Sri.Sugali.Narayana

1 of 13 Crl. Appeal No.455 of 2016 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT: Sri S. NARAYANA

VIII ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR.

Tuesday, Dated this the 18th day of April, 2023

Criminal Appeal No.455 /2016

From what Court the appealVII Spl. Magistrate, Hastinapuram is preferred Number of case in that CourtC.C.No. 90 of 2011

Number of the AppealCriminal Appeal No.455 of 2016

Name and description of theK. Venkat Reddy, S/o. K. Penta Reddy, AppellantAged 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Akhil Apartments, New Flat No.141, Kamalapuri colony, Phase III, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The sentence and law underThe accused is found guilty for the offence which it was imposed in theU/sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act he Trail Courtis convicted U/sec. 255(2)Cr.P.C. He is sentencedtoundergo Regorious imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,10,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of one month, out of the collected fine amount, Rs.5,09,000/- shall be paid to complainant, after expiry of appeal time. The remanding period if any shall be set off U/sec.428 Cr.P.C. Whether confirmed, modified or reversed; and if modifiedConfirmed the modification Date of Presentation 16-05-2016 Date of Filing16-05-2016 Date of Notice issued by23-05-2016 Court to appear Date of Bail Bond if -- appellant has been let out on bail Date of appellant ordered to -- appear Date of hearing10-02-2023 Date of Judgment 18-04-2023 2 of 13 Crl. Appeal No.455 of 2016 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist

1. S. Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Late S. Yella Reddy, Aged 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.16-11-20-10/1, Flat No.301, TNR Royal palace, Saleem Nagar colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

2. The State of TS. through P.S. L.B.Nagar

... Respondents No.1 & 2/Complainant

This appeal coming on 10-02-2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Ravi, Advocate for Appellant/ Accused and Smt. K.Vijaya

Baskar Reddy, counsel for respondent / complainant No.1 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This appeal is preferred U/sec.374 of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and sentence dt.18-04-2016 in C.C.90 of 2011 ( Old 206/2010) on the file of VII Spl. Magistrate, Cyberabad, Hastinapuram wherein the appellant/accused is found guilty of the offence U/sec.138 of N.I. Act and he is convicted and sentenced to under regorious imprisonment for a period of six months and further ordered to pay compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- towards compensation amount. In default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Out of the collected compensation, Rs.5,09,000/- shall be paid to the complainant.

2. For the sake of brivity and convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arranged before the lower court.

3. The facts leading to the present appeal in brief as stated in private complaint before the trial court are that the accused borrowed amount of Rs.5 lakhs from complainant on 18-07-2009 for his business necessities and 3 of 13 Crl. Appeal No.455 of 2016 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist complainant paid this hand loan amount to the accused on 18-07-2009 by way of cash. At the time of filing the said hand loan, accused executed Rs.100/- non judicial stamp paper i.e., promissory note cum receipt dt. 18-07-2009 accused promissed to return the same in the last week of November, 2009. Accused did not repay the said amount as promissed by him on one pretext or other accused postpone the same. When the complainant demanded the accused he issued cheque Rs.315797 dt.16-11-2009 for Rs. 5 lakhs in order to discharge the debt.

When complainant presented the said cheque before his banker for its encashment, to the utter surprise of complainant, the same was returned unpaid for insufficient funds. The bank authority returned the cheque vide cheque return memo to the complainant on 21-12-2009 through his banker. Complainant after receipt of the unpaid cheque along with returned memo has got issued statutory notice through his advocate through registered post on 05-01-2010 calling upon the accused to pay sum of Rs. 5 lakhs covered by the above mentioned cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice after receipt of notice of the complainant, neither accused paid the cheque amount nor given any reply.

Hence the present complaint is filed. Thus the accused is liable to punish for the offence U/sec. 138 of N.I. Act.

4. After taking the cognizance of the offence U/Sec.138 of the N.I. Act against the accused by the trial court, the trial court issued summons to the accused and on the receipt of the summons, the accused made his appearance before the trial court and he was furnished with the copies of the complaint and all the annexures thereto in compliance of Sec.207 Cr.PC. The accused was examined 4 of 13 Crl. Appeal No.455 of 2016 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist

U/sec.251 Cr.PC and he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused was defended by his advocate.

5. During the course of the trial before the trial court, the complainant examined himself as PW.1 beside Pw.2 also examined and Ex.P.1 to P.8 were got marked. Ex.P.1 is the nonjudicial bond paper (promissory note cum receipt dt.

18-07-2009, Ex.P.2 is cheque bearing No.315797 dt. 16-11-2009 for Rs.5 lakhs, 3). Ex.P.3 is cheque return memo dt. 19-12-2009, 4). Ex.P.4 is the office copy of legal notice dt. 5-1-2010, Ex.P.5 is the postal receipt for RPAD dt. 5-1-2010 two numbers, Ex.P.6 is the postal receipt dt. 5-1-2010, Ex.P.7 is the acknowledgment for RPAD dt.18-1-2010, Ex.P.8 is the unserved envolop dt.15-1- 2010.

6. After the completion of the trial, the accused was examined u/sec.313

Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating evidence of the prosecution and further stated the same to be false. On behalf of accused, himself examined as Dw.1 beside examined Dw.2 and Dw.3 and Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 were marked on his behalf. Ex.D.1 is the bank pass book, Ex.D.2 is the bank statement belongs to the accused firm. Beside Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 also got marked. Ex.X.1 is the authorized letter, Ex.X.2 is the statement of account of Pw.1.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following points for determination ?

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/sec.138 of N.I. Act ?

5 of 13 Crl. Appeal No.455 of 2016 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist

8. On apprisal of material on record, the learned VII Special Magistrate,

Hastinapuram convicted the accused for the offence U/sec. 138 of N.I. Act vide judgment dt. 20-04-2016 as stated supra.

9. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant/accused preferred this appeal with the grounds of appeal, of which, the core of the contentions is stated as follows.

10. The judgment of the appeal is against law of evidence and probability of the case. The trial court ought to have seen that the evidence on record is whollly insufficient to come to a conclusion to convict the appellants. The trial court below utterly failed to appreciate the lacuna in the complainant elicited out by the appellant, during the trial, instead has given much weight to the evidence of the prosecution. The lower court failed to appreciate the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial court has convicted the appellant on assumptions and presumptions without appreciating the legal evidence and the legal position in respect of the facts of the case in its true perspective, but arrived at wrong conclusions, and the conviction order passed by the court is baseless, untenable in law. The appellant/ accused contended that he is able to raise probable defence which creates doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt and rebutted the presumption available to the respondent No.1 U/sec.139 of N.I. Act. Hence the conviction of the judgment is unsustainable under law and the appeal be set aside and be allowed.

