 2024

1. Date Of Offence : 23.07.2023

2. Date of Complaint : 25.07.2023

3. Date of Apprehension : 07.04.2025

4. Commencement of Trail : 28.07.2025

5. Closure of Trial on : 30.12.2025

6. Date of Judgment : 31.12.2025

7. Complainant : The State of T.S. through P.S.Yalal

8. Name of the accused : A1.Md..Omer A2.Mohammed Kutboddin

9. Offence : U/Sec.457, 380 IPC

10. Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

11. Result : In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.457, 380 IPC and accordingly the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted U/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

TANDUR.

Copy Submitted to:

1.The Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, At Vikarabad, Vikarabad District. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANDUR, VIKARABAD DIST.

Dated this the 30 th day of December, 2025

Present: Smt.Shivaleela S, Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, Vikarabad.

O.S. No.102 of 2023

Between:

Smt.Asma Siddiqui, W/o.M.A.Raheem Siddiqui,

Aged about 47 years, Occ: Household,

R/o.H.No.18-2-677/31, Jangammet,

M.C.H. Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana. 500053. ….Plaintiff

And

Tankari Chadramma, W/o.Anthaiah,

Aged about 58 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.H.No.1-392, Adhalpur village,

Yalal Mandal, Vikarabad Dist, Telangana, 501144. …Defendant

This case coming before me for final hearing on 12.12.2025 in the presence of Sri.Y.Vishwanath Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri.D.Narsing

Rao Advocate for the Defendant; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for Plaintiffs and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

2

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

1.This suit is filed for declaration of plaintiff as the owner of the suit schedule property and for rectification of the revenue records for the year 2022-23 in the name of the plaintiff by deleting the name of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property. Further for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant and her henchmen or any person claiming on behalf of her from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2. The gist of the contents of the plaint is as follows:

(a)That one Nagaram Anthaiah @ Tankari Anthaiah, S/o.Lalappa was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property through the Regd.Sale deed

No.216/2011 from the said Nagaram Anthaiah @ Tankari Anthaiah,

S/o.Lalappa (owner) and she got mutated her in the revenue records through vide proceeding No.B/318/2011 dt. 23 June 2012, issued by the Tahasildar

Yalal and she also got issued Pattedar Passbook and Title Deed book. Thus the plaintiff have become the absolute owner and she is in continues possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Plaintiff used to live most of her time at Hyderabad and she used to cultivate the suit property through 3 her relatives. Recently on Dt.12th April 2023, when the plaintiff is doing her agricultural works in the suit property, the defendant along with her henchmen with the help of antisocial elements came to the suit property and tried to take the possession of the suit property by stating that she is the owner of the suit property as she got issued new pattedhar pass book by denying the title of the Plaintiff over the suit property. The Plaintiff with the help of well-wishers had thwarted the attempt of the defendant and her henchmen. But the defendant while going out of the suit property, she threatened the Plaintiff by stating that when time favour's her, she will come with more men and power and by hook or crook, she will certainly take the possession of the suit property.

(b)That the plaintiff came to know that the defendant in collusion with revenue authorities, she had got created false revenue records in her name without any right by taking the chance of the Defendant's husband's name in the pahani patrikas. The plaintiff having the information of the same, she had applied for correction of the revenue records, but the authorities have suggested to approach this court. The defendant by taking the chance of latest false revenue records in her name, she came to the suit property again on 15th April 2023 with the help of real estate people, with ill intention to create multiple litigation over the suit property and to grab the same with the 4 support of the land grabbers showing the suit property to prospective purchasers and trying create illegal documents with regard to the suit property. The plaintiff had rushed to the Tahasildar Yalal to stop the illegal transactions intending to be made by the defendants on further verification the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had booked a slot for transferring the property to third parties. The revenue authorities had again suggested the plaintiff orally stating that the plaintiff has to get the restraining orders from the courts to stop on going transactions. Further the plaintiff is having eminent apprehension that the defendant and her henchmen may come at any time with the help of antisocial elements and take the possession of the suit property. If the defendant is not retrained from their illegal and unlawful activities of alienation or interference against the title and possession of the plaintiff respectively over the suit schedule property, then the plaintiff will be certainly put to great irreparable loss which could not be compensated in terms of money or in any means. Hence the plaintiff has no other go except approaching this court to file this suit for declaration of title, correction or revenue records and other Sequential reliefs.

