Sri Sridhar Mandhani

1 O.S. No.88 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, ZAHEERABAD.

: Present : Sri Sridhar Mandhani

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayankhed. FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Zaheerabad.

Wednesday, this 23 rd day of April, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.88 OF 2015

Between:-

1.Golla Nagesh, S/o. Golla Narsa Gonda, Aged: 3 years, (Minor),

2.Golla Nandu, S/o. Golla Narsa Gonda, Aged: 2 years, (Minor), Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.2 are minors under the natural guardianship of their mother namely Smt. Golla Sunitha, W/o. Golla Narsagonda, Aged: 24 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. Cheekurthi village, Nyalkal Mandal, Sangareddy District.

...Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.2

AND

1.Golla Narsagonda, S/o. Golla Nagagondas@ Nagappa, Aged: 29 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Golla Shivraj, S/o. Golla Nagagonda @ Nagappa, Aged: 26 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3.Golla Kamalamma, W/o. Golla Nagagonda @ Nagappa, Aged: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,

All are R/o: H.No.3-36/1, Cheekurthi village, Nyalkal Mandal, Sangareddy District.

4.D. Raghavendra Reddy, S/o. Sangareddy, Aged: 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o: Thornal village, Manoor Mandal, Sangareddy District.

2 O.S. No.88 of 2015

5.Mannuamma, W/o.Mohan, age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Burdipad village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Sangareddy District.

...Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.5

The suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri. S.Chandra Shekar Patil, Advocate, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs and

Sri. P. Dattatreya Reddy, Advocate, Learned Counsel for the Defendants No.1 to

Defendant No.3 and Sri. Indrasena Reddy, Advocate, Learned Counsel for the

Defendant No.4 and after hearing the arguments of both sides and upon considering the material available on record and the matter after 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 filed by the Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.2 who are the minors represented by their natural guardian against the Defendants for the

Decree of partition and separate possession and to allot 1/3rd share each to the Plaintiffs in the share of Defendant No.1 and to allot 1/3rd share each to

Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3 in respect of Suit Schedule “A and B”

Property.

BRIEF AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT:

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff

No.2 are the sons of the Defendant No.1 and Smt. Golla Sunitha. That the

Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 are real brothers and sons of Nagagonda @ Nagappa who died long back and Defendant No.3 is the mother of Defendant

No.1 and Defendant No.2 and grand mother of the Plaintiffs. That the

Defendant No.4 is the purchaser of part of the Suit Schedule Properties.

3 O.S. No.88 of 2015

3.That the grand father of the Plaintiffs namely Golla Nagagonda @

Nagappa died long back leaving behind the Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3 as his legal heirs. That the grand father of the Plaintiffs and father of Defendant

No.1 and Defendant No.2 and husband of the Defendant No.3 purchased the

Suit Schedule Properties from the funds of joint family, as such the Suit

Schedule Properties are the ancestral properties of the Plaintiffs and Defendant

No.1 to Defendant No.3. That the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 to

Defendant No.3 constitute Hindu joint family. That the Plaintiffs and Defendant

No.1 to Defendant No.3 are the members of co-parcenary and till today no partition took place between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 to

Defendant No.3. That the Government has allotted Ac.05-00 guntas of ceiling land to the grand father of the Plaintiffs and after the death of the grand father of the Plaintiffs, the said land was mutated in the name of Defendant No.3.

That the Plaintiffs do not know the survey number of the said ceiling land. That the Plaintiffs came to know on 20-07-2015 that the Defendant No.1 sold the part of the suit land in favour of the Defendant No.4 vide document

No.4563/2015, dt:23-06-2015 and the same is not binding on the Plaintiffs.

That the Suit Schedule Properties are the ancestral properties and by suppressing the said facts without consent and without giving share to the

Plaintiffs, the Defendant No.1 has no right to alienate the part of the suit land without partition by metes and bounds in between the Plaintiffs and the

Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3.

4 O.S. No.88 of 2015

4.That the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3 are having share in the suit lands. That the Plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit lands out of the Defendant No.1’s share and the Defendant No.1 to Defendant

No.3 and Plaintiffs are joint family. That the Defendant No.1 and Defendant

No.2 colluded with each other and not giving share to the Plaintiffs in the suit land. That the Defendants are trying to alienate the Suit Schedule Properties to third parties. That the Plaintiffs demanded the Defendant No.1 for partition of the Suit Schedule Properties but the Defendant No.1 refused to do so. Hence the present suit.