6 of 13 Crl. Appeal No.455 of 2016 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist

11. Inspite of condition imposed by this court both counsels directed to appear and be ready for arguments without fail on that day, In spite of condition imposed, both counsels never turned up and not ready with the arguments in the absence of both counsels, this court has no option treated the arguments as heard on behalf of appellant and respondent. Now the appeal is coming for the passing of judgment.

12. In the light of rival contentions the points for consideration are

i). whether the judgment of conviction of sentence under appeal is sustainable under law?

ii).To what relief?

13. POINT No.1:

Respondent herein is the complainant before the trial court filed complaint on cheque said to have been issued by the appellant/ accused on 16-11-2009 for

Rs.5 lakhs drawn on Andhra bank, Jubilee hills branch, Hyderabad. According to the complainant, he presented the said cheque before his banker, it was returned with endorsment on 21-12-2009 as unpaid with endorsment funds insufficient, thereafter notice was issued which was duly served on the accused on 18-1-2010 for which accused did not repay the amount nor given any reply notice. Hence complaint is filed. During course of his oral evidence, Pw.1 and Pw.2 examined and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8 are marked. Ex.P.1 is the nonjudicial bond paper (promissory note cum receipt dt. 18-07-2009, Ex.P.2 is cheque bearing

No.315797 dt. 16-11-2009 for Rs.5 lakhs, 3). Ex.P.3 is cheque return memo dt.

19-12-2009, 4). Ex.P.4 is the office copy of legal notice dt. 5-1-2010, Ex.P.5 is the postal receipt for RPAD dt. 5-1-2010 two numbers, Ex.P.6 is the postal 7 of 13 Crl. Appeal No.455 of 2016 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist receipt dt. 5-1-2010, Ex.P.7 is the acknowledgment for RPAD dt.18-1-2010,

Ex.P.8 is the unserved envolop dt.15-1-2010. If once look at the complaint averments it is clear that complainant has made out a primafacie case and proceeded against the appellant/ accused for the offence U/sec.138 of N.I. Act, at the same time, the evidence elicited in the cross examiantion Pw.1 and defence set by the accused also has to be taken into consideration to determine the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec.138 of N.I. Act. Admitted details in this case appellant accused had executed on non-judicial bond paper/ promissory note on 18-07-2009 for Rs.5 lakhs and Ex.P.1 is the non-judicial bond paper/promissory note.

14. In support of contention of the complainant, he himself examined as Pw.1 and he lent the amount of Rs.5 lakhs on 18-7-2009 by way of cash, at the time of availing loan, accused himself executed Ex.A.1 dt. 18-07-2009 in favour of the complainant Pw.1 and accused promissed to return the same in the last week of

November, 2009 inspite of that he did not repay the loan amount as promissed by him. Later complainant made a several requests and demands made by him.

Dw.1 issued Ex.P.2 cheque bearing No. 315797 dt. 16-11-2009 for Rs. 5 lakhs.

When the complainant presented the same cheque it was returned vide memo under Ex.P.3 stating that unpaid for the reason in sufficient funds. Pw.1 got issued Ex.P.4 office copy of legal notice dt. 5-1-2010 under Ex.P.5 and P.6 postal receipts. Thus for all practical purposes, cheque issued corresponding Ex.P.2 if once look at the details on the record under Ex.P.1 and filing of the complaint by the complainant against the appellant/accused and accused borrowed amount 8 of 13 Crl. Appeal No.455 of 2016 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist under Ex.P.1 later he repaid the amount under Ex.P.1, then he issued Ex.P.2 for acknowledgment of borrowed amount, clearly shows that the accused issued cheque towards hand loan amount for repayment of amount covered under

Ex.P.1. Pw.1 has proved Ex.P.1 is very clear that accused issued cheque under

Ex.P.2 towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt. Thus it is very clear the amount covered under Ex.P.2 is only towards the borrowed amount by him which is legally enforceable debt.

15. The evidence of Pw.2 who is Deputy Branch Manager, ICICI Bank,

Dilsukhnagar branch has stated that, he was authorised from their bank to give evidence in this case. According to him, complainant has saving account in their bank vide account No. 024301500785 on 19-12-2009 complainant Narsimha

Reddy presented the cheque Ex.P.2 bearing No. 315797 for encashment into their bank, same was returned unpaid insufficient funds and Ex.P.3 is cheque return memo issued by their bank. Ex.X.2 is statement of account of complainant

Narasimha Reddy which was issued by cheque bearing No.315797 was dishonoured for reasons insufficient funds dt.19-12-2009.

16. In support of contention of the counsel for complainant relied upon the following citations before the trial court:

i). In K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another reported in 2000(1) ALT (Crl) 42 (SC) that when the accused admits his signature on the bounced cheque it shall presume that cheque was drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears and court shall presume that the holder of the 9 of 13 Crl. Appeal No.455 of 2016 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability and burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption.

ii). In the case reported in 2001 (2) ALD (Crl) 234 (SC) held that as per the

Sec. 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act. It shall be presumed, unless contrary is proved that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Sec. 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability, and also held that Burden lies on the accused to prove that there is no subsisting liability. But the proof must be sufficient enough to rebut the presumption and mere explanation is not sufficient.

iii). In a case of Greaves Limited, Hyderabad V. Leo Electronics

Organisation, Hyderabad and others reported in 2006(2) ALD (Crl) 977 (AP) that

No doubt, it is a fact that in criminal law it is for the complainant or the prosecution to establish the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by preponderance of probabilities. The said general rule of criminal law has no application for cases falling under section 138 of the Act, in view of the statutory safeguard provided for under section 139 of the Act. Sec.139 of the Act deals with presumption in favour of the holder. It shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 of the Act for the discharged, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability. In the light of the said statutory safeguard provided for under Section I39 of the Act, it is not correct to say that it is for the complainant to prove that the said cheque have been issued in discharge of 10 of 13 Crl. Appeal No.455 of 2016 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist legally enforceable debt In fact, on the very same aspect the Hon'ble Supreme

Court clearly laid down the law saying that the presumption provided for under

Section 138 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption and the general rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution has no application to the cases falling under section 138 of the Act.

iv). In a case KN Beena, Appellant Vs Muniyapnan Reported in AIR 2001

Supreme Court 2895 that Burden of proving that cheque had not been issued for any debt or liabilty on the accused denial avements in reply by accused are not sufficient to shift burden of proof onto the complainant accused has to prove in trial by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.

v) In a case of Rajneesh Agarwal V/s.Amıt J.Bhalla reported in (2001)1

Supreme court cases 631 it was held that it is for the accused to prove that he paid the entire amount within 15 days from the date of receiving legal notice if the accused failed to replay the entire due amount within the 15 days from the date of receiving legal notices does not absolve from the criminal liability of the accused.

vi). In a case Sunita dubey Vs. Hukum Singh Ahirwas & Dev Kishan

Ahirwar reported in 2014 Law suit (MP) 1805 held that as per Section 20 of N.I.

Act the accused admitted his signature in the cheque there by the accused authorized holder of cheque to fill up the contents of the cheque.

17. Dw.1 stating in his evidence before the trial court he is proprietor of M/s.

Snehareddy Creations their firm has current account A/c. No. 021811012000010.

11 of 13 Crl. Appeal No.455 of 2016 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist

He got acquaintence with Pw.1 he never borrowed money from Pw.1 and he never issued cheque to the Pw.1. He did not receive any notice subsequently.

After two years police came to him and stating that court was issued NBW on cheque bounces cases and arrested by Saroor nagar police and produced before the court. He filed Ex.D.1 which is Andhra Bank pass book A/c. Bearing NO.

021811012000010.

18. According to the evidence of Dw.2, Ex.D.1 pass book belongs to their branch that the accused is current account. Ex.D.1 pass book belongs to M/s.

Sneha Reddy creations proprietor K. Venkat Reddy. Ex.P.2 cheque does not contains firm seal. When the cheque belongs to firm if cheque is dishonoured there shall be two reasons cheque does not contain frim seal and account has no sufficient balance to honour the cheque. He further stated that Ex.P.3 bank returned memo contains only one reason of insufficient funds for dishonouring of

Ex.P.2 cheque. Till the Ex.D.1 account is in force. Ex.D.2 is bank statement belongs to the accused firm.

19. The evidence of Dw.3, according to him Ex.P.8 postal cover on that door number and father name were not mentioned on Ex.P.8. He entered the postal cover in the register and returned the cover to the sendor. After thorough enquiry with the villagers, he made the above said endorsements on the postal cover he did not inform both persons and returned the same to the sendor and also he made endorsement two persons are there in the village on the name of

K. Venkat Reddy.

12 of 13 Crl. Appeal No.455 of 2016 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist

20. In support of the contention of the accused, his counsel relied upon the following decisions :

i). In a case between John K Abrahim Vs. Simon C Abraham and another reported in 2014(2) ALD Crl. 61 SC wherein it was held the complainant in the cross examination deposed that he is not sure who wrote cheque and not aware when exactly and where exactly transaction took place for which cheque came to the issue by the accused and once complainant in the cross examination deposed that it is not in the hand writting of accused by written himself and also deposed that amount was written by him. So in the present case the accused himself admitted the signature on Ex.P.1 pronote and Ex.P.2 cheque and also admitted he filed the two memos admitting he borrowed the amount and requested the time to repay the due amount due to financial troubles. So the facts of the reported case are not applicable to the present case.

ii). In a case of Patal Amruthai Narayananda Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2012/BC183. In the reported case complainant did not produce any satisfactory material that notice was served on the accused.

21. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence of Pw.1 and Dw.1 and coupled with Ex.A.1 to A.8 and ex.D.1 and D.2 and Ex.X.1 and X.2 it is clearly established that the accused borrowed amount of Rs.5 lakhs from Pw.1 under

Ex.P.1 later failed to discharge the loan amount and issued Ex.P.2 cheque and when Pw.1 sent the cheque to bank for encashment and cheque was returned with insufficient funds. Pw.1 gave statutory legal notice, inspite of that, accused neither reply the notice, nor paid cheque amount. The contention of the 13 of 13 Crl. Appeal No.455 of 2016 VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist appellant cannot be much helpful and he has no due and he never borrowed and he never executed Ex.P1 in favour of Pw.1 and never issued Ex.P.2 at any point of time. His Contention contention cannot be helpful to him and judgment of the trial court is sustainable under law and the point is answered in favour of respondent/ complainant against the accused.

22.P OINT No.2:

In the light of the discussion of point No.1 appeal lacks dismissed and sentence dt.20-04-2016 in C.C.90/2011 on the file of learned VII Spl. Magistrate,

Hastinapuram.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed thereby confirming the impugned judgment dated.20-4-2016 in C.C.90 of 2011 passed by the learned VII Spl.

Magistrate, at Hastinapuram in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the

offence U/Sec.138 of the N.I.Act. The appellant shall be committed to jail to undergo the sentence imposed by the trial court. Since NBW pending, the trial court is directed to issue a non-bailable warrant against the appellant for his production before the trial court and on such production of the appellant before the trial court by the police in due execution of the N.B.W., the accused shall be committed to the jail to undergo the sentence imposed by the trial court in the impugned judgment.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 18th of April, 2023).

VIII ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

1 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT:Sri S. NARAYANA

VIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR.

Tuesday, this the 18th day of April, 2023

O.S.No.762 of 2016

Between: Smt. Anees Ahmad, W/o Mr. Ali Khwaja Ahmad, aged 54 years, Occ: Housewife, Presently staying at 8532, Minard Ave, Morton Grove, IL 60053, USA. Permanent R/o H.No.10-1-1190/1, A.C.Guard, Hyderabad -500 004, T.S.

... Plaintiff

A N D

1. Syed Yousufuddin, S/o Syed Anwaruddin, aged 45 years, Occ : Business, R/o H.No. 13-5-586/3/A, Yousuf nagar, Tappa chabutra, Hyderabad- 28.

2. Mohammed Shakeel, S/o Mohd. Hassanuddin, aged 41 years, Occ:Business, R/o.6-4-71/1, Bala nagar, R.R.District.

3. Joint Sub-Registrar, Kukatpally, R.R.District. (fomal party Def No.3)

.... Defendants

This suit is coming up for final hearing on 27-3-2023 before me in the presence of Sri Md. Shujauddin, Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri

Krishna Rao, counsel for defendant No.1 and 2 and Government Pleader, standing counsel for defendant No.3 and upon perusing the material papers on record and having heard for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:- 2 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist :: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for the relief of cancellation of the registered document No.2011/2016 and 2012/2016 dt.25-02-2016 and doc.No.2012/ 2016 dt.25-02-2016 at defendant NO.3 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of suit schedule property plot No.24 and 25 in parts of Sy.No.39 and 40 each admeasuring 240 sq.yds total admeasuring 480 sq.yds equvalent to 401.28 sq.mtrs situated at Upperpally village and for perpetual injunction against the defendants thereby restraining them from interfering with the suit schedule plot and for costs.

2. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint in brief stated as follows:

Plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the property plot NO.24 and 25 in Sy.No.39 and 40 admeasuring Ac.240 sq.yds each total 480 sq.yds situated at Upparpally village, Rajendranagar mandal, R.R.District under registered sale deed vide doc.No.1717/1995 dt. 13-02-1995 from its owners Anjamma and two others represented by S. Subhash Reddy under registered GPA doc.No. 957/1994 dt.21-04-1994. Initially plaitniff had purchased two plots under seperate sale deeds vide doc.No.192/1995 and 193/1995 dt.05-01-1995, the entire process of sale transactions were done by her husband. Since then plaintiff is owner in respect of suit schedule two plots and to have obtained single sale deed documents and since 3 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist then the date of purchase of the two plots under registered sale deed she is in posession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property having purchased the same under valid registered sale deed from its lawful owner without any interruption and she is staying in USA and she used to visit

Hyderabad and even then and recently plaintiff's husband is affected paralytic attack and also suffering from different ailments and bed ridden and she is continuously residing at USA and look after her husband as she being the primary care taker and she has left the Hyderabad on 21-08- 2015 and she has come down to Hyderabad on 05-05-2016 and she is completely staying at USA she never come down to Hyderabad during the said period. She came to know that in the month of April, 2016 defendants No.1 to 4 defendants with fraudulently to knockway the suit properties have created and fabricated documents by impersonating the plaintiff. The defendants No.1 and 2 created alleged documents bearing

No.2011/2016 and 2012/2016 dt. 25-2-2016 each 240 sq.yds impersonating by the defendants. Soonafter plaintiff came to know that she lodged complaint through the Indian Consulate, Chicago on 07-04- 2016 and the same was forwarded by the counsel HOC, Chicago on 11- 04-2016 to the Commissioner of police, State Government of Telangana, with a request dt. 07-04-2016. While the matter is under investigation, plaintiff herself came to Hyderabad on 05-05-2016 got enquired the fradulent sale deeds created by defendants No.1 and 2 executed and registered at defendant No.3 office, then the plaintiff lodged a complaint 4 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist

before P.S. Rajendra nagar on 12-05-2016 a FIR was registered in

Cr.No.448/2016 U/sec. 419, 420, 468, 447 R/w. 34 of IPC. The police have arrested the defendant No.1 and 2 and remanded to judicial custody.

Defendants No.1 and 2 without having right and interest over her property in order to grab her property they have created and fabricated sale deeds in respect of suit property with a dishonest intention to gain illegally and the photographs and ID proofs are created and fabricated on the alleged sale deeds and the registered sale deeds are non-est in the eye of law and the registered sale deeds are not binding and enforceable against the plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the alleged sale deeds created by defendants No.1 and 2 by impersonation and it is reflected in the encumbrance certificate and registration extracts. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, defendants No.1 and 2 taking advantage of the fradulent sale deeds, are trying to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Since the suit schedle properties are open plots defendants No.1 and 2 who has no manner of right and interest and trying to encroach the suit schedule property and dispossess the plaintiff without having any manner of right, title and interest. Plaintiff have constructed boundaries and errected two gates and also room and toilet in the first week of June, 2016, and defendants No.1 and 2 have created sale deeds doc.No. 2011 and 2012 of 2016 before the defendant No.3. The suit property is exclusively purchased by the plaintiff from its lawful 5 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist owner through registered sale deeds, in the absence of plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2 created, fabricated the sale deeds by impersonating in resepect of the suit schedule plots. Therefore, plaintiff prays to cancel the registered sale deeds in respect of suit schedule property by granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. Hence the plaint.

3. Memo filed on behalf of defendants No.2 adopting the written statement of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 filed written statement denied the allegations made in the complaint and contended that they have purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed doc.No. 2011/2016 and 2012/2016 on 25-02-2016 from its lawful owners

Anees Ahmad by throroughly enquirying by them and by their well wishers and at the time of registration they also obtained her voter ID card, photos, thumb impressions which were attested in the alleged sale deed. Plaintiff having full knowledge about the same, but she did not taken any steps against their vendor at the time of filing false complaint or in present suit and plaintiff is aware of the residential address of their vendor as such both are colluded with each other and taken huge amounts from them for the purchase of the said property. Defendants started constructing of compound wall, rooms. They also filed seperate suits for perpetual injunction against Ali Khaja and six others on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge, at Rajendra Nagar bearing with O.S.67/2016 6 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist and O.S.68/2016 also obtained interim injunction orders in I.A. 270/2016 and 272/2016 against Ali khaja Ahmad and six others and it is still pending. Plaint is created for the purpose of the present to get the mercy from the court. Plaintiff is not the owner and possessor of the suit plots

No.24 and 25 in part of Sy.No.39 and 40 and there is no any proof the suit property from whom she purchased not explained categorically by the plaintiff under GPA is not explained through entire allegations is false and baseless. With these main contentions suit be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. Upon pleadings of the both parties, the following issues were settled on 21-07-2022.

1. Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing doc.No. 2011/2016, 2012/2016 dt. 25-02-2016 as prayed for?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of suit schedule property as prayed for?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for exemplary costs?

5. To what relief?

5. On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff herself examined as Pw.1 and Ex.A.1 to A.15 were got marked on behalf of plaintiff's side. Ex.A1 is the

Regd.sale deed doct No. 1717/1995, dt.13-02-1995, Ex.A2 is the C.C. of

Regd.GPA doct.No.957/ 1994, dt.2 1-04-1994, Ex.A.3 is C.C. of Regd. Sale 7 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist deed doct. No. 192/ 1995, dt.05-01-1995, Ex.A.4 is C.C. of Regd. Sale deed doct No. 193/ 1995, dt.05-01-1995, Ex.A.5 is C.C. of Sale deed doct.No.2011/2016, dt.25-02-2016, Ex.A.6 is C.C. of Sale deed doct.No.2012/2016, dt.25-02-2016, Ex.A7 is C.C. of FIR No.448/2016, dt.12-05-2016, Ex.A8 is C.C. of Complaint dated 12-05-2016, Ex.A9 is

C.C. of Charge Sheet No. 1983/2022, dt.05-11-202 1, Ex.A10 is C.C.of 161 statement of the witness (no.4) along with panchnama, Ex.A 11 is the

Original medical reports of plaintiff's husband, Ex.A12 is Original Election

Voter ID Card, Ex.A13 is Original Americal passport issued at USA, dt.30- 04-2008, Ex.A14 is Market valuation certificate, Ex.A15 is Photos with

CD. No witnesses and no documents were marked on behalf of defendants side.

Issue No.1 and 2:6.

The facts under law involved in these two issues are inter linked, hence these issues are decided in one stretch. The claim of the Pw.1 that she is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule plots No.24 and 25 in respect of Sy.No.39 and 40admeasuring Ac.240 sq.yds each total admeasuring Ac.480 sq.yds and she purchased the same under registered sale deeds under Ex.A.3 and 4 certified copy of registered sale deeds from its original owners Anjamma and two others represented by his Subhash

Reddy under GPA document No. 957/1994 dt. 21-04-1994 under Ex.A.2.

Subsequently under Ex.A.1 and 2 she obtained single registered sale deed under Ex.A.1, for both suit schedule plots and Pw.1 has placed Ex.A.1 to 8 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist

A.4. She has proved that she is absolute lawful owner and possessor of the suit schedule plots by virtue of Ex.A.1 to A.4. Ever since the date of purchase of suit schedule property plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoymentof the same without any interruption. She further contended that her husband is suffering with ill health she used to reside in USA in the absence of the plaintiff in Hyderabad, defendants No.1 and 2 who have no manner of right and interest over the suit schedule property of

Pw.1, in the absence of plaintiff in Hyderabad, defendants No.1 and 2 with fradulent intention to knock away the suit schedule property and both have created and fabricated the documents by impersonating the plaintiff. In fact she never sold the same property to defendant under

Ex.A.5 certified copy of sale deed vide doc.No.2011/2016 and Ex.A.6 certified copy of sale deed vide doc.No. 2012/2016. Defendants themselves created, fabricated sale deed by showing that plaintiff herself executed sale deed in their favour. In fact she never sold the suit schedule property to defendants No.1 and 2 under Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 at any point of time, for which she came to know that the defendants created and fabricated the sale deeds, in pursuance of which she lodged complaint under Ex.A.8 certified copy of complaint dt. 12-05-2016 and document under Ex.A.7 certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.448/2016 dt. 12-05-2016 and the Ex.A.9 certified copy of charge sheet No. 1983/2022 dt. 05-11-2022. Defendants with malafide intention in order to grab the suit schedule property and created fictitious sale deeds in respect of suit schedule property with 9 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist dishonest intention to gain illegally and the alleged sale deeds created by the defendants No.1 and 2 by impersonation.

7. Plaintiff after purchase the property under Ex.A.1 to A.5 and she has constructed compound wall, and errected two gates and also a room and toilet in the first week of June 2015. Pw.1 relied upon Ex.A.1 to A.4.

She is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the suit property, there is no dispute with regard to title and possession of the suit property. Nodoubt she has proved under Ex.A1 to

A.4 she purchased the property since then, she is in lawful owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and defendants without manner of right and interest they fabricated and created sale deeds under Ex.A.5 and

A.6. At any point of time plaintiff never sold the suit schedule property to them, they themselves impersonated the plaintiff. Therefore, it is clear that certified copy of sale deed, Ex.A.5, Ex.A.6 are created and fabricated by the defendants and the sale deeds are void and not binding on the plaintiff and Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 are not valid in the eye of law and there is no sanctity in the eye of law. The alleged sale deed under Ex.A.5 and

Ex.A.6 are not executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants No.1 and 2 and though the defendants filed written statement and plea taken in the written statement and plaintiff herself executed these two schedule plots in favour of the plaintiff to that effect defendant did not appear

before the court and entered into witness box to disprove the contention

of the plaintiff that she herself executed sale deed in favour of them and 10 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist they never impersonated of the suit plot of the plaintiff under Ex.A.5 and

Ex.A.6 at any point of time and they never faced the trial before the court and participated in the proceedings, except filing written statement and no documents filed before the court on behalf of defendants that plaintiff herself executed suit schedule property into their names, to that effect they did not place any authenticated documentary proof except the plea taken in written statement. Thus it is clear that plaintiff established that she never executed in favour of the defendants No.1 and 2 at any point of time under Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 and in the absence of plaintiff, they themselves created and fabricated by impersonation of the plaintiff and plaintiff became the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property under Ex.A.1 to A.4 and Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 are not binding on the plaintiff and Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 are in valid documents and the Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 are no sanctity in the eye of law. Thus plaintiff are entitled for cancellation of documents under Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 as those documents are created and fabricated by the defendants. Therefore, they are deserves to be cancelled and these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.

Issue No.3:8.

As per the contention of the plaintiff Pw.1 and as per the Ex.A.1 to

A.4, she is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the same, ever since the date of purchase, she is in posession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by construction of 11 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist compound wall and errected gates and also constructed room and toilets over the suit schedule property and defendant who have no manner of right and interest over the suit schedule property and created and fabricated sale deed under Ex.A.5 and A.6 and those documents are liable to be cancelled and there is no validity in the eye of law. By virtue of all the documents, plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and defendant No.1 and 2 have no manner of right and unnecessarily they tried to interfere over the suit schedule property of plaintiff and plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and as on the date of filing of suit by the plaintiff, it is clearly established that she is in possession over the suit plots. By considering all the documentary evidence, plaintiff established her possession over the suit property and defendant did not place any documents they too also possession over the suit schedule property. Defendants No.1 and 2 are not having any right and title over the suit schedule property since Ex.A.5 and A.6 are liable to be cancelled. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances plaintiff is entitled for injunction against the defendants

No.1 and 2 restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Hence this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff against the defendants.

Issue N9. o .4:

The contention of the plaintiff that to pay exemplary costs of Rs.2 lakhs, since the court has awarded the costs of the suit, therefore, the 12 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist plaintiff is not entitled to exemplary costs. Accordingly this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

10. A careful volition of the facts in the foregoing discussion, this court is of considered opinion that plaintiff has proved that the suit schedule property belongs to her and she purchased from its lawful owner and eversince the date of purchase, she became lawful owner and defendants who have no manner of right they fabricated the sale deed over the plot of plaintiff by impersonation consequently plaintiff proved that Ex.A.5 and

Ex.A.6 under sale deeds are liable to be cancelled. Therefore, plaintiff are entitled for the relief sought against the defendants in the present suit.

Defendants did not adduce any evidence to show that the plaintiff herself executed the sale deeds in favour of the defendants and they never fabricated and created the sale deed of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff and more over they did not entered into witness box, hence this court opines that adverse inference drawn U/sec.114 of Indian Evidence

Act against the defendants.

11. Issue No.5:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, the sale deed doc.

No.2011/2016 and 2012/2016 dt.25-02-2016 before SRO, defendant No.3 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2, are liable to be cancelled in respect of plaint schedule property by granting perpetual injunction against the 13 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist defendants No.1 and 2 claiming through them from interfering and dispossession the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.

(Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 18th day of April, 2023).

VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge L.B. Nagar, at R.R. District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff : - For Defendant s :-

Pw.1 Smt. Anees Ahmad NIL

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1 is the Regd.sale deed doct No. 1717/1995, dt.13-02-1995 Ex.A.2 is the C.C. of Regd.GPA doct.No.957/ 1994, dt.2 1-04-1994 Ex.A.3 is C.C. of Regd.sale deed doct. No.192/1995, dt.05-01-1995 Ex.A.4 is C.C. of Regd.Sale deed doct No. 193/ 1995, dt.05-01-1995 Ex.A.5 is C.C. of Sale deed doct.No.2011/2016, dt.25-02-2016 Ex.A.6 is C.C. of Sale deed doct.No.2012/2016, dt.25-02-2016 Ex.A.7 is C.C. of FIR No.448/2016, dt.12-05-2016 Ex.A.8 is C.C. of Complaint dated 12-05-2016 Ex.A.9 is C.C. of Charge Sheet No. 1983/2022, dt.05-11-2021 Ex.A.10 is C.C. of 161 statement of the witness (no.4) along with panchnama Ex.A.11 is Original medical reports of plaintiff's husband Ex.A.12 is Original Election Voter ID Card Ex.A.13 is Original American passport issued at USA, dt.30-04-2008 Ex.A.14 is Market valuation certificate Ex.A.15 is Photos with CD

F or defendant s :- NIL

VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge L.B. Nagar, at R.R. District.

1 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT:Sri S. NARAYANA

VIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR.

Tuesday, this the 18th day of April, 2023

O.S.No.762 of 2016

Between: Smt. Anees Ahmad, W/o Mr. Ali Khwaja Ahmad, aged 54 years, Occ: Housewife, Presently staying at 8532, Minard Ave, Morton Grove, IL 60053, USA. Permanent R/o H.No.10-1-1190/1, A.C.Guard, Hyderabad -500 004, T.S.

... Plaintiff

A N D

1. Syed Yousufuddin, S/o Syed Anwaruddin, aged 45 years, Occ : Business, R/o H.No. 13-5-586/3/A, Yousuf nagar, Tappa chabutra, Hyderabad- 28.

2. Mohammed Shakeel, S/o Mohd. Hassanuddin, aged 41 years, Occ:Business, R/o.6-4-71/1, Bala nagar, R.R.District.

3. Joint Sub-Registrar, Kukatpally, R.R.District. (fomal party Def No.3)

.... Defendants

This suit is coming up for final hearing on 27-3-2023 before me in the presence of Sri Md. Shujauddin, Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri

Krishna Rao, counsel for defendant No.1 and 2 and Government Pleader, standing counsel for defendant No.3 and upon perusing the material papers on record and having heard for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:- 2 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist :: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for the relief of cancellation of the registered document No.2011/2016 and 2012/2016 dt.25-02-2016 and doc.No.2012/ 2016 dt.25-02-2016 at defendant NO.3 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of suit schedule property plot No.24 and 25 in parts of Sy.No.39 and 40 each admeasuring 240 sq.yds total admeasuring 480 sq.yds equvalent to 401.28 sq.mtrs situated at Upperpally village and for perpetual injunction against the defendants thereby restraining them from interfering with the suit schedule plot and for costs.

2. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint in brief stated as follows:

Plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the property plot NO.24 and 25 in Sy.No.39 and 40 admeasuring Ac.240 sq.yds each total 480 sq.yds situated at Upparpally village, Rajendranagar mandal, R.R.District under registered sale deed vide doc.No.1717/1995 dt. 13-02-1995 from its owners Anjamma and two others represented by S. Subhash Reddy under registered GPA doc.No. 957/1994 dt.21-04-1994. Initially plaitniff had purchased two plots under seperate sale deeds vide doc.No.192/1995 and 193/1995 dt.05-01-1995, the entire process of sale transactions were done by her husband. Since then plaintiff is owner in respect of suit schedule two plots and to have obtained single sale deed documents and since 3 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist then the date of purchase of the two plots under registered sale deed she is in posession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property having purchased the same under valid registered sale deed from its lawful owner without any interruption and she is staying in USA and she used to visit

Hyderabad and even then and recently plaintiff's husband is affected paralytic attack and also suffering from different ailments and bed ridden and she is continuously residing at USA and look after her husband as she being the primary care taker and she has left the Hyderabad on 21-08- 2015 and she has come down to Hyderabad on 05-05-2016 and she is completely staying at USA she never come down to Hyderabad during the said period. She came to know that in the month of April, 2016 defendants No.1 to 4 defendants with fraudulently to knockway the suit properties have created and fabricated documents by impersonating the plaintiff. The defendants No.1 and 2 created alleged documents bearing

No.2011/2016 and 2012/2016 dt. 25-2-2016 each 240 sq.yds impersonating by the defendants. Soonafter plaintiff came to know that she lodged complaint through the Indian Consulate, Chicago on 07-04- 2016 and the same was forwarded by the counsel HOC, Chicago on 11- 04-2016 to the Commissioner of police, State Government of Telangana, with a request dt. 07-04-2016. While the matter is under investigation, plaintiff herself came to Hyderabad on 05-05-2016 got enquired the fradulent sale deeds created by defendants No.1 and 2 executed and registered at defendant No.3 office, then the plaintiff lodged a complaint 4 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist

before P.S. Rajendra nagar on 12-05-2016 a FIR was registered in

Cr.No.448/2016 U/sec. 419, 420, 468, 447 R/w. 34 of IPC. The police have arrested the defendant No.1 and 2 and remanded to judicial custody.

Defendants No.1 and 2 without having right and interest over her property in order to grab her property they have created and fabricated sale deeds in respect of suit property with a dishonest intention to gain illegally and the photographs and ID proofs are created and fabricated on the alleged sale deeds and the registered sale deeds are non-est in the eye of law and the registered sale deeds are not binding and enforceable against the plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the alleged sale deeds created by defendants No.1 and 2 by impersonation and it is reflected in the encumbrance certificate and registration extracts. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, defendants No.1 and 2 taking advantage of the fradulent sale deeds, are trying to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Since the suit schedle properties are open plots defendants No.1 and 2 who has no manner of right and interest and trying to encroach the suit schedule property and dispossess the plaintiff without having any manner of right, title and interest. Plaintiff have constructed boundaries and errected two gates and also room and toilet in the first week of June, 2016, and defendants No.1 and 2 have created sale deeds doc.No. 2011 and 2012 of 2016 before the defendant No.3. The suit property is exclusively purchased by the plaintiff from its lawful 5 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist owner through registered sale deeds, in the absence of plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2 created, fabricated the sale deeds by impersonating in resepect of the suit schedule plots. Therefore, plaintiff prays to cancel the registered sale deeds in respect of suit schedule property by granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. Hence the plaint.

3. Memo filed on behalf of defendants No.2 adopting the written statement of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 filed written statement denied the allegations made in the complaint and contended that they have purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed doc.No. 2011/2016 and 2012/2016 on 25-02-2016 from its lawful owners

Anees Ahmad by throroughly enquirying by them and by their well wishers and at the time of registration they also obtained her voter ID card, photos, thumb impressions which were attested in the alleged sale deed. Plaintiff having full knowledge about the same, but she did not taken any steps against their vendor at the time of filing false complaint or in present suit and plaintiff is aware of the residential address of their vendor as such both are colluded with each other and taken huge amounts from them for the purchase of the said property. Defendants started constructing of compound wall, rooms. They also filed seperate suits for perpetual injunction against Ali Khaja and six others on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge, at Rajendra Nagar bearing with O.S.67/2016 6 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist and O.S.68/2016 also obtained interim injunction orders in I.A. 270/2016 and 272/2016 against Ali khaja Ahmad and six others and it is still pending. Plaint is created for the purpose of the present to get the mercy from the court. Plaintiff is not the owner and possessor of the suit plots

No.24 and 25 in part of Sy.No.39 and 40 and there is no any proof the suit property from whom she purchased not explained categorically by the plaintiff under GPA is not explained through entire allegations is false and baseless. With these main contentions suit be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. Upon pleadings of the both parties, the following issues were settled on 21-07-2022.

1. Whether the plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing doc.No. 2011/2016, 2012/2016 dt. 25-02-2016 as prayed for?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of suit schedule property as prayed for?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for exemplary costs?

5. To what relief?

5. On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff herself examined as Pw.1 and Ex.A.1 to A.15 were got marked on behalf of plaintiff's side. Ex.A1 is the

Regd.sale deed doct No. 1717/1995, dt.13-02-1995, Ex.A2 is the C.C. of

Regd.GPA doct.No.957/ 1994, dt.2 1-04-1994, Ex.A.3 is C.C. of Regd. Sale 7 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist deed doct. No. 192/ 1995, dt.05-01-1995, Ex.A.4 is C.C. of Regd. Sale deed doct No. 193/ 1995, dt.05-01-1995, Ex.A.5 is C.C. of Sale deed doct.No.2011/2016, dt.25-02-2016, Ex.A.6 is C.C. of Sale deed doct.No.2012/2016, dt.25-02-2016, Ex.A7 is C.C. of FIR No.448/2016, dt.12-05-2016, Ex.A8 is C.C. of Complaint dated 12-05-2016, Ex.A9 is

C.C. of Charge Sheet No. 1983/2022, dt.05-11-202 1, Ex.A10 is C.C.of 161 statement of the witness (no.4) along with panchnama, Ex.A 11 is the

Original medical reports of plaintiff's husband, Ex.A12 is Original Election

Voter ID Card, Ex.A13 is Original Americal passport issued at USA, dt.30- 04-2008, Ex.A14 is Market valuation certificate, Ex.A15 is Photos with

CD. No witnesses and no documents were marked on behalf of defendants side.

Issue No.1 and 2:6.

The facts under law involved in these two issues are inter linked, hence these issues are decided in one stretch. The claim of the Pw.1 that she is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule plots No.24 and 25 in respect of Sy.No.39 and 40admeasuring Ac.240 sq.yds each total admeasuring Ac.480 sq.yds and she purchased the same under registered sale deeds under Ex.A.3 and 4 certified copy of registered sale deeds from its original owners Anjamma and two others represented by his Subhash

Reddy under GPA document No. 957/1994 dt. 21-04-1994 under Ex.A.2.

Subsequently under Ex.A.1 and 2 she obtained single registered sale deed under Ex.A.1, for both suit schedule plots and Pw.1 has placed Ex.A.1 to 8 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist

A.4. She has proved that she is absolute lawful owner and possessor of the suit schedule plots by virtue of Ex.A.1 to A.4. Ever since the date of purchase of suit schedule property plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoymentof the same without any interruption. She further contended that her husband is suffering with ill health she used to reside in USA in the absence of the plaintiff in Hyderabad, defendants No.1 and 2 who have no manner of right and interest over the suit schedule property of

Pw.1, in the absence of plaintiff in Hyderabad, defendants No.1 and 2 with fradulent intention to knock away the suit schedule property and both have created and fabricated the documents by impersonating the plaintiff. In fact she never sold the same property to defendant under

Ex.A.5 certified copy of sale deed vide doc.No.2011/2016 and Ex.A.6 certified copy of sale deed vide doc.No. 2012/2016. Defendants themselves created, fabricated sale deed by showing that plaintiff herself executed sale deed in their favour. In fact she never sold the suit schedule property to defendants No.1 and 2 under Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 at any point of time, for which she came to know that the defendants created and fabricated the sale deeds, in pursuance of which she lodged complaint under Ex.A.8 certified copy of complaint dt. 12-05-2016 and document under Ex.A.7 certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.448/2016 dt. 12-05-2016 and the Ex.A.9 certified copy of charge sheet No. 1983/2022 dt. 05-11-2022. Defendants with malafide intention in order to grab the suit schedule property and created fictitious sale deeds in respect of suit schedule property with 9 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist dishonest intention to gain illegally and the alleged sale deeds created by the defendants No.1 and 2 by impersonation.

7. Plaintiff after purchase the property under Ex.A.1 to A.5 and she has constructed compound wall, and errected two gates and also a room and toilet in the first week of June 2015. Pw.1 relied upon Ex.A.1 to A.4.

She is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the suit property, there is no dispute with regard to title and possession of the suit property. Nodoubt she has proved under Ex.A1 to

A.4 she purchased the property since then, she is in lawful owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and defendants without manner of right and interest they fabricated and created sale deeds under Ex.A.5 and

A.6. At any point of time plaintiff never sold the suit schedule property to them, they themselves impersonated the plaintiff. Therefore, it is clear that certified copy of sale deed, Ex.A.5, Ex.A.6 are created and fabricated by the defendants and the sale deeds are void and not binding on the plaintiff and Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 are not valid in the eye of law and there is no sanctity in the eye of law. The alleged sale deed under Ex.A.5 and

Ex.A.6 are not executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants No.1 and 2 and though the defendants filed written statement and plea taken in the written statement and plaintiff herself executed these two schedule plots in favour of the plaintiff to that effect defendant did not appear

before the court and entered into witness box to disprove the contention

of the plaintiff that she herself executed sale deed in favour of them and 10 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist they never impersonated of the suit plot of the plaintiff under Ex.A.5 and

Ex.A.6 at any point of time and they never faced the trial before the court and participated in the proceedings, except filing written statement and no documents filed before the court on behalf of defendants that plaintiff herself executed suit schedule property into their names, to that effect they did not place any authenticated documentary proof except the plea taken in written statement. Thus it is clear that plaintiff established that she never executed in favour of the defendants No.1 and 2 at any point of time under Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 and in the absence of plaintiff, they themselves created and fabricated by impersonation of the plaintiff and plaintiff became the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property under Ex.A.1 to A.4 and Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 are not binding on the plaintiff and Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 are in valid documents and the Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 are no sanctity in the eye of law. Thus plaintiff are entitled for cancellation of documents under Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.6 as those documents are created and fabricated by the defendants. Therefore, they are deserves to be cancelled and these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.

Issue No.3:8.

As per the contention of the plaintiff Pw.1 and as per the Ex.A.1 to

A.4, she is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased the same, ever since the date of purchase, she is in posession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by construction of 11 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist compound wall and errected gates and also constructed room and toilets over the suit schedule property and defendant who have no manner of right and interest over the suit schedule property and created and fabricated sale deed under Ex.A.5 and A.6 and those documents are liable to be cancelled and there is no validity in the eye of law. By virtue of all the documents, plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and defendant No.1 and 2 have no manner of right and unnecessarily they tried to interfere over the suit schedule property of plaintiff and plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and as on the date of filing of suit by the plaintiff, it is clearly established that she is in possession over the suit plots. By considering all the documentary evidence, plaintiff established her possession over the suit property and defendant did not place any documents they too also possession over the suit schedule property. Defendants No.1 and 2 are not having any right and title over the suit schedule property since Ex.A.5 and A.6 are liable to be cancelled. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances plaintiff is entitled for injunction against the defendants

No.1 and 2 restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Hence this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff against the defendants.

Issue N9. o .4:

The contention of the plaintiff that to pay exemplary costs of Rs.2 lakhs, since the court has awarded the costs of the suit, therefore, the 12 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist plaintiff is not entitled to exemplary costs. Accordingly this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

10. A careful volition of the facts in the foregoing discussion, this court is of considered opinion that plaintiff has proved that the suit schedule property belongs to her and she purchased from its lawful owner and eversince the date of purchase, she became lawful owner and defendants who have no manner of right they fabricated the sale deed over the plot of plaintiff by impersonation consequently plaintiff proved that Ex.A.5 and

Ex.A.6 under sale deeds are liable to be cancelled. Therefore, plaintiff are entitled for the relief sought against the defendants in the present suit.

Defendants did not adduce any evidence to show that the plaintiff herself executed the sale deeds in favour of the defendants and they never fabricated and created the sale deed of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff and more over they did not entered into witness box, hence this court opines that adverse inference drawn U/sec.114 of Indian Evidence

Act against the defendants.

11. Issue No.5:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, the sale deed doc.

No.2011/2016 and 2012/2016 dt.25-02-2016 before SRO, defendant No.3 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2, are liable to be cancelled in respect of plaint schedule property by granting perpetual injunction against the 13 of 13 Judgment in O.S.762 of 2016 on the file of VIII ADJ Court, R.R.Dist defendants No.1 and 2 claiming through them from interfering and dispossession the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.

(Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 18th day of April, 2023).

VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge L.B. Nagar, at R.R. District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff : - For Defendant s :-

Pw.1 Smt. Anees Ahmad NIL

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1 is the Regd.sale deed doct No. 1717/1995, dt.13-02-1995 Ex.A.2 is the C.C. of Regd.GPA doct.No.957/ 1994, dt.2 1-04-1994 Ex.A.3 is C.C. of Regd.sale deed doct. No.192/1995, dt.05-01-1995 Ex.A.4 is C.C. of Regd.Sale deed doct No. 193/ 1995, dt.05-01-1995 Ex.A.5 is C.C. of Sale deed doct.No.2011/2016, dt.25-02-2016 Ex.A.6 is C.C. of Sale deed doct.No.2012/2016, dt.25-02-2016 Ex.A.7 is C.C. of FIR No.448/2016, dt.12-05-2016 Ex.A.8 is C.C. of Complaint dated 12-05-2016 Ex.A.9 is C.C. of Charge Sheet No. 1983/2022, dt.05-11-2021 Ex.A.10 is C.C. of 161 statement of the witness (no.4) along with panchnama Ex.A.11 is Original medical reports of plaintiff's husband Ex.A.12 is Original Election Voter ID Card Ex.A.13 is Original American passport issued at USA, dt.30-04-2008 Ex.A.14 is Market valuation certificate Ex.A.15 is Photos with CD

F or defendant s :- NIL

VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge L.B. Nagar, at R.R. District.

In the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge,

RangaReddy District at L.B.Nagar at RangaReddy

PRESENT: Sugali Narayana, I/C of V Addl. Dist. Judge Ranga Reddy Dist, at L.B.Nagar.

Date: 27.03.2023

OP:65/2022

VURRE SURENDHAR S/O VURRE MALLAPPA Address - N/o.Hno 9-140 Sanjay Gandhi Nagar,Shapur Nagar,Quthbullahpur,Medchal Dist present R/o.Hno 8-95/1 Kranthi Nagar,Saroor Nagar,RR Dist Advocate- G.RATHNAM REDDY

VERSUS

1) CHAKALI NARESH S/O CHAKALI NARSIMULU Address - R/o.Hno 2-31/5/3 Tara Nagar,Serilingampally,Shivaji NGR Lingampally,RR Dist 500019

2) CHAKALI PRASHANTH S/O CHAKALI RAMULU R/o.D.No 2-11 Tirumalapur Village,Kulkacharla Mandal,Tirumalapur,Vikarabad Dist 509335

3) GO DIGIT GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD REP BY BRANCH

MANAGER

White House Block 3,Teachers Colony,Kundanbagh Colony,Hyderabad 500016

ORDER

Joint memo filed the counsel for Petitioner and R3. The matter is settled out of court. Hence, this matter is refer to Lok Adalath for settlement. Before Lok

Adalat The Petitioner/injured is present in person. The counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.3 are present. Both parties have filed compromise petition. As per the terms of compromise, the respondent No.3 agreed to pay a sum of

Rs.3,75,000 Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only towards compensation which is accepted by the petitioner. The term therein have been read over and explained to the parties who admitted the same to be true and correct and recorded. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire amount.

Award is passed accordingly. The Respondent No.3/Insurance Company agreed to deposit the entire compensation amount within one month from the date of award. In case the insurance company fails to do so, the compensation amount carries interest at 12 per anum from the date of realization of Award.

sd/-

V Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaReddy District at L.B.Nagar

In the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge,

RangaReddy District at L.B.Nagar at RangaReddy

PRESENT: Sugali Narayana, I/C of V Addl. Dist. Judge Ranga Reddy Dist, at L B nagar.

EP/2654/2019

Date: 23.03.2023

1) SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LTD REP BY GPA HOLDER M.SRINIVAS RAO S/O SATYANARAYANA Address - Admin office at 3-6-478,3rd floor,Anand Estate,Liberty Road,opp Indian Bank,Himayath nagar Branch office at Dilsukhnagar,Hyderaba,d Advocate- M.PRABHAKAR

VERSUS ) P.VIJENDER REDDY S/O JALENDER REDDY Address - R/o.Hno 4-2-1008,Ramkoti,Sulthan Bazar,Hyderabad

2) P.VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY S/O JAILENDER REDDY R/o.Hno 4-2-1008,Ramkoti,Sulthan Bazar,Hyderabad

ORDER

EA /2023 filed and allowed. EP is advanced from 25.04.2023 to today. Memo filed for not pressing the EP. Hence, EP is dismissed as not pressed.

sd/-

V Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaReddy District at L.B.Nagar