Smt.Shoukath Jahan Siddique

1 of 14SC 666 of 2017.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,RR Dist

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SMT SHOUKATH JAHAN SIDDIQUE

Principal Assistnat Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District.

Dated on this the 10th Day of May, 2019

SESSIONS CASE No. 666 of 2017

Name of the The State of T.S. through Sub Inspector of Complainant Police, P.S. Mailardevpally

Name of the Shaik Illiyas son of Late Shaik Altaif, aged 25 Accusedyears, Occ: Manson, R/o. Jakura (V) Vermi (M) Nizamabad District

Charge U/Sec. U/s. 498 (A), 306 IPC.

Crime No.565/2016

Plea of the accused Not Guilty

Finding of the Court Not guilty

Sentence or OrderAccused are found not guilty for the offences U/s. 498 (A), 306 IPC. Prosecution conducted Smt. Manjula Devi, Addl. Public Prosecutor by

Defence conducted byM/s D. Srinivas Rao, Advocate for the accused

This case was committed by the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, vide PRC 25/2017.

This case came before me on 10-05-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Manjula Devi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and M/s D. Srinivas Rao, Counsel for accused and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is the case filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mailardevpally PS against the accused for the offences U/s. 498 (A), 306 IPC.

2.Brief facts of the case are that on 21-10-2016 at about 14:30 hrs, Smt

Sadiqka Kousar W/o Late Shaik Raheem, Aged 47 years, Occ: Labour R/o. Plot 2 of 14SC 666 of 2017.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,RR Dist

No. 70, Owaisi hills, Shastripuram, Rajendranagar Mandal lodged a complaint with PS Mailrdevpally alleging that on 08-10-2015 the complainant daughter named Smt. Samreen W/o Shaik Iliyas, aged 19 years got marriage with Shaik

Iliyas/accused and that after the marriage due to suffering from ill health the deceased came to complainant house from Nizamabad, and the complainant took her to doctor for treatment at Sadana hospital Sun City, where duty doctor declared that her daughter was suffering from TB, and the same matter was informed to her son-in-law that is husband of her daughter, but, the deceased neither visit the complainant house nor he did not took any proper steps upon her disease; the complainant also took her daughter to the

Government hospital, where the doctor said that her daughter was cured; then the complainant also informed the same matter to her son-in-law over phone.

That on 21-10-2016 at about 14.30 hrs, the complainant and her son left from house to labor work and after completion of work they returned home at about 18.30 hrs, and they found that their house doors were closed and the complainant and her sister forcibly opened the said doors and found that her daughter/deceased committed suicide by hanging on rooftins, and upon that the complainant had suspicion that the deceased committed suicide because of she contacted her husband over phone. Therefore, the complainant requested to take necessary action against the accused i.e., son in law of the complainant. Basing on the said complaint, a case in crime No. 565/2016 was registered U/s. 498(A), 306 IPC and investigated. During the course of investigation, Sri J. Nagachary/LW-18 Sub-Inspector of police recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and conducted 3 of 14SC 666 of 2017.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,RR Dist

panchanama and inspected the scene minutely and all the observations were brought on record in the presence of LW-7 and LW-8, and thereafter, examined and recorded the statement of LW-4, 5 and 6 and also visited the

Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and recorded the statement of LW-2 and 3 and then LW-13 conducted inquest over the dead body, got conducted the autopsy over the dead body and requisition has been given to the Duty

Medical Officer to conduct autopsy and after that LW-14 who is the Assistant professor of Forensic Medicine had conducted the Post martem examination over the corpse of the deceased and later handed over to the blood relatives of the deceased to perform fina rites, and addressed a letter to DCP

Shamshabad to obtain the call details of the accused to find contact details between the accused and deceased on the date of incident. Further on 08-01- 2017, the accused apprehended by the deputed men at the residence of accused at Vattepally and brought him to police station and produced before

LW-15 and on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed the offence and his confessional statement was recorded in the presence of LW-11 and 12 and seized one Mobile along with Sim. On interrogation, the accused disclosed his name and admitted his guilt in commencing the offence and later produced

before the court for judicial custody. Accordingly, after completion of

investigation, LW-18 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.This case was committed by VIII Metropolitan Magistrate. It was made over to this court. On hearing the accused, the court framed the charges against the accused for the offences under U/s. 498(A) and 306 IPC. The 4 of 14SC 666 of 2017.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,RR Dist

charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they denied.

As such, case proceeded with trial against the accused.

4.At the time of trial, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8 which are Ex.P1 is Report, Ex.P2 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P3 is Rough Sketch, Ex.P4 is Inquest, Ex.P5 is Post Martem

Examination, Ex.P6 is the FIR, Ex.P7 is confession cum seizure Panchanama,

Ex.P8 is call record details.

5.After closure of trial, the accused were examined U/s 313(b) Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence of prosecution in question form to the accused.

They denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence. Hence matter was posted for arguments.

6.On closure of trial, arguments of both sides heard.

7.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.PW1 deposed that she was the resident of Rajendranagar and was doing

Labour work. The deceased Samreen Fathima was her daughter and the accused present in the court was her son in law and the marriage of her daughter was performed in the year 2015 at MS function Hall situated at Shastripuram,

Mailardevpally. That at the time of marriage they have presented 4 tulas of gold,

Rs.50,000/- in cash and other zehaz articles to the accused and after the marriage they started conjugal life at Jakura village of Varni Mandal of Nizambad

District and lived together happily for about two months. Thereafter the accused 5 of 14SC 666 of 2017.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,RR Dist

and other family members started harassing her daughter, demanding money, and also stated that the gold and silver ornaments presented to the accused at the time of marriage were also sold out by the accused and his family members and the accused demanded money from the parental house of deceased Samreen

Fathima to go to abroad for lively hood; they have given Rs.2,00,000/- to him, but, even after giving Rs.2,00,000/- accused did not choose to go to abroad for lively hood and upon that when they questioned him as to why he did not go to abroad, he stated that they were not suppose to question him and accused and his family members harassed her and physically assaulted and beat her due to that she committed suicide at their house by hanging herself and stated as on the date of committing suicide, the deceased was brought to their house about 8 months ago and since then she was staying with them. It is also deposed that during the stay of deceased at their home she reveled all those facts that her husband and in law’s harassed her then upon that she gave compliant to the police against accused and his family members for the harassment caused to her daughter due to which she commits suicide.

9.PW2 deposed that he was resident of Shareefnagar and his occupation is an auto driver and said PW1 was his elder sister, his parents were Nazeeruddin and Khaja Begum. It is deposed that the deceased Samreen Fathima was his niece and daughter of PW1 and her marriage was performed with the accused in the year 2015 and at the time of marriage, Pw1 has presented 4 tulas of gold and other house hold articles to the deceased and also presented Rs.50,000/- to the accused as dowry. That after 2 or 3 months of the marriage PW1 told him that matrimonial life of deceased Samreen is not proper and she was ill treated by the 6 of 14SC 666 of 2017.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,RR Dist

husband and in law’s and also told that in view of such harassment, Samreen was brought to parental house from Jakura Village and since then she was staying in the house of PW1 and stated that accused used to talk with the deceased Samreen over the phone and on the date of incident also he talked with her and the incident that her niece was committed suicide was got to know by the local people at Shastri puram and upon that PW1 reported the matter to the police and that the police examined him.

10.PW3 deposed that he was resident of Shastripuram and PW1 was his daughter and the deceased was his grand daughter and PW2 was his son and

LW5 was his wife and Shaik Ameeth was his son in law. It is deposed that the deceased marriage was performed in the year 2015 with the accused and at the time of marriage the parents of the deceased presented Rs. 50,000/- and 4 tulas of gold, Zehaz articles as dowry to the accused herein and after the marriage the deceased joined with accused and lead conjugal life at

Jakura Village and they lived together happily for 2 months and thereafter he came to know that the gold ornaments of the deceased was sold away by the accused family and also he demanded huge amount to go abroad for his lively hood and that on such demand PW1 gave Rs. 2,00,000/- to the accused, but, the accused and his family did not satisfy with that and started harassing the deceased, demanding more money, and inview of such harassment Samreen was brought to Hyderabad and was staying in the house of PW1 till her committing suicide and the deceased was committed suicide on 21-10-2016 and upon that PW1 informed the matter to the police, he was also examined 7 of 14SC 666 of 2017.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,RR Dist

by the police in that regard and also stated that they given the police complaint earlier also due to which the police called us and the accused family members to the police station and a panchayath was held there, but, even though the said incident, the accused did not change his attitude and used to harass the deceased.

11.PW4 deposed that she was resident of Shastripuram and PW1 was his elder sister and and the said PW3 and PW2 were her father and relative and the deceased was PW1 daughter and her marriage was performed with the accused in the year 2015 and at the time of marriage PW1 has presented 4 tulas of gold and furniture and other household articles as dowry and after the marriage the deceased Samreen Fathima joined the matrimonial house and started conjugal life for about 2 months and thereafter he came to knew through PW1 that the deceased was illtreated that the gold ornaments of the deceased was sold away by the accused family and also he demanded huge amount to go abroad for his lively hood and that on such demand PW1 gave

Rs. 2,00,000/- to the accused, but, the accused and his family did not satisfy with that and started harassing the deceased, demanding more money, and inview of such harassment Samreen was brought to Hyderabad and was staying in the house of PW1 till her committing suicide and the deceased was committed suicide on 21-10-2016 and upon that PW1 informed the matter to the police and during the course of the investigation police examined her.

12.PW5 deposed that he was the resident of Shastripuram and knew

Nazeeruddin and about two years ago police called him along with 8 of 14SC 666 of 2017.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,RR Dist

Nazeeruddin to conduct panchanama where the daughter of PW1 committed suicide and also stated that he and Nazeeruddin acted as mediators to the scence of panchanama.

13.PW6 deposed that she was the resident of Shareefnagar and she knew

LW9/Farina Begum and the deceased was her neighbour and that after death of deceased she along with PW1 went to OGH and on that at request of officials she acted as mediator to panchanama and that panchanama was conducted by MRO in their presence and noted the details of dead body and the cause of death and also stated that they noticed a ligature mark over the neck of the deceased and they also signed as witness.

14.PW7 deposed that he was working as Assistant Professor of Department

Forensic Medicine, OMC, Hyderabad since 2008. That on 22-10-2016 he received requisition from Thasildar Rajendranagar Mandal and upon that he conducted Postmartem examination over the said dead body of deceased, aged 20 years around 1.30 pm to 2.30 pm on the same day and upon that dead body he found a ligature mark of 20 Cms with 2 to 4 cms around the neck placed over and above the thyroid cartilage on the front and extending obliquily upwards and backwards on either sides of the neck disappearing at the scapal of either sides behind the mastoid emimemces on the back of left and right ears and it was upgraded as reddish brown pastchmentices and partly growed and the subcutaneous tissues under the ligature mark are compressed and pale and soft tissues between hoyid bone aned thyroid catilage are striched and elanagated and he was of the opinion that the the 9 of 14SC 666 of 2017.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,RR Dist

death was happened about 24 hours prior to PME and cause of death due to hanging.

15.PW8 deposed that on 21-10-2016 he received a complaint from PW1 basing on which he registered a case in Cr. No. 565/2015 under Section 174

Cr.P.C., and took up investigation and during the course of investigation he recorded the statement of LW1 and proceeded to scence of offence and collected the mediators LW7 and 8 and recorded the scene of offence panchanama and thereafter he recorded the statement of LW4, 5, 6 at OGH and also recorded the statement of LW2 and 3 and gave requisition of LW16 to conduct inquest and conducted the inquest in the presence of LW9 and 10 and submitted the report to LW17 to conduct PME and accordingly PME was conducted. That on 08-01-2017 on information he arrested accused and on interrogation he confessed the offence and he also collected the panchas

LW11, 12 and in their presence recorded the confession and seized one mobile phone along with Sim card from the possession of accused under the cover of panchanama and thereafter he visted Jakura Village there he examined LW13 to 15 and recorded their statements and made a requisition to DCP

Shamshabad and obtained call record data of the SIM card seized from accused and collected PME report and inquest and after completing investigation he filed charge sheet.

16.If we see the evidence of PW1 who is the mother of the deceased she stated that they gave Rs. 50,000/- and 4 tulas gold at the time of marriage to the accused. Similar is the evidence of PW2 who is the uncle of deceased, 10 of 14SC 666 of 2017.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,RR Dist

PW3 grandfather of the deceased and PW4 aunt of the deceased. But, strangely the complaint under Ex.P1 do not show the alleged dowry or the gold ornaments presented at the time of marriage to the accused. Infact Ex.P1 absolutely do not show any allegations against the accused regarding the dowry harassment on the deceased or a demand made by the accused for

additional dowry. Therefore, the story given by PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 about

the alleged dowry and gold at the time of marriage may have been given by complainant and her family members volunterly. But, there was no demand by the accused. Similarly the PW1 also stated that she gave Rs. 2,00,000/- to his mother and his cousin on the demand of A1. But, there was no whisper of the same by her own husband by her father and by her brother in their deposition. The only witness examined by prosecution are PW1 mother of the complainant. PW2 brother of the complainant and PW3 grandfather of the deceased. There is none who is cited as independent witness by the prosecution. Even if we see the evidence of PW1 to PW4, all the witnesses in the cross-examination admitted that deceased was suffering with ‘TB’ and as on the date of committing the suicide she was residing with her parents house since longtime. Under such circumstances Section 306 IPC absolutely does not attract against the accused. Infact in the chief examination itself the complainant PW1 categorically stated that since 8 months prior to the death of the deceased her daughter was residing with her because of the deceased she was suffering with ‘TB’. Even in the complainant under Ex.P1 she stated that due to unavoidable circumstances, she brought her daughter to her house and shown to doctor, where it was found that she was suffering with TB.

11 of 14SC 666 of 2017.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,RR Dist

These document is ample clear that as on the date of committing suicide the deceased was with PW1 and not at the house of accused. Moreover, she did not make any allegations against the accused about the dowry harassment even in her complaint in Ex.P1. The only whisper made by the PW1 in the chief examination is that the accused used to call her daughter over phone and quarrel with her due to which she committed suicide. This goes to show it is the presumption of the PW1 that her daughter committed suicide due to the alleged quarrel of the accused with the deceased over phone. Infact PW2 who is brother of PW1 in the cross-examination admitted that to his knowledge PW1 reported the matter to Police as suspicious death of deceased.

Even PW3 who is grandfather of the deceased in the cross-examination admitted that police complaint was given only with regard to suicide of the deceased. All the witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased from PW1 to PW4 categorically admitted the deceased was suffering with ‘TB’ since longtime and she was under going treatment. This may have lead the deceased to commit suicide. But, when there is no allegation of dowry harassment or abatement of suicide against the accused by the deceased, Section 498 (A) and

Section 306 IPC absolutely does not attract. It is only on the presumption of

PW1 that since the accused A1 used to speak with the deceased on Phone, she thrown all allegation on the accused on her own presumption that due to the abatement of the accused she may have committed suicide. From the discussions made above there is absolutely no proof of harassment of the accused towards the deceased nor any proof of abatement of suicide.

12 of 14SC 666 of 2017.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,RR Dist

17.PW5 is scene Pancha through whom Ex.P2, Ex.P3 that is Panchanama and rough sketch was got marked. Similarly PW6 is inquest Panchanama through whom inquest panchanama has got marked, PW7 is doctor who conducted PME on the deceased and he issued Ex.P5 which is PME report.

Even if the evidence of these witnesses from PW5 to PW7 are believed to true; it is only proves scene Panchanama was conducted by the police in presence of Pw5, Inquest was conducted by police in presence of PW6 and

PME report was issued by PW7. The evidence of these witnesses do not prove the guilt of the accused.

18.Now we have the evidence of PW8 who is Investigating Officer through whom Ex.P6 FIR got marked. Ex.A7 is Seizure Panchanama and Ex.P8 is Call record. Even the Investigating Officer in the cross-examination admitted that the complaint under Ex.P1 does not contain that the accused harassed her wife for dowry. Under such circumstances Section 498 (A) IPC absolutely does not attract. Infact in the cross-examination PW8 Investigating Officer also admitted that initially he registered the case under Section 174 and thereafter alter to the 306 IPC. But, strangely there is no alteration memo got by the prosecution and even the said charge sheet does not contain the said facts.

These facts elicited in the cross-examination supports the innocence of the accused. Further PW8 stated that he seized one mobile phone, SIM card under the cover of Panchanama, but, strangely none of the articles were got marked by the prosecution. PW8 Investigating Officer in the cross-examination also admitted that the Panchanama contains the fact about the seizure of Blue and 13 of 14SC 666 of 2017.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,RR Dist

Yellow colour sarees, Stool, Pillow Cover and Steel Box, but, very confidently stated in the cross-examination that they have not deposited the said materials

in the court. Infact he also admitted in the cross-examination he did not

recover Cell Phone and call data of the deceased. These all facts supports the suggestion of the defence counsel that charge sheet was filed without doing proper investigation and the accused is not at all concerned with the crime.

For all the discussion made above we hold that the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

Accordingly point for determination answered.

19. IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 498(A), 306 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal

Procedure Code. The unmarked property if any, shall be destoryed after the appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of May, 2019.

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District

Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution : For Defence PW1: Sadiqka Kouser-Nil- PW2: Mohd. Isak PW3: Nazeeruddin PW4: Jakeera Siddiqui PW5: Syed Saheed PW6: Nasreen Begum PW7: Dr.G. DevRaj PW8: J. Naga Chary 14 of 14SC 666 of 2017.

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,RR Dist

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution : For Defence

Ex.P1: Report-Nil- Ex.P2: Scene of Panchanama Ex.P3: Rough Sketch Ex.P4: Inquest Ex.P5: Post Martem Examination Report Ex.P6: FIR Ex.P7: Confession cum Seizure Panchanama Ex.P8: Call record

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District

Corrections carried out:

1 of 10O.S 1514 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: Smt Shoukath Jahan Siddique,

VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Dated this the 14th Day of March, 2019

O.S. No. 1514 of 2018

BETWEEN:-

1. Gudugontla Swapna D/o Late Gudugontla Narasimha, Aged : 22 years, Occ : Student, R/o. H.No. Plot No. 86, Ram Reddy Nagar, Ramanthapur, Uppal, Amberpet, Hyderabad – 500 013

2. Gudugontla Naveen S/o Late Gudugontla Narasimha, Aged : 21 years, Occ : Student, R/o. H.No. Plot No. 86, Ram Reddy Nagar, Ramanthapur, Uppal, Amberpet, Hyderabad – 500 013… Plaintiffs

AND

1. Smt Buchamma W/o P. Siddaiah, Aged : 40 years, Occ : House wife, R/o. H.No. 3-109/4/222, Srinivasnagar Colony, Chengicherla, Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District 500098

2. All concerned... Defendants

This suit come for final hearing before me on 8-2-2019 in the presence of Sri S. Beeraiah, Advocate for the plaintiff and of defendants set exparte and remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for the plaintiff and upon perusal of the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit for declaration to declare the plaintiffs as legal heir of

Late Gudugontla Lalitha and to declare the plaintiffs as owners of suit suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties i.e.

2 of 10O.S 1514 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

Plaint Schedule of Property-A

All that the open plot No. 45/Part and 46/Part in survey No. 122/E, area an extent of 100square yards or 83.6sq.mtrs situated at Peerzadiguda

Village and Grampanchayath, Revenue Mandal Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy

District, under the purview of Sub-Registrar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District and bounded as follows:

NORTH: Plot No. 46/part SOUTH: Plot No. 45/Part EAST: 25’ wide road WEST: Plot Nos. 29 & 30

Plaint Schedule of Property-B

All that the open plot No. 212 Eastern Part, in survey Nos. 114, 118, 120 and 121 50square yards our of 100sqare years or 83.6sq.mtrs situated at “Kranthi Colony” Chengi Cherla Village and Grampanchayat, Ghatkesar

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under SRO, Narapally, Ranga Reddy

District, under the purview of Sub-Registrar Narapally, Ranga Reddy

District and bounded by:

NORTH: Plot No. 199 SOUTH: 25’ wide road EAST: Plot No. 213 WEST: Plot No. 212 Western part

2.The brief facts of the plaint are that Late Gudugontla Lalitha wife of

Gudugontla Narasimha is the mother of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and the said mother of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 died intestate on 5-1-2016. That the husband of deceased Late Gudugontla Lalitha namely Narasimha also died on 8-6-2007 leaving behind him his wife Gudugontla Lalitha, daughter and son and thereafter Gudugontla Lalitha died leaving behind her daughter i.e.

plaintiff No. 1 and son i.e. plaintiff No. 2. That Gudugontla Lalitha during 3 of 10O.S 1514 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

her life time had acquired suit schedule ‘A’ property having purchased under registered sale deed document No. 12716/2007 dated 15-2-2007 from one A. Visweswar Rao under purview of Sub-Registrar, Uppal, Ranga

Reddy District. That Gudugontla Lalitha during her life time along with Smt

P. Buchamma jointly also acquired suit schedule ‘B’ property having purchased under registered sale deed document No. 3798/2013 dated 13- 5-2013 under purview of Sub-Registrar, Narapally, Ranga Reddy District.

That since the date of purchase, the deceased Gudugontla Lalitha along with plaintiffs was in absolute possession and enjoyment of property till her death. That upon the death of Gudugontla Lalitha, the plaintiffs have succeeded the plaint schedule properties being her legal heirs and they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. That the plaintiffs intend to sell away the plaint schedule properties in the first week of

August, 2017 and the purchasers asked the plaintiffs to produce the legal heir certificate and asked the plaintiffs to produce legal heir declaration certificate of the deceased Late A. Laxmi through competent court and immediately, when the plaintiffs approached the Revenue authorities, i.e.

Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District with a request to issue the legal heir declaration certificate as they are the legal heirs of Gudugontla Lalitha and the authorities refused to issue the said legal heir certificate and also advised the plaintiffs to approach the competent civil court to obtain the legal heir certificate of Gudugontla Lalitha wife of Gudugontla Narasimha.

That defendant No. 1 since one month seriously trying to interfere into the plaint schedule properties by taking advantage of the innocence of the plaintiffs and also the death of her mother i.e. Gudugontla Lalitha. That as 4 of 10O.S 1514 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

a matter of fact, defendant No. 1 has no manner of right over the plaint schedule property-A and the defendant No. 1 is having the right only to an extent of 50square yards in the schedule of property-B, but even though said defendant No. 1 tried to interfere into the plaint schedule property-A and also in the right of the plaintiffs but on the intervention of the neighbours and well wishers, the plaintiffs somehow safe guard the plaint schedule properties. That the plaintiffs apprehends that if the said defendant No. 1 succeeds in his attempts, the plaintiffs would be put to great hardship and injury and hence the plaintiffs filed the present suit praying this court to declare them as only surviving legal heirs of Late

Gudugontla Lalitha wife of Gudugontla Narasimha to inherit the plaint schedule properties A and B who died intestate on 5-1-2006 and consequently to declare the plaintiffs as lawful owners plaint schedule properties ‘A’ and ‘B’ for only 50 square yards on the total 100sq.yards by virtue of intestate succession.

3.Defendants were set exparte and remained exparte.

4.At the time of exparte evidence, plaintiffs examined PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A11 which are Ex.A1 is death certificate of Gudugontla

Narasimha, Ex.A2 is death certificate of Gudugontla Lalitha, Ex.A3 is certified copy of sale deed document No. 12716/2007 dated 15-2-2007,

Ex.A4 is Encumbrance certificate from 1-1-1989 to 17-8-2018, Ex.A5 is market value certificate, Ex.A6 is certified copy of sale deed document No.

3798/2013 dated 13-5-2013, Ex.A7 is Encumbrance certificate from 1-10- 2007 to 17-7-2018, Ex.A8 is market value certificate, Ex.A9 is Household 5 of 10O.S 1514 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

card, Ex.A10 is Aadhaar card of plaintiff No.1, Ex.A11 is Aadhaar card of plaintiff No.2.

5.On conclusion of exparte trial, arguments of plaintiffs counsel heard.

6.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for?

7.To prove their case, plaintiffs examined plaintiff No. 1 as PW1. PW1 deposed that Late Gudugontla Lalitha wife of Gudugontla Narasimha is the mother of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and the said mother of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 died intestate on 5-1-2016. That the husband of deceased Late

Gudugontla Lalitha namely Narasimha also died on 8-6-2007 leaving behind him his wife Gudugontla Lalitha, daughter and son and thereafter

Gudugontla Lalitha died leaving behind her daughter i.e. plaintiff No. 1 and son i.e. plaintiff No. 2. That Gudugontla Lalitha during her life time had acquired suit schedule ‘A’ property having purchased under registered sale deed document No. 12716/2007 dated 15-2-2007 from one A. Visweswar

Rao under purview of Sub-Registrar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. That

Gudugontla Lalitha during her life time along with Smt P. Buchamma jointly also acquired suit schedule ‘B’ property having purchased under registered sale deed document No. 3798/2013 dated 13-5-2013 under purview of

Sub-Registrar, Narapally, Ranga Reddy District. That since the date of purchase, the deceased Gudugontla Lalitha along with plaintiffs was in absolute possession and enjoyment of property till her death. That upon the death of Gudugontla Lalitha, the plaintiffs have succeeded the plaint schedule properties being her legal heirs and they are in absolute 6 of 10O.S 1514 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

possession and enjoyment of the same. That the plaintiffs intend to sell away the plaint schedule properties in the first week of August, 2017 and the purchasers asked the plaintiffs to produce the legal heir certificate and asked the plaintiffs to produce legal heir declaration certificate of the deceased Late A. Laxmi through competent court and immediately, when the plaintiffs approached the Revenue authorities, i.e. Tahsildar, Ghatkesar

Mandal, R.R.District with a request to issue the legal heir declaration certificate as they are the legal heirs of Gudugontla Lalitha and the authorities refused to issue the said legal heir certificate and also advised the plaintiffs to approach the competent civil court to obtain the legal heir certificate of Gudugontla Lalitha wife of Gudugontla Narasimha. That defendant No. 1 since one month seriously trying to interfere into the plaint schedule properties by taking advantage of the innocence of the plaintiffs and also the death of her mother i.e. Gudugontla Lalitha. That as a matter of fact, defendant No. 1 has no manner of right over the plaint schedule property-A and the defendant No. 1 is having the right only to an extent of 50square yards in the schedule of property-B, but even though said defendant No. 1 tried to interfere into the plaint schedule property-A and also in the right of the plaintiffs but on the intervention of the neighbours and well wishers, the plaintiffs somehow safe guard the plaint schedule properties. That the plaintiffs apprehends that if the said defendant No. 1 succeeds in his attempts, the plaintiffs would be put to great hardship and injury and hence the plaintiffs filed the present suit praying this court to declare them as true and lawful and possessors of the plaint schedule properties having succeeded the same being the legal heirs of the 7 of 10O.S 1514 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

deceased Gudugontla Lalitha. She got marked Ex.A1 to A11 which are

Ex.A1 is death certificate of Gudugontla Narasimha, Ex.A2 is death certificate of Gudugontla Lalitha, Ex.A3 is certified copy of sale deed document No. 12716/2007 dated 15-2-2007, Ex.A4 is Encumbrance certificate from 1-1-1989 to 17-8-2018, Ex.A5 is market value certificate,

Ex.A6 is certified copy of sale deed document No. 3798/2013 dated 13-5- 2013, Ex.A7 is Encumbrance certificate from 1-10-2007 to 17-7-2018,

Ex.A8 is market value certificate, Ex.A9 is Household card, Ex.A10 is

Aadhaar card of plaintiff No.1, Ex.A11 is Aadhaar card of plaintiff No.2.

8.As per the story of the plaintiff and chief examination is that Late Smt

G. Lalitha is the mother of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and she died intestate on 5-1-2016. To support the said evidence of PW1, plaintiff filed Ex.A2 which is death certificate of G. Lalitha which reflects that she died on 5-1-2016 as deposed by PW1. Therefore, this Ex.A2 supports the evidence of PW1 to that extent. Further contention of PW1 is that deceased husband of G.

Lalitha died on 8-6-2007. To prove the same, plaintiff filed Ex.A1 which is death certificate of G.Narsimha which supports his contention to the extent of death of G. Narsimha. PW1 further deposed that during the life time, their mother purchased ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. To support the said contention, the plaintiffs filed Ex.A3 certified copy of sale deed document

No. 12716/2007 which is with respect to ‘A’ schedule property. The court perused the said document and found that ‘A’ schedule property is standing in the name of Smt. G. Lalitha under a registered sale deed. Plaintiff also filed certified copy of sale deed under Ex.A6 to prove that G. Lalitha also purchased ‘B’ schedule property. The court perused Ex.A6 and found that 8 of 10O.S 1514 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

Smt G. Lalitha was not the sole purchaser under Ex.A6. From the document, it is seen that besides Smt G. Lalitha, Smt P. Buchamma was also joint purchaser. Therefore, the claim of plaintiff is false that the deceased Smt G. Lalitha independently purchased ‘B’ schedule property.

Further contention of plaintiff is that the plaintiffs are in possession of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and they succeeded ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties as legal heirs, successors to sell away the said schedule properties. But very strangely, even if the name of Smt P. Buchamma appears in the sale deed under Ex.A6, the plaintiffs failed to make her as a party in the suit but independently claiming ownership and possession by way of succession with respect to both ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties without making P. Buchamma as a party The suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

9.Further contention fo PW1 is that plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of the deceased and to prove the same, they relied on Ex.A9, A10 which are Aadhaar cards of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2, household card and there is no doubt that these documents supports the evidence of PW1 to the extent that the plaintiffs are legal heirs of the deceased. But since the deceased was holding only ‘A’ schedule property as absolute owner, the plaintiffs can be declared as legal heirs of the deceased only to the extent of ‘A’ schedule property. Coming to ‘B’ schedule property, since P.

Buchamma was not made as party but still plaintiffs are claiming the ‘B’ schedule property also, the court cannot grant any relief with respect to ‘B’ schedule property. Even from the prayer, it is seen that the plaintiffs prayed that the plaintiffs to be declared as owners of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule 9 of 10O.S 1514 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

properties. When the document under Ex.A3 is standing in the name of deceased P. Buchamma, how can the plaintiffs be declared as owners. At the most, plaintiffs can be declared as legal heirs of the deceased to the extent to deal with the property and step into the shoes of the deceased.

But when there is no document standing in the name of the plaintiffs, how can the plaintiffs be declared as owners with respect to ‘A’ schedule property. Secondly, plaintiffs also sought to declare them as owners with respect to ‘B’ schedule property. The same reason comes here that Ex.A6 which is sale deed with respect to ‘B’ schedule property is standing in the name of deceased G. Lalitha and P. Buchamma, how can the plaintiffs be declared as owners. Among the documents filed by the plaintiff, there is no single registered sale deed standing in the name of the plaintiffs.

Therefore, they cannot be declared as owners of ‘B’ schedule property.

Adding to that, P. Buchamma who is shown as joint purchaser along with

G. Lalitha under Ex.A6 is not made as a party. Therefore, on this count also, no relief can be granted and suit is liable to be dismissed for non- joinder of necessary party. Accordingly, point for determination answered.

10.In the result, suit is partly decreed declaring the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 as legal heirs of the deceased G. Lalitha only with respect to ‘A’ schedule property. The prayer with respect to ‘B’ schedule property is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, Transcribed

by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th Day of March, 2019.

VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Corrections carried out:

10 of 10O.S 1514 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1 : Smt G. Swapna-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1: Death certificate of Gudugontla Narasimha

Ex.A2: Death certificate of Gudugontla Lalitha

Ex.A3: Certified copy of sale deed document No. 12716/2007

dated 15-2-2007

Ex.A4: Encumbrance certificate from 1-1-1989 to 17-8-2018

Ex.A5: Market value certificate

Ex.A6: Certified copy of sale deed document No. 3798/2013

dated 13-5-2013

Ex.A7: Encumbrance certificate from 1-10-2007 to 17-7-2018

Ex.A8: Market value certificate

Ex.A9: Household card

Ex.A10: Aadhaar card of plaintiff No.1

Ex.A11: Aadhaar card of plaintiff No.2

FOR DEFENDANTS:-Nil-

VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

1 of 9SC 76 of 2016

VIII ASCJ RR DT

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD

Present: SHOUKATH JAHAN SIDDIQUE,

VIII Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge,

Rangareddy District

Dated this the 15th day of March, 2019

SESSIONS CASE NO. 76 of 2016

Name of the The State of T.S. through Inspector of Police, P.S. Complainant Saroornagar

Name of the A1Mandali Vishnu Kumar S/o Late M. Anjaneyulu, AccusedAge: 27 Years, Occ : Security, R/o H.No. 20- 27, Sharadha Nagar, Saroornagar, Hyderabad N/o Teacher’s Colony, Mahaboobnagar

A2Kori Nandulal S/o Sri K. Durjan, Age: 30 Years, Occ : Security Guard at Dolphin Hospital, Saroornagar N/o 3-2-196, Ward No. 3, Manthinifile, Illendu, Khammam

A3Thota Chandra Shekar S/o Late T. Somaiah, Age: 35 Years, Occ : Pvt. Employee, H.No. 1- 30, Almasguda, Meerpet, Saroornagar

A4Meesala Raj Kumar S/o Sri M. Dasharath, Age: 32 Years, Occ : Petty business, H.No. 18-61/A, Sainagar, Badangpet, Meerpet, Saroornagar

Charge U/Sec. U/s. 370, 370A (2) of IPC and 3, 4, 5 and 7 PITA Act

Crime No.616/2014

Plea of the accused Not Guilty

Finding of the Court Not guilty

Sentence or OrderAccused are found not guilty for the offences U/s. 370, 370A (2) of IPC and 3, 4, 5 and 7 PITA Act Prosecution conducted Sri V. Ravi Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor by

Defence conducted bySri M. Lingam, Advocate for the accused

This case was committed by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

L.B.Nagar, vide PRC 53/2015.

This case come before me on 8-3-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Ravi Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M. Lingam, 2 of 9SC 76 of 2016

VIII ASCJ RR DT

Counsel for accused and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is the case filed by the Inspector of Police, Saroornagar PS against the accused/A1 to A4 for the offences U/s. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Prevention of Immoral

Traffic Act.

2.Brief facts of the case are that on 29-10-2014, S. Krishna Prasad, Detective

Inspector of Police, PS Saroornagar received credible information to the effect that one person has taken house on rent at Premises bearing No. 20-27, Sharadha

Nagar, Saroornagar and earning money illegally and so he obtained search proceedings from the Asst. Commissioner of Police, L.B.Nagar, Cyberabad vide proceeding No. 79/ACP-LBNR/Cyb/14 dated 29-10-2014 authorizing him to enter the said premises and search and seize all the incriminating material and to take the accused persons therein after following the due process of law. That thereafter, at about 1730 hours, PW4 along with his sub-ordinates and and panch witnesses raided the premises and apprehended A1 to A4 and two victims. That A1 who is the organizer of the premises confessed about the commission of offence and accordinlgy, confessional statement of A1 was recorded and seized one Karbonn mobile phone no. 70751616357 from possesson of A1. That confessional statements of A2 to A4 also recorded and seized Kechadda cell phone bearing No.

7702865858 IMEI No. 867186012159652 from A2, Nokia cell phone No.

9948096997 IMEI No. 356932/03/305655/1 from A3, Nokia cell phone No.

9949027652 IMEI No. 35538400/673195/3 from A4 and also seized Hero Honda

Splendor motor cycle bearing No. TS 08 EB 1671 from the possession of A4 and

Kamasutra packet containing 3 condoms from the premises. That PW4 took the acccused into custody and brought them to PS along with victims and registered a 3 of 9SC 76 of 2016

VIII ASCJ RR DT

case in Crime No. 672/2011 under Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and handed over the investigation to K. Narsing Rao/PW6,

Inspector of police who recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested A1 to

A4 as per procedure. That PW6 visited the scene of offence, recorded the statement of owner of premises and sent the accused to judicial custody while the victims to rescue home and then filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of PITA.

3.This case was committed by III Metropolitan Magistrate. It was made over to this court. On hearing the accused/A1 to A4, the court framed the charges against the accused for the offences under Section 370 A(2) IPC and Section 3, 4, 5 of

Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they denied. As such matter was posted for trial.

4.At the time of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 which are Ex.P1 is signature of PW3 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P2 is proceedings of ACP, Ex.P3 is First information report, Ex.P4 is Confession-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P5 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 and also got marked MO1 to MO5 which are MO1 to MO4 are cell phones and

MO5 is condoms.

5.After closure of trial, the accused were examined U/s 313 (b)Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence of prosecution in question form to the accused.

They denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence. Hence matter was posted for arguments.

6.On closure of trial, arguments of both sides heard .

4 of 9SC 76 of 2016

VIII ASCJ RR DT

7.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 which are Ex.P1 is signature of PW3 on confession-cum- seizure panchanama, Ex.P2 is proceedings of ACP, Ex.P3 is First information report, Ex.P4 is Confession-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P5 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 and also got marked MO1 to MO5 which are MO1 to MO4 are cell phones and MO5 is condoms.

9.PW1 deposed that while she was working as WHC 2378 at Saroornagar PS, on 29-10-2014 at about 5.30pm, PW4 received information about the prostitution going on at House No. 20-27, Sharada Nagar, Saroornagar and on that she along with LW2 and PW2 accompanied PW4 to the scene of offence. She further deposed that after going to scene of offence, they found two organizers outside the house and on knocking the door, one lady and male person were present in the hall. She further deposed that on searching a bed room, they found one male and one female person in half naked compromise state and that they also found 3 condoms and thereafter brought all the four persons to PS i.e. two ladies and two gents along with the seized four cell phones and one Hero Honda Splendor.

10.PW2 deposed that while he was working as SOT East zone, on 29-10-2014 at about 5.30pm, PW4 received information about the prostitution going on at

House No. 20-27, Sharada Nagar, Saroornagar and that after going to scene of offence, they found two persons sitting in the hall and PW4 introduced himself regarding purpose of raid. He further deposed that on searching the room, they found two persons i.e. two ladies and two gents and so they brought them into the 5 of 9SC 76 of 2016

VIII ASCJ RR DT

hall and PW4 spoke with them and on search of said persons, they found four cell phones and one condom packet. He further deposed that they seized one motor cycle and brought all the persons to PS along with seized four cell phones and one

Hero Honda Splendor.

11.PW4 deposed that while he was working as Detective Inspector of Police, PS

Saroornagar, on 29-10-2014, he received credible information from LW4 about brothel being conducted in H.No. 20-27, Sharadha Nagar, Saroornagar and on that he informed the same to his superior officer and obtained search proceedings from

ACP, L.B.Nagar under which he was authorized to conduct the search at the scene. HE further deposed that he collected two panchas PW3 and LW8 and appraised them about the information and raid and thereafter he along with panchas and staff proceeded to the scene at about 17.30hours and at the scene they found two persons in the hall out of whom one introduced himself as

Vishnukumar and the other as Nandulal. He further deposed that he searched the premises and on enquiry and interrogation, the said persons revealed that they are running brothel in the said premises. He further deposed that on searching the rooms, he also found one customer and one lady in one bed room and another customer and one lady in hall and that on interrogation, al the said four persons totaly by name Vishnukumar, Nandulal, T. Chandrashekar and M. Raj Kumar confessed the offence of running the brothel. He further deposed that besides the above four persons, they also found two victims by name Vasantha and

Shahnawaz and they seized one Karbon cell phone from A1, one cell phone from

A2, one Nokia cell phone from a3 and also seized one cell phone and two wheeler vehicle bearing No. TS 08 TB 1671 under the cover of panchanama. He further deposed that from the bed room, they seized unused condom packet of three 6 of 9SC 76 of 2016

VIII ASCJ RR DT

pieces all under the cover of panchanama and went back to PS along with accused, seized material and victims. He further deposed that basing on the material available with him, he registered FIR in Crime No. 672/2014 under Sec. 3, 4, 5 & 7 of PITA Act and that further investigation was handed over to PW6.

12. PW6 deposed that while he was working as Inspector of Police at

Saroornagar PS, on 29-10-2014 as per the report given by PW4 and contents of the petition, he registered a case in Crime No. 672/2014 for the offences punishable u/s. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and took up investigation. He further deposed that they produced four accused persons and two victim prostitutes along with some seized material. He further deposed that during the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses, effected the arrest of A1 to A4 at 17.30hours on 29-10-2014 and sent the accused to judicial custody while the victims to rescue home. He further deposed that he visited the scene of offence, recorded the statement of owner of premises i.e. PW5 and thereafter PW5 came to the police station and so he tried to collect the address proof of the premises but PW5 did not furnish any copy and thereafter he filed charge sheet against the accused after completion of investigation.

13.In this case, the panchas PW3, PW5 turned hostile and nothing was elicited in their cross examination by the prosecution to show that they have been won over by the accused. The only witnesses examined by the prosecution are all officials who alleged to have conducted raid at the scene of offence. As per the story of the prosecution, PW1, PW2 accompanied PW4 to conduct raid at the scene of offence which is house No. 20-27, Sharadha nagar, Saroornagar. Though the scene of offence appears to be a residential locality, but none of the independent witness supported the prosecution case and all that the witnesses 7 of 9SC 76 of 2016

VIII ASCJ RR DT

who supported PW4 Investigating officer is only PW1 and PW2, his Sub-ordinates.

Even their evidence show lot of discrimination between one evidence to the others.