BRIEF AVERMENTS OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT

NO.1 TO DEFENDANT NO.3:

5.Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3 filed their written statement by denying the claim of the Plaintiffs. That Golla Nagonda i.e., father of Defendant

No.1 and Defendant No.2 died long back leaving behind the Defendant No.1 to

Defendant No.3 as his legal heirs. It is denied that the grand father of the

Plaintiffs i.e., father of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 and husband of

Defendant No.3 purchased the Suit Schedule Properties from the funds of joint family as such the Suit Schedule Properties are ancestral properties. That the

Defendant No.4 is the bonafide purchaser. That the Suit Schedule Properties are the self acquired properties of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 and hence, the question of partition does not arise. It is denied that the

Government allotted ceiling land of Ac.05-00 guntas to the grand father of the

Plaintiffs and after the death of grand father of the Plaintiffs, the said land was mutated in the name of Defendant No.3. That the Defendant No.4 purchased

5 O.S. No.88 of 2015

the self acquired property of Defendant No.1 through document No.4563/2015.

That the Defendant No.1 purchased the property from his vendor through registered sale deed bearing document No.3103/2012, dt:05-05-2012. That the property which was purchased by the Defendant No.4 is the self acquired property of the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 and the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 have every right to alienate the Suit Schedule Properties to any person as they are the self acquired properties of the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 and the question of partition by metes and bounds does not arise. It is denied that the Plaintiffs are having 1/3rd share in the Suit

Schedule Properties along with Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3. It is denied that the Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3 and the Plaintiffs are the joint family members. That the grand father of the Plaintiffs and his wife i.e.,

Defendant No.3 were having two daughters namely Munnumma and

Thukkamma apart from two sons i.e., Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 and hence, the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. It is denied that the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 are in joint possession of the Suit Schedule Properties. That the Suit Schedule

Properties are already sold away to Defendant No.4 by receiving sale consideration and no land is left to Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 for alienation and without verifying the records, the Plaintiffs filed the present suit against the Defendant No.4. That the cause of action is imaginary and cooked up for the purpose of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant No.1 to Defendant

No.3 prayed to dismiss the suit as prayed for.

6 O.S. No.88 of 2015

6.Defendant No.4 filed written statement separately. However, the contents of the written statement of Defendant No.4 is replica of the contents of written statement filed by the Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3 and hence, the same are not reproduced.

7.The Defendant No.5 is impleaded in the suit as per Orders in

I.A.No.228/2017, dt:22-11-2021. However, subsequently the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs filed a memo not pressing the suit against the Defendant No.5 and hence, the suit was dismissed as not pressed against the Defendant No.5 vide Order dated 15-12-2022.

8.The following issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the land in

Sy.No.108/A/2 to an extent of 01-09 guntas and Sy.No.108/AA/2

to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas situated at Cheekurthy village of

Nyalkal Mandal and for allotment of 1/3rd share to the

Plaintiffs?

2. To what relief ?

9.During the course of trial, on behalf of the Plaintiffs PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7 are marked through PW-1. On behalf of the

Defendants, DW-1 to DW-3 were examined and Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-4 were marked through DW-1.

7 O.S. No.88 of 2015

10.Heard the oral arguments of Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the

Learned Counsel for Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3. The arguments on behalf of Defendant No.4 is treated as “heard”.

Issue No.1:

11.It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the Suit Schedule Properties were purchased by the grand father of the Plaintiffs and father of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 namely Golla Nag Gonda @ Nagappa with the joint family funds and that the Suit Schedule Properties are ancestral properties and the same are not partitioned between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to

Defendant No.3 and that the Plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share each in the share of the Defendant No.1.

12.In order to prove the suit claim, the natural mother and guardian of the

Plaintiffs filed her chief examination affidavit as PW-1 reiterating the contents of the plaint and hence, the same are not reproduced. During the course of further chief examination, PW-1 got marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7. Ex.A-1 is the

Mee-Seva generated pahani for the year 1424 Fasli, dt: 29-06-2015 wherein the name of the Defendant No.2 is reflected as pattadar and possessor in respect of Suit Schedule “B” Property, Ex.A-2 is the Mee-Seva generated pahani for the year 1424 Fasli, dt: 29-06-2015 wherein the name of the Defendant No.1 is reflected as pattadar and possessor in respect of Suit Schedule “A” property,

Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document

No.4563/2015 dt:23-06-2015 executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of the

8 O.S. No.88 of 2015

Defendant No.4 in respect of Suit Schedule “A” property, Ex.A-4 is the statement of encumbrance on property, Ex.A-5 is the market value certificate,

Ex.A-6 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000, Ex.A-7 is the certified copy of ROR for the year 1989-1990.

13.During the course of cross examination, it was elicited from PW-1 that she filed documents to show that the Suit Schedule Properties are in the name of the grand father of Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.2. PW-1 admitted that her husband i.e., Defendant No.1 purchased the Suit Schedule ‘A’ Property in the year 2012 through registered sale deed bearing document No.3103/2012,

dt:05-05-2012. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the Defendant No.2 purchased

the Suit Schedule “B” Property through registered sale deed bearing document

No.2099/2009, dt: 20-04-2009. PW-1 admitted that she is living separately from

Defendant No.1 since 8 years. PW-1 admitted that she filed criminal case against the Defendant No.1, his brother and her mother-in-law. PW-1 admitted that before her marriage, the grand father of Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.2 by name Nagagonda died. PW-1 admitted that she has not filed any document to show that the Government allotted Ac.05-00 guntas of ceiling land to the grand father of Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.2. PW-1 admitted that she do not know in whose name and in which survey number and to what extent the said ceiling is situated. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the Suit Schedule “A and B”

Properties are purchased by Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 through their earnings. PW-1 stated that Suit Schedule “A” Property was purchased but the remaining property existed even prior to her marriage. PW-1 denied that the

9 O.S. No.88 of 2015

Suit Schedule “A and B” Properties are the self acquired properties of the

Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 and hence, the Plaintiffs have no right.

PW-1 admitted that the Defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed in favour of Defendant No.4 vide Ex.A-3 without her consent. PW-1 denied that her consent is not required as the same is the self acquired property of Defendant

No.1. PW-1 admitted that her father-in-law Nagagonda had two sons and two daughters. It is admitted that only one daughter and two sons are impleaded in the present suit. PW-1 denied that she do not know whether the Suit Schedule “A and B” Property are not in the name of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2.

It was elicited from PW-1 that she has not filed any documents to show that the

Suit Schedule “A and B” Properties are purchased from joint family funds. PW-1 denying the suggestion that she filed the present suit in order to grab the property after being separated from her husband.

14.One Kashappa filed his chief examination affidavit as PW-2 reiterating the contents of the plaint and hence the same are not reproduced. During the course of cross examination, it was elicited from PW-2 that her son-in-law has two sisters and one brother. PW-2 admitted that the Suit Schedule “A” Property was purchased by Defendant No.1 through registered sale deed bearing document No.3103/2012, dt:05-05-2012. PW-2 deposed that he paid half of the sale consideration. PW-2 admitted that the Defendant No.2 purchased the Suit

Schedule Property but he denied that the Defendant No.2 purchased the Suit

Schedule “B” Property from his own funds. PW-2 denied the suggestion that the

Suit Schedule “A and B” Properties are the self acquired properties of the

10 O.S. No.88 of 2015

Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 and that the same are not the ancestral properties.

15.In order to disprove the case of the Plaintiff, the Defendant No.2 filed his chief examination affidavit as DW-1 reiterating the contents of the written statement and hence the same are not reproduced. During the course of further chief examination, DW-1 got marked Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-4. Ex.B-1 is the certified copy of sale deed vide document No.2099/2009, Dt:20-04-2009,

Ex.B-2 is the certified copy of sale deed vide document No.3103/2012,

Dt:05-05-2012, Ex.B-3 is the certified copy of sale deed vide document

No.4562/2015, Dt: 23-06-2015, Ex.B-4 is the certified copy of sale deed vide document No.4563/2015, Dt: 23-06-2015.

During the course of cross examination of DW-1 it was elicited from DW-1 that the Plaintiffs are the sons of Defendant No.1. It was elicited from DW-1 that his father died 20 years ago and during the life time of his father, the

Government assigned agricultural land to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas situated at Cheekurthi Village of Nyalkal Mandal. DW-1 deposed that he cannot say the survey number of the said land and that the Defendant No.3 i.e., his mother is in possession of the said land. It was elicited from DW-1 that the Suit Schedule “A” Property was purchased from one Laxmi. DW-1 denied that he as well as

Defendant No.3 purchased the Suit Schedule “B” Property from the funds of the

Defendant No.3. DW-1 denied that the Defendant No.3 assisted him financially to purchase the Suit Schedule “B” Property from the joint family funds. It was elicited from DW-1 that the marriage of Defendant No.1 was performed in the

11 O.S. No.88 of 2015

year 2011. DW-1 denied that at that time of marriage the guardian of the

Plaintiff gave Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry and 5 tulas gold. DW-1 denied that

Rs.60,000/- was paid by PW-1 for purchase of the property by Defendant No.1.

DW-1 denied that they have no right to sell the Suit Schedule Property to

Defendant No.4.

16.Defendant No.1 filed his chief examination affidavit as DW-2 reiterating the contents of the written statement and hence the same are not reproduced.

During the course of cross examination DW-2 denied that his wife and his in laws have given Rs.80,000/- cash and 4 tulas gold at the time of marriage. It was elicited from DW-2 that since the lifetime of his father they have Ac.4-00 guntas agricultural land assigned by Government. DW-2 deposed that he cannot say the survey number of the said land. DW-2 admitted that after marriage he purchased the land in Sy.No.108/A2 to an extent of Ac.1-09 guntas.

DW-2 deposed that he is labour. DW-2 denied that his father-in-law assisted him financially for purchase of the above land by paying an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/-. DW-2 denied that the Defendant No.3 helped him in purchasing the above land. DW-2 denied that he purchased above land out of the joint family funds. DW-2 admitted that there is a house in their village which is in joint possession. DW-2 denied that they did not have any right to alienate Suit

Schedule “A” Property and that the Plaintiffs are entitled for their share. DW-2 admitted that the land to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas is not partitioned till today.

12 O.S. No.88 of 2015

17.Defendant No.3 filed her chief examination affidavit as DW-3 reiterating the contents of written statement and hence the same are not reproduced.

During the course of cross examination, DW-3 admitted that the Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.2 are her grand children. DW-3 deposed that when her husband was alive he got Ac.2-00 guntas Government land in his name and after his death they acquired Ac.2-00 guntas of land which is held in her name currently.

DW-3 deposed that at the time of marriage of Plaintiff’s mother with her son, no dowry was presented to them. DW-3 admitted that after the marriage of her son with the Plaintiffs mother, her son purchased Suit Schedule “A” Property.

DW-3 admitted that Suit Schedule “B” Property was purchased by her elder son. DW-3 admitted that all her sons resided jointly at one place. DW-3 denied that the father-in-law of her son helped financially in purchasing the Suit

Schedule “A and B” Properties. DW-3 deposed that she do not know the survey number of the land to an extent of Ac.4-00 which is Government land. DW-3 admitted that there was no partition among her sons. DW-3 deposed that her sons purchased the Suit Schedule Properties. DW-3 deposed that in the year 2015 her son sold Suit Schedule “A and B” properties. DW-3 admitted that after filing of the present case they sold out the Suit Schedule “A and B” Properties.

DW-3 denied that her sons purchased the Suit Schedule Properties from joint family funds.

18.In the present case PW-1 and PW-2 clearly admitted in their cross examination that the grand father of the Plaintiffs had two sons and two daughters. The Defendants in their written statement also clearly pleaded that

13 O.S. No.88 of 2015

the grand father of the Plaintiffs had two daughters namely Munnumma and

Thukkamma. Inspite of the Defendants stating the said fact in their written statement that the grand father of the Plaintiffs had two daughters apart from the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2, the Plaintiffs did not choose to take any steps to bring the daughters of the grand father of the Plaintiffs on record.

It is the specific case of the Plaintiffs that the Suit Schedule Properties are purchased by the grand father of the Plaintiffs from the funds of joint family and that the Suit Schedule Properties are the ancestral properties. It is settled law that all the sons and daughters have equal share in the Suit Schedule

Properties and they are necessary and proper parties to the suit. It is also settled law that not impleading all the necessary and proper parties in a suit for partition is fatal and suit is not maintainable and the shares cannot be decided in the absence of all the necessary and proper parties to the suit. As stated supra, the daughters of the grand father of the Plaintiffs have not been impleaded in the present suit. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that the suit is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary and proper parties to the present suit.

19.It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the Suit Schedule Properties are the ancestral properties and originally the grand father of the Plaintiffs and father of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 purchased the Suit Schedule Properties from the funds of joint family. The Plaintiffs relied upon Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7 to establish that the Suit Schedule Properties were purchased by the grand father of the Plaintiffs and that the same are ancestral properties. However, none of

14 O.S. No.88 of 2015

the documents i.e., Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7 establish that the grand father of the

Plaintiffs was the original owner of the Suit Schedule Properties. During the course of cross examination, PW-1 admitted that the Defendant No.1 purchased the Suit Schedule ‘A’ Property through registered sale deed bearing document

No.3103/2012, dt: 05-05-2012. However, PW-1 denied that the Suit Schedule “B” Property was purchased by Defendant No.2 through registered sale deed bearing document No.2099/2009, dt:20-04-2009 from one Laxmi. However,

PW-2 admitted that the Suit Schedule “A” Property was purchased by Defendant

No.1 through registered sale deed bearing document No.3103/2012 and

Defendant No.2 purchased the Suit Schedule “B” Property. However, PW-2 deposed that he paid half of the sale consideration for purchase of the Suit

Schedule “A” Property. The said contention of PW-2 cannot be believed as the same is baseless and the same is not the case of the Plaintiffs and not pleaded in the plaint. Per contra the Defendants relied upon Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2 to establish that the Suit Schedule “A and B” Properties are the self acquired properties of the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2. Ex.B-1 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.2099/2009 executed by one

Smt. M. Laxmi in favour of the Defendant No.2 in respect of Suit Schedule

Properties and Ex.B-2 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.3103/2012 executed by D.Narsaiah in favour of Narsugonda in respect of Suit Schedule Properties. Thus Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2 clearly shows that the Suit Schedule “A and B” Properties are the self acquired properties of the

Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2. As stated supra, the Plaintiffs have not filed a single document to show that the Suit Schedule Properties are the

15 O.S. No.88 of 2015

ancestral properties of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3.

The Plaintiffs have also failed to establish that the Suit Schedule “A and B”

Properties are purchased from the joint family funds by the grand father of the

Plaintiffs.

20.During the course of cross examination of DW-1 to DW-3 it was suggested to them that the maternal Grand Father of the Plaintiffs assisted the

Defendants in purchasing the Suit Schedule Properties and the Defendant No.3 also assisted the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 in purchasing the above properties and that the Suit Schedule Properties are purchased out of joint family funds. It is settled law that without there being any pleadings, no amount of evidence can be adduced by the parties to suit. As the Plaintiffs in the plaint did not plead that Maternal Grand Father of Plaintiffs assisted the

Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 financially for purchase of the Suit

Schedule Properties, this court is of the considered view that the said contention of the Plaintiffs is baseless and cannot be considered in the absence of specific pleadings in the plaint. Further the Plaintiffs have not produced any amount of evidence to establish that the Suit Schedule Properties are purchased from the joint family funds.

21.It is not out of place to mention here that the Plaintiffs also suppressed the material facts in the present suit. At one stage the Plaintiffs stated that the

Suit Schedule Properties were purchased by the grand father of the Plaintiffs and during the cross examination it was elicited that the Defendant No.1 and

16 O.S. No.88 of 2015

Defendant No.2 purchased the Suit Schedule “A and B” Properties. There is a variance in the pleadings and the evidence of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs utterly failed to prove that the Suit Schedule “A and B” Properties are the ancestral properties. However, the Defendants established through Ex.B-1 and

Ex.B-2 that the Suit Schedule Properties are the self acquired properties of the

Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2. In view of the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the Suit Schedule “A and B” Property are not available for partition since the Suit Schedule “A and B” Property are the self acquired properties of the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 and during their life time the said properties cannot be partitioned. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in negative.

ISSUE No.2.

22. In the result, suit of the Plaintiffs is and hereby dismissed. The parties are directed to bare their own costs.

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

(Sridhar Mandhani) Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayankhed. FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Zaheerabad.

17 O.S. No.88 of 2015

EXHIBITS OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW-1: Smt.Golla SunithaDW-1: Golla Shivaraj

PW-2: KhasappaDW-2: Golla Narsugonda

DW-3: Smt. Golla Kamalamma

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A-1 : Mee-Seva generated pahani for the year 1424 Fasli, dt: 29-06-2015.

Ex.A-2 :Mee-Seva generated pahani for the year 1424 Fasli, dt: 29-06-2015.

Ex.A-3 :Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document

No.4563/2015 dt:23-06-2015.

Ex.A-4 :Statement of encumbrance on property.

Ex.A-5 :Market value certificate.

Ex.A-6 :Certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000.

Ex.A-7 :Certified copy of ROR for the year 1989-1990.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B-1 :Certified copy of sale deed vide document No.2099/2009,

Dt: 20-04-2009.

Ex.B-2 :Certified copy of sale deed vide document No.3103/2012,

Dt: 05-05-2012.

Ex.B-3 :Certified copy of sale deed vide document No.4562/2015,

Dt: 23-06-2015.

18 O.S. No.88 of 2015

Ex.B-4 :Certified copy of sale deed vide document No.4563/2015,

Dt: 23-06-2015.

(Sridhar Mandhani) Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayankhed. FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Zaheerabad.

SUIT SCHEDULE “A” PROPERTY

All that the agriculture land bearing Sy.No.108/ /2 admeasuring Ac.1-09 guntas, situated at Cheekurthi village, Nyalkal Mandal, Sangareddy district bounded by:-

North :Agriculture land of Shivaraj.

South :Agriculture land of A.Advi Reddy.

East :Agriculture land of Savathri.

West : Vaagu.

SUIT SCHEDULE “B” PROPERTY

All that the agriculture land bearing Sy.No.108/ 2 admeasuring Ac.2-00 guntas, situated at Cheekurthi village, Nyalkal Mandal, Sangareddy district bounded by:-

North :Land of Pandari.

South :Land of Anil Reddy.

East :Land of Advi Reddy.

West : Vaagu. (Sridhar Mandhani) Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayankhed. FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Zaheerabad.

O.S. No. 172 OF 2018 Page 1 Date: 23/04/2025

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ZAHEERABAD.

: Present : Sri Sridhar Mandhani

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayankhed. FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Zaheerabad.

Wednesday, this 23 rd day of April, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 172 of 2018

Between:-

Smt. M.Kalawathi, W/o. Pandari, aged about 37 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Nagwar village, Raikode Mandal, Sangareddy District.

...Plaintiff

AND

1.Dosapally Dattu, S/o. Mallanna, aged about 25 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Dosapally Raju, S/o. Mallanna, aged about 22 years, Occ: Agriculture,

Both are R/o. Shamshuddinpur Village, Raikode Mandal, Sangareddy District.

...Defendants

The suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri. Syed Ahmed, Advocate, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri. B.Anjaiah,

Advocate, Learned Counsel for the Defendants and after hearing the arguments of both sides and upon considering the material available on record and the matter after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, Zaheerabad

O.S. No. 172 OF 2018 Page 2 Date: 23/04/2025

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

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for the relief of

Perpetual Injunction in respect of the Suit Schedule Property.

Brief averments of the plaint:

2.That the Plaintiff is the absolute owner, possessor and title holder of the plot in Sy.No.44 admeasuring 126 Square Yards at Chimnapur village, Kusnoor

Gram Panchayat, Raikode Mandal (herein after referred to as “Suit Schedule

Property”). That originally one Dosapally Babu S/o. Shivappa was the owner of the Suit Schedule Property and the said Dosapally Babu sold the Suit Schedule

Property to the Plaintiff under registered sale deed bearing document No.985 of 2010 dated 25-02-2010 in the presence of witnesses and delivered vacant peaceful possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff and since the date of purchase, the Plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

Suit Schedule Property without any interference. That the Gram Panchayath also issued ownership Certificate infavour of the Plaintiff.

2(a). That the Defendants are illegally trying to occupy the open place. That on 27-06-2018, the Defendants came to the Suit Schedule Property along with unsocial elements and tried to occupy the said open plot but the Plaintiff with the help of well wishers and adjacent owners could resist the illegal acts of the

Defendants. That the Defendants while leaving the Suit Schedule Property stated that they would come again and occupy the open place and threatened the Plaintiff with dire consequences. Hence the present suit.

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, Zaheerabad

O.S. No. 172 OF 2018 Page 3 Date: 23/04/2025

Brief averments of the written statement filed by Defendants:

3.Defendants filed their written statements denying the claim of the

Plaintiff by denying all the adverse allegations made against them. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the Defendants are that it is denied that the Plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the Suit Schedule Property. It is denied that originally one Dosapally Babu was the original owner of the Suit

Schedule Property and the said Dosapally Babu sold the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff through registered sale deed bearing No. 985 of 2010 dated 25-02-2010 and that the possession was delivered to the Plaintiff and since the date of purchase, the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit

Schedule Property.

3(a). That Defendants are own brothers and the Defendants purchased the land from Rukamma and Defendant No.1 is the absolute owner, possessor and title holder of agricultural land in Sy.No.45/AA and 44 to an extent of Ac.0-35 guntas and Ac.0-32 guntas total admeasuring Ac.1-27 guntas at Chimnapur village, Kusnoor Gram Panchayat, Raikode Mandal. That Defendant No.2 is the absolute owner, possessor and title holder of agricultural land in Sy.No.45/AA and 44 to an extent of Ac.0-34 guntas and Ac.0-33 guntas total admeasuring

Ac.1-27 guntas at Chimnapur village, Kusnoor Gram Panchayat, Raikode

Mandal. That the Defendants after purchasing the above properties approached the Tahsildar, Raikode with a request to mutate their names in the revenue records and the Tahsildar, Raikode after detailed enquiry mutated the names of

Defendants in respect of above lands in revenue records and issued pattedar

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, Zaheerabad

O.S. No. 172 OF 2018 Page 4 Date: 23/04/2025

pass book and title deed book in favour of the Defendants and since then the

Defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above lands by raising seasonal crops.

3(b). That the Plaintiff, without any right, title or interest is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Defendants in the above lands. That the Plaintiff and others on 01-06-2018 came to the above lands and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

Defendants over the above lands and hence the Defendants filed suit bearing

O.S.No.163 of 2018 on the file of this court against the Plaintiff herein as

Defendant No.2 in said suit and the present suit is filed by the Plaintiff as counter blast to O.S.No.163 of 2018. That there is no plot in Sy.No.44 and the land in Sy.No.44 is agricultural land and the Plaintiff in collusion with his vendor created false sale deed in order to grab the piece of land belonging to

Defendants in Sy.No.44. Accordingly, Defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. The following issue were settled for trial:

1. Whether the Plaintiff is the absolute owner, possessor and title holder of the Suit Schedule Property i.e., Open plot in

Sy.No. 44 admeasuring 126 Square Yards situated at

Chimnapur Village, Kusnoor Gram Panchayath, Raikode

Mandal ?

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, Zaheerabad

O.S. No. 172 OF 2018 Page 5 Date: 23/04/2025

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Perpetual

Injunction against the Defendants over the Suit Schedule

Property ?

3. To What relief ?

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW-1 was examined and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4 were marked. It is pertinent to note that the Defendants did not choose to enter into witness box and adduce their evidence.

6.Heard the oral arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

Issue No.2:

7.It is the case of the Plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the Suit Schedule Property which he purchased from its original owner

Dosapally Babu through registered sale deed bearing document number 985 of 2010 dated 25-02-2010 and delivered vacant peaceful possession of the Suit

Schedule Property to the Plaintiff and since the date of purchase, the Plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the Suit Schedule Property. It is the case of the

Plaintiff that the Defendants are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Property.

8.Per contra, it is the case of the Defendants that Defendants purchased the land from Rukamma and Defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.45/AA and 44 to an extent of Ac. 0-35 guntas and Ac.0-32 guntas

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, Zaheerabad

O.S. No. 172 OF 2018 Page 6 Date: 23/04/2025

total admeasuring Ac.1-27 guntas at Chimnapur Village, Kusnoor Gram

Panchayath, Raikode Mandal. It is the case of Defendants that Defendant No.2 is the owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.45/AA and Sy.No.44 to an extent of

Ac.0-34 guntas and Ac.0-33 guntas total admeasuring Ac.1-27 guntas at

Chimnapur Village, Kusnoor Gram Panchayath, Raikode Mandal. It is the case of Defendants that after purchasing the above properties Defendants approached Tahsildar, Raikode and the Tahsildar, Raikode after detailed enquiry mutated the names of the Defendants in the revenue records and issued pattedar pass book and title deed book in favour of Defendants and since then, the Defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above lands by raising seasonal crops. It is the case of Defendants that the

Plaintiffs are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Defendants over their land and hence Defendants filed O.S. No.163 of 2018 on the file of this court and the Plaintiff filed the present suit as counter blast to

O.S.No.163 of 2018.

9.In order to prove the suit claim, Plaintiff filed his Chief Examination

Affidavit as PW-1 reiterating the contents of the plaint and hence the same are not reproduced. During further Chief Examination PW-1 got marked Ex.A-1 to

Ex.A-4. Ex.A-1 is the Mee-Seva generated registered sale deed bearing document No.985 of 2010 dated 25-02-2010 executed one Dosapally Babu infavour of the Plaintiff in respect of the Suit Schedule Property, Ex.A-2 is the

Gram Panchayath certificate, Ex.A-3 is the tax receipt issued by Panchayath

Secretary, Gram Panchayath, Kusnoor and Ex.A-4 is the construction

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, Zaheerabad

O.S. No. 172 OF 2018 Page 7 Date: 23/04/2025

permission issued by Panchayath Secretary, Gram Panchayath, Kusnoor,

Mandal Raikode. During the course of cross examination it was elicited from

PW-1 that at the time of purchasing the Suit Schedule Property, there was no plotting done on the Suit Schedule Property. PW-1 admitted that the defendants filed civil suit bearing O.S.No.163 of 2018 and survey was conducted in the said suit through the Advocate Commissioner and the Suit

Schedule Property was also included in the said survey.

10.Per contra the defendants in the present suit did not choose to enter into witness box and put-forth their case and subject themselves for cross examination. The defendants also did not get exhibited any documents in support of their case.

11.In a suit for Perpetual Injunction, the Plaintiff has to prove his or her possession over the Suit Schedule Property as on the date of filing of the suit.

The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff to prove his or her possession over the

Suit Schedule Property as on the date of filing of the suit.

12.In the present case the Plaintiff relied upon the Ex.A-1 i.e., registered sale deed executed by his vendor in his favour in respect of the Suit Schedule

Property. As per the recitals in Ex.A-1, the vendor of the Plaintiff delivered the vacant possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff. It is not out of place to mention here that when the Plaintiff as PW-1 was in witness box no suggestion was given on behalf of the Defendants that the Plaintiff is not in

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, Zaheerabad

O.S. No. 172 OF 2018 Page 8 Date: 23/04/2025

possession of the Suit Schedule Property. Further the Defendants also did not choose to enter into witness box and put forth their case and subject themselves for cross examination. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that the pleas taken by the Defendants in their written statement in order to disprove the case of the Plaintiff cannot be believed the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Plaintiff establish that the Plaintiff is in possession of the Suit Schedule Property as on date of filing of the suit.

The cause of action pleaded by the Plaintiff is not disputed by the Defendants when the Plaintiff was in witness box. The Plaintiff could establish through his oral and documentary evidence that there is interference by the Defendants over the possession of the Plaintiff in respect of the Suit Schedule Property.

13.In view of the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Perpetual Injunction as prayed for.

Issue No.1:

14.The suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for the relief of perpetual injunction. In a suit for perpetual injunction, the question of title and ownership cannot be decided and the same is beyond the scope of the suit.

Accordingly, the issue with regards to title of the Suit Schedule Property is not decided in the present suit.

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, Zaheerabad

O.S. No. 172 OF 2018 Page 9 Date: 23/04/2025

Issue No.3:

15. IN THE RESULT, The suit of the Plaintiff is and hereby decreed without costs. Permanent Injunction is granted infavour of the Plaintiff restraining the

Defendants, their men, agents, unsocial elements, laborers and any other person or persons claiming through them or on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Property.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

(Sridhar Mandhani) Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayankhed. FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Zaheerabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW-1: Smt. M. Kalawathi - NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : Mee-Seva generated Registered Sale deed bearing document No.985/2010, Dt: 25-02-2010.

Ex.A-2 : Gram Panchayath Certificate.

Ex.A-3 : Tax receipt.

Ex.A-4 : Construction permission issued by Panchayath Secretary,

Dt: 10-11-2017.

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, Zaheerabad

O.S. No. 172 OF 2018 Page 10 Date: 23/04/2025

FOR DEFENDANTS:

-NIL- (Sridhar Mandhani) Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayankhed. FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Zaheerabad.

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

All that open plot in Sy.No.44 admeasuring 126.00 Square Yards situated at Chimnapur Village, Kusnoor Gram Panchayat, Raikode Mandal, Sangareddy District bounded by:-

East :Sy.No.44/Part.

West : Sy.No.44/Part.

North :Sy.No.44/Part.

South :Road.

(Sridhar Mandhani) Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayankhed. FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Zaheerabad.

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, Zaheerabad

TSSN050009752023

Presented on : 18-07-2023 Registered on : 18-07-2023 Decided on : 21-04-2025 Duration : 1 years, 9 months, 3 days

IN THE COURT OF

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad

AT ZAHEERABAD ,MEDAK

(Presided Over by M.A.Khaleel)

MC/15/2023

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Sabitha Through Police Station Officer , R/O H.NO.3-62, Nyamthabad Village, Nyalkal Mandal, Sanagreddy District

ZAHEERABAD MEDAK

Sabitha VERSUS : Srikanth Age: 30 Occupation : R/O Metalkunta Village , Nyalkal Mandal, Sangareddy District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: Sr G.Srinivas Khanna, Advocate for appearing for Srikanth Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 125, of CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE,

of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 21-04-2025)

ORDER

Petitioner and Respondent called absent. The case is coming up for enquiry since 21.02.2024 but the petitioner did not choose to file her chief examination affidavit nor appeared before this Court since 29.08.2024. It appears that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the case. Accordingly, M.C.No.15/2023 is dismissed for default.

Date : 21-04-2025 (M.A.Khaleel)

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

ZaheerabadZAHEERABAD MEDAK

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(M.A.Khaleel) Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad

ZAHEERABAD MEDAK

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

TSSN050009752023

Presented on : 18-07-2023 Registered on : 18-07-2023 Decided on : 21-04-2025 Duration : 1 years, 9 months, 3 days

IN THE COURT OF

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad

AT ZAHEERABAD ,MEDAK

(Presided Over by M.A.Khaleel)

MC/15/2023

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Sabitha Through Police Station Officer , R/O H.NO.3-62, Nyamthabad Village, Nyalkal Mandal, Sanagreddy District

ZAHEERABAD MEDAK

Sabitha VERSUS : Srikanth Age: 30 Occupation : R/O Metalkunta Village , Nyalkal Mandal, Sangareddy District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: Sr G.Srinivas Khanna, Advocate for appearing for Srikanth Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 125, of CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE,

of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 21-04-2025)

ORDER

Petitioner and Respondent called absent. The case is coming up for enquiry since 21.02.2024 but the petitioner did not choose to file her chief examination affidavit nor appeared before this Court since 29.08.2024. It appears that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the case. Accordingly, M.C.No.15/2023 is dismissed for default.

Date : 21-04-2025 (M.A.Khaleel)

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

ZaheerabadZAHEERABAD MEDAK

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(M.A.Khaleel) Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad

ZAHEERABAD MEDAK

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

TSSN050023502024

Presented on : 07-11-2024 Registered on : 07-11-2024 Decided on : 23-04-2025 Duration : 0 years, 5 months, 16 days

IN THE COURT OF

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad

AT ZAHEERABAD ,MEDAK

(Presided Over by M.A.Khaleel)

STC.NI/34/2024

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Alladi Manjula Through Police Station Officer , R/O H.NO.3-3-134,Arya Nagar, Zaheerabad Town and Mandal, Sangareddy District

ZAHEERABAD MEDAK

Alladi Manjula VERSUS : P.Vaneetha Reddy Age: 0 Occupation : R/O H.NO.2-1-56/2, Saipur Colony, Tandur , Vikarabad District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: M.Vishwanath, Advocate for appearing for P.Vaneetha Reddy Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 138, of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita,

of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 23-04-2025)

ORDER

Complainant and Accused called present. Learned counsel for Complainant and learned counsel for the Accused are called present. Crl.M.P.No.______of 2025 is allowed. Accordingly, STC.N.I.No.34/2024 is dismissed as withdrawn and the Accused is acquitted U/S.280 of BNSS for the offence U/S.138 of N.I Act.

Date : 23-04-2025 (M.A.Khaleel)

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, ZaheerabadZAHEERABAD MEDAK

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(M.A.Khaleel) Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad

ZAHEERABAD MEDAK

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