Hence the suit.

5

3.No representation on behalf of the defendant even after completion of statutory period of 90 days the defendant failed to file the written statement hence the right to file the written statement forfeited.

4. To prove the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff No.1 herself examined as

PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A12 are marked. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW2 is also examined.

5.Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?”

7.Admittedly, the present suit is filed for declaration of title and for grant of perpetual injunction and also for rectification of revenue entries. For the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, the Plaintiff has to establish prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in her favour. At the same time, she has to establish her possession in respect of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The Plaintiff to support her contention, PW1 filed Ex.A1 to A12 documents i.e.,Ex.A1 is the

CC of pahani patrika for the year 1996-97, Ex.A2 is the CC of pahani patrika for the year 1999-2000, Ex.A3 is the CC of pahani patrika for the year 2002- 03, Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani patrika for the year 2007-08, Ex.A5 is the CC of pahani patrika for the year 2009-10, Ex.A6 is the CC of pahani patrika for the 6 year 2012-13, Ex.A7 is the CC of online dharani portal pahani, Ex.A8 is the

CC of Market Value of Agriculture land Sy.No.61/A2, Ex.A9 is the original

Regd. Sale Deed No.216/2011 dt.29.12.2011, Ex.A10 is the original mutation br.no.B/318/2011 dt.23.06.2012, Ex.A11 is the original pattedar passbook issued by the Tahasildar Office Yalal and Ex.A12 is the original title deed book issued by the Tahasildar Office Yalal. On the other hand, the defendant did not choose or appear before this court for contesting the case against the plaintiff. Thus, the evidence of PW1 to PW2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A12 remained unchallenged.

9.From the above evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs, it is evident that one

Nagaram Anthaiah @ Tankari Anthaiah, S/o.Lalappa was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property through the Regd.Sale deed No.216/2011 from the said

Nagaram Anthaiah @ Tankari Anthaiah, S/o.Lalappa (owner) and she got mutated her in the revenue records through vide proceeding No.B/318/2011

dt. 23 June 2012, issued by the Tahasildar Yalal and she also got issued

Pattedar Passbook and Title Deed book. Thus the plaintiff have become the absolute owner and she is in continues possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Plaintiff used to live most of her time at Hyderabad and she 7 used to cultivate the suit property through her relatives. The Plaintiff proved her ownership and possession in view of the documents filed by her i.e.,Ex.A1 to Ex.A12. Since, the Plaintiff is apprehending danger to her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property in the hands of the Defendant, this court feels it is just and proper to prevent the Defendant from doing so by declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner for rectifying the revenue entries in the name of plaintiffs and by granting the perpetual injunction as prayed for by the Plaintiff.

10.This Court placed reliance on judicial precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court decided in Vidyadhar Vs. Manik Rao and Others reported in 1993 (3) ALT 1 (SC) held that “where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct”. Whereas, in the case on hand the defendants unchallenged the testimony of plaintiff.

RESULT:

11.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and granting the perpetual injunction by restraining the defendant and her henchmen or any 8 person claiming on behalf of her from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation on computer to Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of December,

2025.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANDUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1: Smt.Asma SiddiqueNil

PW.2: Sri.Mohd.Khalil

Exhibits marked For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is the CC of pahani patrika for the year 1996-97,

Ex.A2 is the CC of pahani patrika for the year 1999-2000,

Ex.A3 is the CC of pahani patrika for the year 2002-03,

Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani patrika for the year 2007-08,

Ex.A5 is the CC of pahani patrika for the year 2009-10,

Ex.A6 is the CC of pahani patrika for the year 2012-13, 9

Ex.A7 is the CC of online dharani portal pahani,

Ex.A8 is the CC of Market Value of Agriculture land Sy.No.61/A2,

Ex.A9 is the original Regd. Sale Deed No.216/2011 dt.29.12.2011,

Ex.A10 is the original mutation br.no.B/318/2011 dt.23.06.2012,

Ex.A11 is the original pattedar passbook issued by the Tahasildar Office Yalal

Ex.A12 is the original title deed book issued by the Tahasildar Office Yalal

For Defendant: Nil

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANDUR.