Ms.Sireesha Jaddidi

TSMM130051612022

Presented on : 04-05-2022 Registered on : 04-05-2022 Decided on : 23-04-2025 Duration : 2 years, 11 months, 19 days

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-

CUM-V ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI, UPPAL AT LB NAGAR.

Present: Smt. K. Sowjanya FAC I Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class , Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Uppal at LB Nagar.

Wednesday, the 23 rd day of April, 2025.

Original Suit No.600 of 2022

Between:

Smt. Peesari Jyothi, W/o. P. Yella Reddy, Aged about 44 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.3-125/25/98, N.N.N. colony, Boduppal, Medipally mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district Present residing at H.No. 3-125/41/1, N.I.N colony, Boduppal, Medipally mandal,

Medchal-Malkajgiri district-92………..Plaintiff.

A N D

Sri. Yasa Ratnaker Reddy, S/o. Y. Shanker Reddy, Aged 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o. M. Thurkapally village, Valigonda mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri district And temporary residing at Plot no.459, Road No.3, Buddanagar colony, Peerzadiguda, Medipally mandal,

Medchal-Malkajgiri district-39.....Defendant.

This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri. Marri Prathap Reddy, Counsel for Plaintiff and of Defendant was set exparte and upon having hearing the and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking to direct the defendant to execute registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property and to direct him to deliver vacant physical possession of the said property i.e., flat no.103, in 1st floor of “Ideas Janardhana Residency” on plot no.B2, in part of Sy.No.121 with plinth area 1131 square feet including common area and one car parking area together with undivided share of land admeasuring 51.00 square yards equalent to 42.63 sq.mts out of 3509.00 sq. yards situated at Medipally village and

Grampanchayat, Ghatkesar mandal within specified boundaries.

2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property having purchased under registered sale deed doc.no.2998/2015, dated 17-08-2015. He offered to sell the said property to the plaintiff and entered into an agreement of sale reduced into writing on 07-09-2015 for a consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-. The defendant received a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- by way of cash on the date of agreement as earnest money and passed a separate receipt whereof. The defendant agreed to execute registered sale deed as and when asked by the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to receive balance amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- at the time of execution of registered sale deed, further agreed to deliver vacant physical possession of the said property, in pursuance of which the defendant has handed over photocopy of his sale deed. Thereafter the plaintiff asked the defendant for execution of sale deed in her favour by receiving balance sale consideration to which the defendant replied that the original title deeds of the property were deposited with a financier for a certain sum of amount and requested the plaintiff to pay

Rs.3,00,000/- for release of title deeds from the financier. As per such request of defendant, the plaintiff arranged the said sum to the defendant in cash, a cash receipt to that effect was executed on 20-06-2018 for Rs.3,00,000/-. Inspite of it the defendant did not come forward to execute registered sale deed and instead requested the plaintiff for some more amount for release of title deeds from the financier. Thus the plaintiff was forced to arrange

Rs.1,75,000/- in cash to the defendant to avoid delay in release of title deeds. Again a cash receipt to this effect was executed on 11- 07-2020 in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,75,000/-. Though the plaintiff was ready with balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- with stamp duty and registration charges for getting executed the registered sale deed the defendant has been postponing the same under one or the other pretext. The plaintiff visited the residence of defendant with a demand to execute registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration but the defendant has been avoiding the same citing covid-19 pandemic. Vexed with this attitude of the defendant the plaintiff has got issued legal notice

dated 27-12-2021 which was received by the defendant on 07-01-

2022 despite of which he did not choose to perform his part of contract though he received substantial and major amount of sale consideration. Instead the defendant was delaying to execute sale deed in view of hike in price of the suit property and now negotiating with third parties for sale of the suit property. The plaintiff has transferred the balance sale consideration of

Rs.25,000/- to the savings bank account of the defendant through phone pay on 27-02-2022. For the above reasons the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of specific performance of the contract and if the same is not granted in his favour the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss and injury hence the suit.

3. The summons served to the defendant was held sufficient. The defendant though filed memo failed to appear

before the court within specified period and hence the

defendant was set exparte on 21-09-2023.

4. The plaintiff is examined as PW1 and Exs. A1 to A9 marked on her behalf. The plaintiff also got examined PW2 on her behalf.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the point for determination is “Whether the suit can be decreed as prayed for?”

Point:

7. The plaintiff as PW-1 has filed chief affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination wherein she has reiterated the averments of the plaint. She also got examined PW-2 in support of her case who has also in his chief affidavit supported the case of the plaintiff in toto.

PW-1 has got marked Ex.A6/Certified copy of sale deed doc.no.2998/2015, dated 17-08-2015 showing ownership of defendant over the suit schedule property. She got marked

Ex.A1/Original Agreement of sale to show that there was a contract in between the parties. Ex.A1 would reveal that the sale consideration amount was agreed at Rs.15,00,000/- out of which

Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff on the day of agreement.

The remaining amount was paid vide Exs.A2 to A4 and inspite of it the defendant did not come forward to execute registered sale deed nor delivered possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

He failed to respond to the legal notice issued to him vide Ex.A7 and sent through Ex.A8 which was received by him through

Ex.A9. The above oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with the documents Exs.A1 to A9 clearly establish the case of the plaintiff.

The defendant failed to challenge the above evidence and thereby failed to disprove the same. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly.

8.In the result the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for specific performance of Agreement of

Sale dated 07-09-2015 and for delivery of vacant physical possession of the suit property within three months from this date.

In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs of the suit.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23 rdday of April , 2025.

FAC I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff:

PW-1: Peesari Jyothi

PW-2 : N. Madhava Reddy

For defendants: None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1 :Original Agreement of sale dated 07-09-2015 executed by defendant

Ex.A2 :Original cash receipt dated 07-09-2015 executed by defendant

Ex.A3 :Original cash receipt dated 20-06-2018 executed by defendant

Ex.A4 :Original cash receipt dated 11-07-2020 executed by defendant

Ex.A5 :Attested copy of Bank statement dated 22-03-2022 issued by SBI Bhongir bearing no vide account no.20154772518

Ex.A6 : Certified copy of sale deed bearing document no.2998/2015,dated 17-08-2015

Ex.A7 :Office copy of legal notice, dated 27-12-2021

Ex.A8 :Original postal receipt dated 27-12-2021 (RN039509443)

Ex.A9 :Electronic extract of postal service of legal notice,

dated 07-01-2022

For defendants: -Nil- (Smt.K.Sowjanya) FAC I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class ,Medchal Malkajgiri

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSMM130001212021

Presented on : 16-01-2021 Registered on : 16-01-2021 Decided on : 22-04-2025 Duration : 4 years, 3 months, 6 days

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-V

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI, UPPAL AT LB NAGAR.

Present: Smt. K. Sowjanya FAC I Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class , Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Uppal at LB Nagar.

Tuesday, the 22 ndday of April, 2025.

Original Suit No.34 of 2021

Between:

Smt. K. Neeraja, W/o. K V Satyanarayan, D/o. Prathima Sivadishwar, Aged 46 years, Occ: Government service, R/o. 32-77-15/1, Sitaram nagar, Safilguda, Neredmet,

Secunderabad 500047………..Plaintiff.

A N D

1. Sathunuri Hariprasad, S/o. S. AppaRao, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Private employee, R/o. Chillapuram, Tungapad, Miryalguda, Nalgonda district, Telangana

2. Kandakatla Dharma Reddy, S/o. Late Sri Narsi Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-21, Aushapur village, Ghatkesar mandal, Ranga reddy district 501301

3. Kandakatla Dayakar Reddy, S/o. Sri. K. Dharma Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-30, Gandhi nagar, Aushapur village, Ghatkesar mandal, Ranga Reddy 501301

4. Kandakatla Jeevan Reddy, S/o. Sri. K. Dharma Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-30, Gandhi nagar, Aushapur village, Ghatkesar mandal, Ranga Reddy 501301

5. Jukkula Chandana, D/o. K. Dharma Reddy, W/o. J Jaihind Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-10-303, Peddathokatta, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad 500011

6. Sri. Dasari Vilasini, D/o. K. Dharma Reddy, W/o. D Ravinder Reddy, Aged about 30 years, R/o. H.No.16-2-53, Kareemguda, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy district 501301

7. Sri. Kandakatla Lakshma Reddy, S/o. Late Sri. K. Narsi Reddy, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-21, Aushapur village, Ghatkesar mandal, Ranga Reddy district 501301

8. Sri. Kandakatla Sandeep Reddy, S/o. Sri. K. Lakshma Reddy, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Private employee, R/o. H.No.1-21, Aushapur village, Ghatkesar mandal, Ranga Reddy district 501301

D2 to D8 are represented by GPA holders as per the Registered GPA doc.no.6001/2015, dated 29-12-2015

1. Pisarla Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Sri. P. Ramchandra Reddy,

Aged 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.4-1-106/3, Street No.2, Bhavani nagar, Nacharam, Ranga Reddy district TS

2. Sri. Jaligama Ramesh Goud, S/o. Sri. J Yada Goud, Aged 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.4-2-136, Sikh Bank Lane, Old Bhoiguda, Subash Road,

Hyderabad.....Defendants.

This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. J. Kumaresan, Counsel for Plaintiff and of M/s. D. Sujatha, Counsel for Defendant no.2 to 6, and of Defendant no.1,7 and 8 were set exparte and upon having hearing the and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to declare her as absolute owner of suit schedule property, consequentially to declare subsequent registered sale deed doc.no.1959/2016, dated 11-03-2016 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and further for grant of perpetual injunction against defendants no.1 to 8 from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property i.e., Residential plot bearing no.459, admeasuring 240 square yards or 200.6 square meters forming part of Sy.Nos.63,64,67,68 and 69 situated at Maruthi nagar colony, Aushapur village of Ghatkesar mandal within specified boundaries.

2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having acquired the same by way of gift deed doc.no.5046/1987, dated 20-07-1987 from her mother who in turn purchased the said property from Kandakatla Narsi Reddy and Others through their GPA holders B.Bapu Reddy and Jairam under registered sale deed doc.no.1661/1987. Since the date of acquisition the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, she and her husband have been visiting the said property regularly and they observed that there is lot of development around the said property and they intended to raise fencing to protect it from encroachment.

Accordingly on 03-01-2021 the plaintiff and her husband visited the suit property when the defendant no.1 interfered in laying of fencing claiming that he is the registered owner of the said property. The plaintiff with her husband have resisted and opposed defendant no.1 and demanded him the basis for his claim and he replied that his claim was based on a registered sale deed in his favor on 11-03-2016. The plaintiff has obtained certified copies of documents of defendants, encumbrance certificate and the market value certificates. These documents clearly show that the original owners and their relatives have fabricated GPA by registering the same at Maheshwaram and colluding with defendant no.1 to execute registered sale deed. The defendants colluded with each other and created false documents claiming against the suit property with a view to extort the same by illegal means and to knock away the property. Hence the suit.

3. The defendants no.2 to 6 were set exparte on 23-03-2023 as they failed to appear before the court inspite of service of summons to them.

The defendants no.7 and 8 were set exparte on 26-09-2023 as the summons were returned as refused. The defendant no.1 failed to attend the court inspite of paper publication and hence he was set exparte on 29-02-2024.

4. The plaintiff is examined as PW1 and Exs. A1 to A6 marked on her behalf.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the point for determination is

“Whether the suit can be decreed as prayed for?”

Point:

7. The plaintiff as PW-1 has filed chief affidavit in lieu of her chief- examination wherein she has reiterated the averments of the plaint. She got marked Ex.A1/registered gift settlement deed doc.no.5046/1987,

dated 18-07-1987 executed by her mother in favor of the plaintiff. Ex.A2 is

the registered sale deed doc.no.1661/1987, dated 16-02-1987 through which the mother of plaintiff purchased the suit property. Hence the subsequent documents under Exs.A3 and A4 as seen in Ex.A5 shall not be binding on the plaintiff and they shall be declared as null and void.

Therefore it is held that the plaintiff has established her claim over the suit schedule property with sufficient documentary evidence which remained unchallenged as PW1 was not cross examined. In view of the same the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for.

8.In the result the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff declaring her as absolute owner of the suit schedule property and further declaring the registered sale deed doc.no.1959/2016, dated 11-03-2016 registered at Hyderabad East, Hayathnagar, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The suit is further decreed granting perpetual injunction in favor of the plaintiff restraining the defendants no.1 to 8 from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22 ndday of April , 2025.

FAC I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff:

PW-1: K. Neeraja

For defendants: None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1 :Registered gift settlement deed bearing no.5046/1987, dated 18-07-1987

Ex.A2 :Registered sale deed bearing no.1661/1987, dated 16-02-1987

Ex.A3 :Registered sale deed bearing no.1956/2016, dated 11-03-2016 registered at Hyderabad East

Ex.A4 :Registered GPA, Maheshwaram bearing no.6001/2015, dated 29-12-2015

Ex.A5 :Encumbrance certificate, dated 04-01-2021

Ex.A6 : Market value certificate, dated 04-01-2021

For defendants:-Nil-

Date : 22-04-2025 (Smt.K.Sowjanya)

FAC I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class ,Medchal Malkajgiri

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts

Services ” from Android or iOS

TSMM130048922024

Presented on : 24-12-2024 Registered on : 24-12-2024 Decided on : 24-04-2025 Duration : 0 years, 4 months, 0 days

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-

CUM-V ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI, UPPAL AT LB NAGAR.

Present: Smt. K. Sowjanya FAC I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri Uppal at LB Nagar.

Thursday the 24 thday of April, 2025.

Original Suit No.981 of 2024

Between:

1. Tipparam Mahesh Chary, S/o. Late Tipparam Satyanarayana, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Business,

2. Tipparam Bhanu Prakash, S/o. Late Tipparam Satyanarayana, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Business,

Both are R/o. H.No.8-43/10/12, Balaji Hills colony, Near P.R.M. School, Boduppal vilalge, Medipally mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district – 500 092

Telangana state…..Plaintiffs.

AND

1. The Tahsildar, Medipally mandal, 12-18, Peerzadiguda road, Gayatri nagar, Peerzadiguda, Hyderabad-500 039 Telangana state

2. All concerned. ......Defendants.

This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of

M/s. G. Randeep Raj, Advocate Counsel for plaintiffs and defendants are set exparte and upon having hearing the and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking to declare them as the sole surviving class-I legal heirs of Late Sri. Tipparam

Satyanarayana @ T. Satyanarayana Chary who died on 25-07- 2020.

2.The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that, plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are the sons of Late Tipparam Satyanarayana @ T.

Satyanarayana Chary who died on 25-07-2020. The mother of plaintiffs predeceased their father long back in the year 1989.

During the lifetime of the deceased, he along with his wife and plaintiffs have jointly resided at H.No.8-43/10/12, Balaji hills colony, Near P.R.M. school, Boduppal village, Medipally mandal,

Medchal-Malkajgiri district. After death of deceased, the plaintiffs have approached the defendant no.1 to issue legal heir certificate, but defendant no.1 refused to issue the same on the ground that she has no powers vested with her and directed the plaintiffs to approach competent court of law. Hence, this suit.

3.The defendant No.1 was set exparte as they failed to appear before the court inspite of service of summons. The defendant No.2 was also set exparte as no objections received for the paper publication.

4. The plaintiff No.2 is examined as PW-1 and Exs.A1 to A4 are marked on behalf of the plaintiffs.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

6. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the suit can be decreed as prayed for?”

Point:

7. PW-1 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu his chief-examination has reiterated the averments of the plaint. Ex.A1 is the original death certificate of deceased. Exs.A2 and A3 are the Aadhar cards of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 respectively show that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the sons of deceased Late Tipparam Satyanarayana @ T.

Satyanarayana chary. Ex.A4 is the representation to the defendant no.1 for issue of legal heir certificate, dated 15-10-2024.

Therefore, the relationship of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 as sons of deceased late Tipparam Satyanarayana @ T. Satyanarayana chary can be accepted.

8. A perusal of the pleadings and evidence adduced on record it becomes clear that the plaintiffs have prayed for a mere declaratory relief and no schedule of property is attached to the plaint. Admittedly, this is not a petition filed under the Indian

Succession Act, but a suit filed seeking declaration. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is the relevant provision dealing with declaration of status or right of persons. The said provision is reproduced hereunder:

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act:- “Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so”.

9.A bare reading of the said provision clearly shows that “cause of action” to file a suit under this provision arises to the plaintiffs only when the legal status of a person or legal right to any property is denied. In the case on hand, there is no such pleading of the plaintiffs and such evidence of PW-1 that their legal status was denied by any person. There is no schedule attached to the plaint to show that the legal right of the plaintiffs to any property is being denied or that someone is interested to deny such right or title over the said property. In the absence of the same, a suit for declaration under Section 34 of the Specific

Relief Act is not maintainable. I gain strength from a decision of our Hon’ble High Court in the case of Hanya Naik and others Vs. Krishna Reddy and others. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief sought for by them. The point is answered accordingly.

10.In the result, the suit is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs of the suit.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 thday of April, 2025.

FAC I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal- Malkajgiri District Uppal at L.B.Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiffs:

PW-1: Tipparam Bhanu Prakash

For defendants: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 :Original death certificate of Late Tipparam Satyanarayana @ T. Satyanarayana Chary, dated 04-06-2024

Ex.A2 :Original Aadhar card of plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A3 :Original Aadhar card of plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A4 :Representation to the defendant no.1 for issue of legal heir certificate, dated 15-10-2024

For defendants:- Nil - (Smt.K.Sowjanya) FAC I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class ,Medchal Malkajgiri

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSMM130015592025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

V ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, UPPAL AT LB NAGAR.

PRESENT: Smt. K.Sowjanya I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum - V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal – Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar.

Tuesday, the 29 thday of April, 2025.

PRC No.18 of 2025.

Between:

The State of Telangana, Through Inspector of Police,

P.S. Pocharam IT Cell, Rachakonda. ……..Complainant.

A N D

Vellavoor Jayakumar Arjun S/o. Jayakumar, Age: 27 years, Occ: Safety officer at Dubai, R/o. Vellavoor house, Naranganam P.O. Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta district,

Kerala State .......Accused.

This PRC is coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of accused and having stood over the matter this court delivered the following committal order:

O R D E R

The Inspector of Police, P.S. Pocharam IT Cell filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.224 of 2023 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.376, 354-a, 493, 417, 420 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that LW1/complainant has completed her B-Tech and after that she is working as a software employee in

Infosys, Pocharam since January, 2022 and stayed at Block No.C-9, Room No.902 in Singapore Township, Pocharam village and the accused came to Hyderabad and worked in Shobha construction company as a “Safety Officer” and stayed in

Block No.A-39, Room No.402 in Singapore Township and she got acquainted with accused as both of them attended “Jai Gurudatta mess” at Block No.C-6,

Room No.104 for tiffin and meals daily. During that time both started conversation and exchanged their mobile numbers and after few days of their acquaintance, the accused proposed his love to the LW1 by saying that he would marry her and on believing his words LW1 moved closely with accused and on 06-03-2022 the accused calledLW1 over phone and stated that he was suffering with high fever, headache and nausea and requested her to come to his room.

Believing his words LW1 went to his room at Block No.A-39, Room No.402 to check his health condition and found that he was in healthy condition and after few seconds the accused forced himself on her without her consent and the LW1 pushed him and went to her room. On 14-03-2022 the accused called LW1 through whatsapp and said that there is important work and told her to come to his room and when LW1 went to his room he pushed her and participated in forceful sexual intercourse without her consent. After that LW1 asked the accused about their marriage but he refused and vacated the room and on 18- 10-2022 went to Dubai county and joined as Safety Officer in EGIS company at

Dubai.

3. Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sections 376, 354-a, 493, 417, 420 IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents have been furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. A perusal of the case record shows prima-facie case against the accused for the offence U/Sections 376, 354-a, 493, 417, 420 IPC which are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. Accordingly, the case is committed to the court of Sessions i.e. Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda U/Section 209 (a) Cr.P.C. to proceed further.

6. The accused who is on bail, shall continue to be on the same bail during and until the conclusion of trial before the court of Sessions U/Sec.209

(b) Cr.P.C.

7. Submit the entire case records and material objection, if any, to the court of Sessions U/Sec.209 (c) Cr.P.C.

8.Notify the Public Prosecutor U/Sec.209 (d) Cr.P.C.

9.The accused is questioned about his capacity to engage a counsel

before the court of Sessions, he stated that he had capacity to engage counsel to

defend him before the court of Sessions.

10. The accused is directed to appear before the Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda on 12-05-2025.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 29 thday of April, 2025.

Date : 05-05-2025 (Smt.K.Sowjanya)

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

,Medchal Malkajgiri

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSMM130047162024

Presented on : 06-12-2024 Registered on : 06-12-2024 Decided on : 22-04-2025 Duration : 0 years, 4 months, 16 days

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-V

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI, UPPAL AT LB NAGAR.

Present: Smt. K. Sowjanya FAC I Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class , Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Uppal at LB Nagar.

Tuesday, the 22 ndday of April, 2025.

Original Suit No.944 of 2024

Between:

Smt. Kandaloju Anasuya, W/o. Late K.Jagannatham, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.1-5-1002/5, Plot No.94, Road No.7, Bhupathi Rao nagar, Citizen colony, Alwal, Old Alwal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district-500 010

………..Plaintiff.

A N D

1. The Tahsildar, Uppal mandal, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar

2. All concerned.…...Defendants.

This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.

B. Mallesha, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri M. Raj Kumar, Government pleader on behalf of defendant No.1 and of defendant No.2 is set exparte and upon having hearing the and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking to declare her as legal heir of Kandaloju Bala Krishna, S/o. Late Kandaloju Jagannatham who died on 06-04-2024 in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., Flat no.405, with plinth area 545 square feet, 01 BHK tower no.D03 in the name and style of ‘Sahabhavana Township’ situated at Bandlaguda village of Uppal mandal.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief, is that she is mother of deceased

Kandaloju Bala Krishna who died intestate on 06-04-2024 leaving behind the plaintiff as his sole successor and legal heir. The deceased was unmarried and his father pre-deceased him. During his lifetime the deceased purchased suit schedule property vide registered sale deed doc.no.10099 of 2023, dated 03-06-2023 and since the date of his purchase he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

Subsequent to his death the plaintiff approached defendant no.1 with a request to issue legal heir certificate but the officials expressed their inability, hence the suit.

3. The defendant no.1 appeared before the court and reported no written statement. As no objections received for the paper publication, defendant no.2 was set exparte.

4.PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A6 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the suit can be decreed as prayed for?

Point:

7.The plaintiff as PW1 has filed chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination reiterating the averments of the plaint. She got marked

Ex.A2/Certified copy of sale deed showing purchase of suit schedule property by the deceased and Ex.A5/Encumbrance certificate showing that the property remained unalienated. Ex.A1 would indicate about the death of the deceased on 06-04-2024 and Ex.A4/aadhar card of plaintiff would indicate about her relationship with the deceased. This oral evidence of

PW1 coupled with the documents Exs.A1 to A6 clearly establishes the case of the plaintiff which remained unchallenged and therefore the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff declaring her as legal heir of Late Kandaloju Bala Krishna, S/o. Late

K.Jagannatham in respect of the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22 ndday of April , 2025.

FAC I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal- Malkajgiri District,

Uppal at L.B.Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiffs:

PW-1: Smt. Kandaloju Anasuya

For defendants:

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 :Original death certificate of Late Kandaloju Bala Krishna, dated 06-04-2024

Ex A2 :Certified copy of sale deed doc.no.10099/2023,

dated 03-06-2023

Ex.A3 :Certified copy of market value

Ex.A4 :Original aadhar card of plaintiff

Ex.A5 :Certified copy of Encumbrance certificate

Ex.A6 :Original death certificate of plaintiff’s husband/deceased father, dated 06-01-2006

For defendants:-Nil-.

FAC I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar.

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts

Services ” from Android or iOS