As per the evidence of PW1 and PW2, they stated that they found one lady and one male person in the hall and on searching the bed room, they found one lady and one male person in a half naked compromise state. But surprisingly, none of the witnesses either PW1 or PW2 identified the accused and simply deposed that the said persons were arrested and brought to PS. Therefore, neither PW1 nor

PW2 identified the accused persons in the court hall.

14. If we come to the evidence of PW4, in his chief examination, he categorically stated that he found four persons who also confessed the offence and he identified the accused person in the court hall. But again surprisingly, the confession which is deposed by PW4 is not at all whispered by PW1 and PW2 in their evidence though they accompanied PW4 to the scene. Again neither PW1 nor PW2 whispered in their evidence about the particulars of the accused from whom the alleged materials i.e. MOs have been seized as deposed by PW4. Therefore, there is only one witness all along i.e. PW4 who elaborately stated about his visit, seizure and identity of the accused. But surprisingly, his evidence is not at all supported by even his own official witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW2. There is a glaring contradiction between the evidence of PW1 and PW2 on one hand and PW4 on the other hand.

Leaving aside seizure, even the identity of the accused is also not deposed by

PW1 and PW2 who are own witnesses of PW4. In the cross examination, PW4 admitted that the scene of offence is single bed room and two halls whereas no such detail is given by PW1 and PW2 in their evidence. From the evidence of

PW1, it is seen that she spoke about one lady and one male person in half naked compromise state but nothing as such is deposed by Investigation officer PW4 who 8 of 9SC 76 of 2016

VIII ASCJ RR DT

actually conducted the raid. In fact, PW4 also admitted in the cross examination that he did not state about the particulars of each accused in each bed room in his 161 Cr.P.C statement before police. These all contradictions between the evidence of PW1 and PW2 on one side and PW4 on the other side throws clouds of suspicion over the story of PW4.

15.The other remaining witness is PW5 who is also another Investigation officer.

But he only registered the case, recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet. Therefore, even by producing all the official witnesses also, the guilt of the accused is not proved by the prosecution with all concrete evidence. Conviction cannot be passed on suspicious contradictory and weak evidence. Hence, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accoridnlgy, point for determination answered.

16.IN THE RESULT, accused/A1 to A4 are found not guilty and acquitted from all charges under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. MO1 to MO4 shall be returned to the respective persons from whom it is sezied as per seizure report after the appeal time is over. MO5 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Grade III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of March, 2019.

VIII Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District

Corrections carried out:

9 of 9SC 76 of 2016

VIII ASCJ RR DT

Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution : For Defence

PW1: P. Shobha -None- PW2: Brahmam PW3: Mediga Mallikarjun PW4: S. Krishna Prasad PW5: V.V.C.Manohar PW6: K. Narsing Rao

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution : For Defence

Ex.P1: Signature of PW3 on confession-cum-seizure -Nil- panchanama Ex.P2: Proceedings of ACP Ex.P3: First information report Ex.P4: Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5

Material objects Marked

For Prosecution : For Defence

MO1 to MO4: Cell phones (4) MO5: Condoms

VIII Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District

1 of 9O.S 86 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: Smt Shoukath Jahan Siddique,

VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Dated this the 15th Day of March, 2019

O.S. No. 86 of 2018

BETWEEN:-

1. Smt Dhanasri Rukmini W/o Late D. Padmanabam, Aged : 80 years, Occ : House hold, R/o. H.No. 5-4-46, Abids, J.N.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad

2. Dhanasri Mohan alias Man Mohan S/o Late D. Padmanabam, Aged : 63 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No. 5-4-46, Abids, J.N.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad

3. Dhanasri Madan Mohan S/o Late D. Padmanabam, Aged : 61 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No. 5-4-46, Abids, J.N.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad

4. Dhanasri Jagan Mohan S/o Late D. Padmanabam, Aged : 58 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No. 5-4-46, Abids, J.N.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad

5. Smt Chintakunta Sabitha D/o Late D. Padmanabam, Aged : 58 years, Occ : Household, R/o. H.No. 5-4-46, Abids, J.N.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad… Plaintiffs

AND

1. Ravinder Joshi S/o Lakshminarayana Joshi, Aged : 40 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No. 1-6-260/1, Phanigiri Colony, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad

2. All concerned... Defendants

2 of 9O.S 86 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

This suit come for final hearing before me on 7-2-2019 in the presence of Sri A. Venkateshwarlu, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of defendants set exparte and remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for the plaintiffs and upon perusal of the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit for declaration to declare plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 as legal heirs and successors of Late D. Padmanabham and also to grant consequential relief of perpetual injunction with respect of suit schedule property i.e.

All that the plot No. 28 (Northern part) with land admeasuring 150 sq.yards together with independent house with built up area admeasuring of 300sq.ft bearing H.No. 1-6-298, forming part of survey No. 37, situated at Phanigiri Colony, Chaitanyapuri, Kothapet Village, Ranga Reddy District and bounded as follows:

NORTH: 40’ wide road SOUTH: Southern part of plot No. 28 EAST: 20’ wide road WEST: Plot No. 22

2.The brief facts of the plaint are that originally one D. Padmanabham alias D. Padmanabh S/o Venkat Rajaiah (i.e. husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiffs No. 2 to 5) have acquired and purchased the various plots including the plot of land admeasuring 300sq.yards bearing plot No.

28 forming part of survey No. 37, situated at Kothapet Village and Gram

Panchayath, presently known as Phanigiri Colony, Chaitanyapuri,

Hyderabad through a sale deed dated 25-8-1969 bearing registered document No. 1727/1969 with SRO, Hayathnagar, from one Kishan Rao 3 of 9O.S 86 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

and another for valid sale consideration. That said D. Padmanabham being the absolute owner and possessor of said plot or land admeasuring 300sq.yards bearing plot No. 28 had divided the same into two parts i.e.

each 150sq.yards and constructed two independent houses thereon. That our of the said houses, southern part of the plot No. 28 with land admeasuring 150sq.yards together with independent house was already alienated and transferred by D. Padmanabham in favour of third parties and thus said D. Padmanabham remained with the plot No. 28 (northern part) with land admeasuring 150sq.yards together with independent house with built up area admeasuring of 300sq.ft bearing H.No. 1-6-298 forming part of Sy.No. 37 situated at Phanigiri Colony, Chaitanyapuri, Kothapet

Village, Ranga Reddy District i.e. schedule property and since the date of purchase, D. Padmanabham has been in continuous ownership and possession of the same. That D. Padmanabham died intestate on 15-2- 2010 leaving behind him his wife plaintiff No. 1 and his children i.e. plaintiffs

No. 2 to 5 as his exclusive legal heirs and successors in respect of the estate left by him and thus the plaintiffs inherited and succeeded to the suit schedule property from said Late D. Padmanabham and became the joint owners and possessors of the schedule property which was self acquired property in the hands of the D. Padmanabham and had paid the property tax to the concerned municipal authorities. That subsequently, the plaintiffs had approached the concerned municipal authorities for grant of mutation of their names in the municipal records as owners in place of the deceased

D. Padmanabham since they are the exclusive successors and legal heirs 4 of 9O.S 86 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

of the estate left by the deceased but the municipal authorities did not incorporate the names of the plaintiffs in the records and on the other hand, advised the plaintiffs to obtain succession certificate/legal heir certificate from the court. That on 24-12-2017, the defendant No. 1 who does not have any right, title or whatsoever in nature and after demise of said D.

Padmanabham have illegally started interfering into the schedule property and claiming the property without any entitlement. That the plaintiff No. 1 being the wife and the plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 being the sons and daughter of deceased Late D. Padmanabham are only exclusively owners and entitled to the schedule property by virtue of succession and hence the plaintiffs filed the present suit praying this court to declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs and successors of Late D. Padmanabham and consequently to declare the plaintiffs as absolute owners and possessors of suit schedule property and consequently to grant the perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.

1 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in and over the suit schedule property.

3.Defendants were set exparte and remained exparte.

4.At the time of exparte evidence, plaintiffs examined PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A8 which are Ex.A1 is property tax notice dated 23-11- 2016, Ex.A2 is death certificate of D. Padmanabh, Ex.A3 is Aadhaar cards of plaintiffs, Ex.A4 is market value certificate, Ex.A5 is Encumbrance certificate from 1-1-1969 to 27-6-1980, Ex.A6 is Encumbrance certificate from 1-10-2007 to 10-10-2016, Ex.A7 is Encumbrance certificate from 11- 5 of 9O.S 86 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

10-2016 to 25-6-2018, Ex.A8 is certified copy of sale deed document No.

1727/1969 dated 25-8-1969 with translation.

5.On conclusion of exparte trial, arguments of plaintiffs counsel heard.

6.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for?

7.To prove their case, plaintiffs examined 3rd plaintiff as PW1. PW1 deposed that originally D. Padmanabham alias D. Padmanabh S/o Venkat

Rajaiah (i.e. husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiffs No. 2 to 5) have acquired and purchased the various plots including the plot of land admeasuring 300sq.yards bearing plot No. 28 forming part of survey No.

37, situated at Kothapet Village and Gram Panchayath, presently known as

Phanigiri Colony, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad through a sale deed dated 25- 8-1969 bearing registered document No. 1727/1969 with SRO,

Hayathnagar, from one Kishan Rao and another for valid sale consideration. That said D. Padmanabham being the absolute owner and possessor of said plot or land admeasuring 300sq.yards bearing plot No.

28 had divided the same into two parts i.e. each 150sq.yards and constructed two independent houses thereon. That our of the said houses, southern part of the plot No. 28 with land admeasuring 150sq.yards together with independent house was already alienated and transferred by

D. Padmanabham in favour of third parties and thus said D. Padmanabham remained with the plot No. 28 (northern part) with land admeasuring 150sq.yards together with independent house with built up area 6 of 9O.S 86 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

admeasuring of 300sq.ft bearing H.No. 1-6-298 forming part of Sy.No. 37 situated at Phanigiri Colony, Chaitanyapuri, Kothapet Village, Ranga Reddy

District i.e. schedule property and since the date of purchase, D.

Padmanabham has been in continuous ownership and possession of the same. That D. Padmanabham died intestate on 15-2-2010 leaving behind him his wife plaintiff No. 1 and his children i.e. plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 as his exclusive legal heirs and successors in respect of the estate left by him and thus the plaintiffs inherited and succeeded to the suit schedule property from said Late D. Padmanabham and became the joint owners and possessors of the schedule property which was self acquired property in the hands of the D. Padmanabham and had paid the property tax to the concerned municipal authorities. That subsequently, the plaintiffs had approached the concerned municipal authorities for grant of mutation of their names in the municipal records as owners in place of the deceased D.

Padmanabham since they are the exclusive successors and legal heirs of the estate left by the deceased but the municipal authorities did not incorporate the names of the plaintiffs in the records and on the other hand, advised the plaintiffs to obtain succession certificate/legal heir certificate from the court. That on 24-12-2017, the defendant No. 1 who does not have any right, title or whatsoever in nature and after demise of said D.

Padmanabham have illegally started interfering into the schedule property and claiming the property without any entitlement. That the plaintiff No. 1 being the wife and the plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 being the sons and daughter of deceased Late D. Padmanabham are only exclusively owners and entitled 7 of 9O.S 86 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

to the schedule property by virtue of succession and hence the plaintiffs filed the present suit praying this court to declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs and successors of Late D. Padmanabham and consequently to declare the plaintiffs as absolute owners and possessors of suit schedule property. He got marked Ex.A1 to A8 which are Ex.A1 is property tax notice dated 23- 11-2016, Ex.A2 is death certificate of D. Padmanabh, Ex.A3 is Aadhaar cards of plaintiffs, Ex.A4 is market value certificate, Ex.A5 is Encumbrance certificate from 1-1-1969 to 27-6-1980, Ex.A6 is Encumbrance certificate from 1-10-2007 to 10-10-2016, Ex.A7 is Encumbrance certificate from 11- 10-2016 to 25-6-2018, Ex.A8 is certified copy of sale deed document No.

1727/1969 dated 25-8-1969 with translation.

8.The story of the plaintiff as per plaint and chief examination is that suit plot forming part of survey No. 37 was originally purchased by Sri D.

Padmanabham i.e. husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiffs No. 2 to 5. PW1 further deposed that after purchase of suit property, D.

Padmanabham divided the same into two parts 150sq.yards each and constructed two independent houses and one is alienated to third parties and the remaining part admeasuring 150sq.yards was standing in the name of D. Padmanabham and the house constructed was given H.No. 1-6-298.

Further contention was that while he was alive, the property tax was paid by him. In support of his contentions, plaintiff relied on his document Ex.A8 which is the sale deed which supports the evidence of PW1 to the extent that D. Padmanabham purchased the alleged land under registered sale deed. Ex.A1 tax receipt supports the evidence of PW1 to the extent that 8 of 9O.S 86 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

house was constructed which was given number as 1-6-298 and property tax was also paid in the name of D. Padmanabham. Further contention of

PW1 is that the deceased Padmanabham died on 15-2-2010 and Ex.A2 is the death certificate of the deceased. Ex.A2 supports the contention of

PW1. Further contention of PW1 is that plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 are legal heirs and successors of Sri D. Padmanabham. To prove the same, the plaintiffs filed Ex.A3 which are five Aadhaar cards of plaintiffs No. 1 to 5. These documents support the evidence of PW1 to the extent that plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Padmanabham. However, the remaining documents are Ex.A4 Market value certificate which h as no relationship to the prayer and Ex.A5 to A7 which are Encumbrance certificates which also do not have any relationship with the prayer. To this point, the plaintiffs have proved that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Padmanabham.

9.One of the prayer in the suit prayed by the plaintiffs is to grant perpetual injunction against the defendant D1. In any suit for the relief of perpetual injunction, the plaintiffs have to prove their lawful possession as on suit date and cause of action. There is no single document filed by the plaintiff to show that the plaintiffs are in possession of suit property. As per the death certificate, the deceased died in the year 2010 and the suit is filed in the year 2018. But there is no single document which can show that the plaintiffs are in possession of suit property. That apart, except pleading cause of action against defendant No. 1, there is no third party examined by the plaintiffs to prove the cause of action. A self assertion cannot be a proof of cause of action. Therefore, the plaintiffs failed to prove the 9 of 9O.S 86 of 2018

VIII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

ingredients of perpetual injunction. Accordingly, point for determination answered.

10.In the result, the suit is partly decreed declaring the plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 as legal heirs of the deceased with respect to suit property. The relief with respect to perpetual injunction is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, Transcribed

by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15 th Day of March, 2019.

VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Corrections carried out:

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1 : Sri D. Madan Mohan -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1: Property tax notice dated 23-11-2016

Ex.A2: Death certificate of D. Padmanabh

Ex.A3: Aadhaar cards of plaintiffs

Ex.A4: Market value certificate

Ex.A5: Encumbrance certificate from 1-1-1969 to 27-6-1980

Ex.A6: Encumbrance certificate from 1-10-2007 to 10-10-2016

Ex.A7: Encumbrance certificate from 11-10-2016 to 25-6-2018

Ex.A8: Certified copy of sale deed document No. 1727/1969

dated 25-8-1969 with translation

VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

1 of 7 O.S 183 of 2017

VII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR.

PRESENT: Smt. Shoukath Jahan Siddique

VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated this the 27th Day of November, 2017

O.S. No. 183 of 2017

BETWEEN:-

1. Smt. Makati Padmavathi wife of Late M. Jagannadham, Aged : 53 years, Occ : House hold, R/o. H.No. 4-45/1, Plot No. 103/P, Hydershakota, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

2. Sri Makati Jagan Mohan son of Late M. Jagannadham, Aged : 34 years, Occ : Pvt. Work, R/o. H.No. 4-45/1, Plot No. 103/P, Hydershakota, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District presently residing at H.No. 5-53, Kandi Village, Medak District

3. Smt. Jayasmitha wife of A. Ravinath D/o. Late M. Jagannadham, Aged : 30 years, Occ : House wife, R/o. H.No. 8-2-460/25, Road No. 4, Sukhdev Nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

4. Kum. Makati Jayashree D/o Late M. Jagannadham, Aged : 29 years, Occ : Student, R/o. H.No. 4-45/1, Plot No. 103/P, Hydershakota, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

5. Sri Makati Ravi Raj son of Late M. Jagannadham, Aged : 26 years, Occ : Student, R/o. H.No. 4-45/1, Plot No. 103/P, Hydershakota, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District… Plaintiffs

AND

1.The Grampanchayat Officer, Hydershakote Village and Grampanchayath, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 2 of 7 O.S 183 of 2017

VII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

2. The Spl. Dy. Collector/Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

3. All concerned ... Defendants

This suit is coming for final hearing before me on 27-10- 2017 in the presence of Sri P. Sanjeev, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Government Pleader for defendants No. 1 and 2 and of none appeared on behalf of all concerned and upon hearing the arguments and upon perusal of the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for declaration of legal heirs.

The suit schedule property is :

All that house bearing No. 4-45/1, Plot bearing No. 103/Part, admeasuring 115 sq.yards in Survey Nos. 13/5, situated at Hydershakote

Village and Grampanchayath, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District, bounded by;

NORTH: Plot No. 103/Part SOUTH: Plot No. 103/Part EAST: 20 feet wide road WEST: Plot No. 102

The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

Plaintiff No. 1 is the wife and plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 are the children of

Late Makati Jagannadham who died intestate on 17-12-2010 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his sole legal heirs and successors and except the plaintiffs, there are no other legal representatives to the deceased Makati

Jagannadham. As such the plaintiffs alone entitled to succeed to the properties left by the deceased Makati Jagannadham. During the life time of the said deceased Makati Jagannadham, he had purchased plot bearing

No. 4-45/1, Plot bearing No. 103/Part, admeasuring 115 sq.yards in Survey 3 of 7 O.S 183 of 2017

VII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

Nos. 13/5, situated at Hydershakote Village and Grampanchayath,

Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District vide registered sale deed document No. 1146/1998 dated 17-4-1998 registered at S.R.O.,

Rajendranagar i.e. suit schedule property. Thereafter the said M.

Jagannadham had obtained Grampanchayath permission and constructed the house over the suit schedule property and H.No.4-45/1 was allotted/assigned. Further Makati Jagannadham died intestate on 17-12- 2010 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his surviving legal heirs to his estate/property. Due to the sudden death of Makati Jagannadham, the plaintiffs who are in occupation of the suit property due to lack of legal knowledge could not take any such steps for mutation of their names in the concerned records of the first defendant. The plaintiffs were also not aware of the sale deed of the suit schedule property and only in the third week of

November, 2016, when they were searching some papers in the house, they found the sale deed of suit schedule property and came to know that it is just and necessary to enter their names in the village Grampanchayath being the legal heirs of Makati Jagannadham. On 21-11-2016, the plaintiffs approached the concerned village Grampanchayath i.e. defendant No. 1 for mutation of their names in respect of the suit property but the officials of defendant No. 1 insisted for their legal heir certificate. Further on 23-11-2016, the plaintiffs approached Spl. Dy. Collector/Tahsildar/ defendant No. 2 to issue legal heir certificate but the Tahsildar informed orally that he cannot issue legal heir certificate since the deceased was not a Government Employee and further advised the plaintiffs to obtain the same from the competent Civil Court of law. In the absence of the legal 4 of 7 O.S 183 of 2017

VII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

heir certificate, the plaintiffs are unable to pay the taxes as well as obtain house loan etc. on account of the suit property. As such there is no such other alternative, plaintiffs filed the present suit to declare them as legal heirs of deceased Makati Jagannadham.

2.The defendants are set exparte and remained exparte. At the time of exparte evidence, plaintiff No. 1 examined herself as PW1 and she got marked Ex.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is Death certificate of Makati Jagannadham

dated 24-11-2016, Ex.A2 is certified copy of sale deed document No.

1146/1998 dated 17-4-1998, Ex.A3 is certified copy of Encumbrance

Certificate dated 2-12-2016, Ex.A4 is Aadhaar card of plaintiff No. 1,Ex.A5 is Aadhaar card of plaintiff No. 2, Ex.A6 is Aadhaar card of plaintiff No. 3,

Ex.A7 is Aadhaar card of plaintiff No. 4, Ex.A8 is Aadhaar card of plaintiff

No. 5. On conclusion of exparte evidence, arguments of plaintiff’s counsel heard.

3.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?

In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs examined 1st plaintiff as

PW1. PW1 deposed that she is the wife and plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 are the children of Late Makati Jagannadham who died intestate on 17-12-2010 leaving behind them as his sole legal heirs and successors and except them, there are no other legal representatives to the deceased Makati

Jagannadham. That they are alone entitled to succeed to the properties left by the deceased Makati Jagannadham and the said deceased Makati

Jagannadham during his life time had purchased plot bearing No. 4-45/1,

Plot bearing No. 103/Part, admeasuring 115 sq.yards in Survey Nos. 13/5, 5 of 7 O.S 183 of 2017

VII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

situated at Hydershakote Village and Grampanchayath, Rajendranagar

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District vide registered sale deed document No.

1146/1998 dated 17-4-1998 registered at S.R.O., Rajendranagar i.e. suit schedule property. That thereafter the said M. Jagannadham had obtained

Grampanchayath permission and constructed the house over the suit schedule property and H.No.4-45/1 was allotted/assigned and on 17-12- 2010, Makati Jagannadham died intestate leaving behind them as his surviving legal heirs to his estate/property. That due to the sudden death of

Makati Jagannadham and lack of legal knowledge, they could not take any such steps for mutation of their names in the concerned records of the first defendant. That they are also not aware of the sale deed of the suit schedule property and only in the third week of November, 2016, when they were searching some papers in the house, they found the sale deed of suit schedule property and came to know that it is just and necessary to enter their names in the village Grampanchayath being the legal heirs of Makati

Jagannadham. That on 21-11-2016, they approached the concerned village

Grampanchayath i.e. defendant No. 1 for mutation of their names in respect of the suit property but the officials of defendant No. 1 insisted for their legal heir certificate. That further on 23-11-2016, they approached

Spl. Dy. Collector/Tahsildar/defendant No. 2 to issue legal heir certificate but the Tahsildar informed orally that he cannot issue legal heir certificate since the deceased was not a Government Employee and further advised them to obtain the same from the competent Civil Court of law. That in the absence of the legal heir certificate, they are unable to pay the taxes as well as obtain house loan etc. on account of the suit property. As such 6 of 7 O.S 183 of 2017

VII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

there is no such other alternative, they filed the present suit to declare them as legal heirs of deceased Makati Jagannadham. She got marked Ex.A1 to

A8. Ex.A1 is Death certificate of Makati Jagannadham dated 24-11-2016,

Ex.A2 is certified copy of sale deed document No. 1146/1998 dated 17-4- 1998, Ex.A3 is certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate dated 2-12-2016,

Ex.A4 is Aadhaar card of plaintiff No. 1,Ex.A5 is Aadhaar card of plaintiff

No. 2, Ex.A6 is Aadhaar card of plaintiff No. 3, Ex.A7 is Aadhaar card of plaintiff No. 4, Ex.A8 is Aadhaar card of plaintiff No. 5.

4.The plaintiff stated that the suit property was purchased by husband of PW1 and father of plaintiffs 2 to 5. The plaintiff got marked Ex.A2 which is certified copy of registered sale deed which reflects the name of husband of PW1 and also reflects the suit survey number in Ex.A2. The pleadings and chief examination of PW1 shows that the plaintiffs constructed the house bearing No. 4-45/1 in the said suit plot. They filed Ex.A4 to A8 as proof to show that they are residing in the suit property. These documents supports the contention of PW1 that they have been residing in the suit property. Ex.A1 stands as a proof to show that the husband of PW1 died on 17-12-2010. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs to declare them as legal heirs of the deceased M. Jagannadham with respect to suit property. The evidence of PW1 and the documents got marked by the plaintiff remained unchallenged. Hence we hold that the plaintiffs proved their case that they are legal heirs of the deceased M. Jagannadham to succeed the suit property. The 1st defendant shall consequently enter the name of plaintiffs in their records as successors of Late M. Jagannatham with respect to suit property. Accordingly, point for determination answered.

7 of 7 O.S 183 of 2017

VII ASCJ,R.R.DIST.

5.In the result, the suit is decreed declaring the plaintiffs as legal heirs of the deceased Late M. Jagannadham and successors of the deceased with respect to suit property.The 1st defendant shall consequently enter the name of plaintiffs in their records as successors of Late

M. Jagannatham with respect to suit property.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, Transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th Day of November, 2017.

FAC VIII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1 : Smt. Makati Padmavathi -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1: Death certificate of Makati Jagannadham dated 24-11-2016

Ex.A2: Certified copy of sale deed document No. 1146/1998

dated 17-4-1998

Ex.A3: Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate dated 2-12-2016

Ex.A4: Aadhaar card of plaintiff No. 1

Ex.A5: Aadhaar card of plaintiff No. 2

Ex.A6: Aadhaar card of plaintiff No. 3

Ex.A7: Aadhaar card of plaintiff No. 4

Ex.A8: Aadhaar card of plaintiff No. 5

FOR DEFENDANTS: -Nil-

FAC VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Corrections carried out: