Smt.Sunitha Ravinder Reddy

OS.No.125/2020

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR

Present : G. Sunitha Ravindra Reddy, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar

THURSDAY, THE 10 th DAY OF JUNE, 2021

OS. No. 125 OF 2020

Between :

1. K.S. Engineering Company, a Partnership Firm, represented by its Managing Partner D. Satyanarayana, having its registered office at 4-6-135, Pan Bazar, Secunderabad.

2. D. Satyanarayana, S/o. Late D. Veeraiah, Aged about 73 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.10-3-32-9/57, East Marredpally, Secunderabad.

3. Aravind V. Rana, S/o. Late Vitthaldas Rana, Aged: 74 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.4, LIC Colony, Sikh Village, Secunderabad.

4. Mrs. Shilpa Anand Rana, Daughter-in-law of Aravind V. Rana, Aged about 42 years, Occupation: Business, R/o. Plot No.4, LIC Colony, Sikh Village, Secunderabad.

5. Mrs. Kasturi Bai, W/o. D. Satyanarayana, Aged about 72 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.10-3-32/9/57, East Marredpally, Secunderabad.

...Plaintiffs

AND

1. M/s. Richmond Vivek Laboratories Private Limited, Rep. by its Director D. Raghuraman ‘Raghu’ having office at D Block, VII Floor, Queen’s Plaza, 100, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500003, tenant in premises consisting of ground and first floor on Plot No.43, Industrial Development Area (IDA), Mallapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri

2. D. Raghuraman, S/o. T. Dandapani, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Director of M/s. Richmond Vivek Laboratories Private Limited in premises consisting of Ground and first floor on Plot No.43, Industrial Development Area (IDA), Mallapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, formerly Ranga Reddy District -500076.

OS.No.125/2020

2

3. D. Ravi, S/o. Not known to plaintiffs, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Director of M/s. Richmond Vivek Laboratories Private Limited in premises consisting of Ground and First Floor on Plot No.43, Industrial Development Area (IDA), Mallapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, formerly Ranga Reddy District -500076.

.. Defendants

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 02.03.2020 in the presence of M/s. Shaik Iqbal Pasha, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for Ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, future mesne profits and costs.

2.It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.2 is the managing partner and plaintiff No.3 is another partner in the said plaintiff No.1 firm. The plaintiff Nos.4 and 5 are the family members of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. The plaintiff No.1 namely M/s. K.S.

Engineering Company is the absolute owner of all that property consisting of ground and first floor, admeasuring 3000 Sq. feet + 2500 Sq. Feet respectively, totaling to 5500

Sq. feet, on portion of land admeasuring 560 Sq. yards on total land admeasuring 2823.75 Sq. yards in Plot No.43, Industrial Development Area (IDA), Mallapur,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District, (formerly R.R.District), hereinafter referred as the ‘Schedule premises’ having purchased by virtue of a registered Sale Deed bearing document

No.2142/1994, dt. 25-03-1994 of the office of Sub-Registrar Uppal, R.R.District. By virtue of an unregistered Rental Agreement dt. 23-01-2007 executed by plaintiff Nos.4 and 5 in favour of first defendant, represented by second defendant, the ground floor of the schedule premises was let out to defendants for a period of two years with 10% enhancement of rent for every year. By virtue of yet another unregistered Rental

Agreement dt. 16-08-2010, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 being the partners of plaintiff No.1 firm, had let out the 1st floor of the schedule premises to the defendants for a period of five years with 8.5% enhancement of rent for every year. Thus by virtue of two unregistered

OS.No.125/2020

3

Rental Agreements as referred above, executed by the plaintiffs, the defendants have continuing in the possession as tenants of plaintiffs in entire schedule premises consisting of ground and first floor, admeasuring 3000 Sq. feet + 2500 Sq. feet respectively, totaling to 5500 Sq. feet, on portion of land admeasuring 560 Sq. yards our of total land admeasuring 2823.75 Sq. yards, on Plot No.43, Industrial Development

Area (IDA), Mallapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, (formerly R.R.District). The total monthly rent in respect of the schedule premises lastly paid by the defendants to plaintiffs in September, 2015 was Rs. 61,876/-. From the inception of the tenancy as per mutual understanding the defendants used to pay the monthly rents to the plaintiffs, directly on their name through account payee cheques or online transfer etc.,

Last monthly rent, which the defendants had paid to the plaintiffs in respect of the schedule premises was on 28-12-2015 for the month of September 2015. On 28-12- 2015, the defendants had paid total rent of Rs.61,876/- to the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 directly. Thereafter from October, 2015 the defendants had been deliberately and intentionally withheld the payment of monthly rents to the plaintiffs and dodging the matter on one pretext or the other, on the ground that the defendants were suffering from business loss and could not arrange funds on time for payment of monthly rents, and orally assured the plaintiffs that they would pay all the outstanding arrears of rents, as early as possible and will continue to pay the monthly rents in respect of schedule premises without any default. They have bonafidely believed the oral assurance and promise of the defendants and requested for prompt payment of monthly rents. Since

October, 2015 the defendants have been dodging the matter of payment of rents, cleverly putting the plaintiffs in a false impression that they would pay the monthly rents at the earliest. Inspite of repeated requests made by the plaintiffs on number of times, there has been no change in defendants approach and they continued their mischievous acts of dodging the matter by misguiding the plaintiffs with oral promises.

Off late, the defendants have started evading the plaintiffs when the plaintiffs, are strictly demanding the defendants for payment of monthly rents in respect of the

OS.No.125/2020

4 schedule premises. Two rental agreements referred above are admittedly unregistered and as such the tenancy of the defendants in the schedule premises is month to month, commencing from 1st day of every English calendar month and end by last day of the same English calendar month, terminable by 15 days advance notice. The defendants are due payable monthly rents to the plaintiffs along with agreed enhancement.

Besides the arrears of rent Rs.39,76,152/- the defendants are also liable to pay electricity dues of Rs.5000/- commencing from October 2017 to November 2019. The defendants have no right and authority to continue in possession of the schedule premises without paying rents to plaintiffs. The said schedule premises would fetch more than Rs.1,30,000/- per month if it is let out today to third parties. In view of defendants nonchalant attitude and default of payment of monthly rents and other charges as referred above etc., and also in exercise of the right of the plaintiffs to determine the tenancy of the defendants. The plaintiffs have issued a notice through their Advocate dt. 06-12-2019, determining the tenancy of the defendants by 31-10- 2020 and gave the defendants more than 30 days time coinciding with the end of the tenancy month to vacate the schedule premises and handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiffs and also pay the arrears of rents of

Rs.39,76,152/- along with Electricity dues of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiffs. The said notices dt.16-12-2019 was sent through registered post acknowledgement due, however, the defendants with a malafide intention evaded to receive the quit notice by managing the postal personnel. The said quit notices was also sent to the defendants herein at their residential address, which is also unclaimed by the defendants. The defendants have willfully withheld the payment of monthly rents from October, 2015 onwards, till November 2019, amounting to Rs.39,76,152/- which is due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs. Inspite of quit notice dt.06-12-2019, the defendants deliberately and intentionally had not vacated the suit schedule property and had not paid the arrears of rent, thereby causing unnecessary mental agony and untold hardship to the plaintiffs. The suit schedule property is centrally located in the hub of

OS.No.125/2020

5 the commercial locality and would fetch more than Rs.1,30,000/- per month if it is let out today. The defendants after having the knowledge of the quit notice, have no right or authority to withhold the possession of the suit schedule property under their control and as such the defendants is liable for payment of mesne profits at Rs.1,30,000/- per month from February, 2020 to till the delivery of possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. Though the defendants due a payment of arrears of monthly rents from October 2015 to till date, however, the plaintiff as per law cannot seek recovery of arrears of rent beyond three years period, as such the plaintiffs constrained to seek recovery of arrears of rent from January 2017, which is within the period of limitation of 3 years. Thus, the defendants therefore liable to pay the arrears of rent

Rs.29,73,768/- for the last three years i.e, from January 2017. Since the defendants unlawfully withholding the possession of the suit schedule property and not paying the admitted monthly rents and as such the plaintiffs have no other option except to file the present suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property and for recovery of arrears of mesne profits. Hence constrained to file the present suit.

3. On receipt of summons, the defendant remained exparte.

4. During the course of trial, the plaintiff No.3 got examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-8 documents and plaintiff No.2 is examined as PW2.

5. Heard learned Counsel for plaintiff.

6. Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and future mesne profits from the defendants as prayed for?

POINT:- The plaintiff filed this suit for eviction, recovery of possession, arrears of rent and future mesne profits In order to grant such a relief, the plaintiff should be clear that he is the lawful owner of suit schedule property and there is a jural relationship of land lord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant. It may be

OS.No.125/2020

6 appreciated by looking into the entire suit record for better adjudication of the case. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.2 is the managing partner and plaintiff

No.3 is another partner in the said plaintiff No.1 firm. Plaintiff Nos.4 and 5 are the family members of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. Plaintiff No.1 namely M/s. K.S. Engineering

Company is the absolute owner of all that property consisting of ground and first floor, admeasuring 3000 Sq. feet + 2500 Sq. Feet respectively, totaling to 5500 Sq. feet, on portion of land admeasuring 560 Sq. yards on total land admeasuring 2823.75 Sq.

yards in Plot No.43, Industrial Development Area (IDA), Mallapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri

District, (formerly R.R.District), which is hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the ‘Schedule premises’ and more particularly described in the schedule annexed to this plaint by virtue of a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.2142/1994, dt. 25- 03-1994 of the office of Sub-Registrar Uppal, R.R.District. By virtue of an unregistered

Rental Agreement dt. 23-01-2007 executed by plaintiff Nos.4 and 5 in favour of first defendant, represented by second defendant, the ground floor of the schedule premises was let out to defendants for a period of two years with 10% enhancement of rent for every year. By virtue of yet another unregistered Rental Agreement dt. 16-08- 2010, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 being the partners of plaintiff No.1 firm, had let out the 1st floor of the schedule premises to the defendants for a period of five years with 8.5% enhancement of rent for every year. Thus by virtue of two unregistered Rental

Agreements as referred above, executed by the plaintiffs, the defendants have continuing in the possession as tenants of plaintiffs in entire schedule premises consisting of ground and first floor, admeasuring 3000 Sq. feet + 2500 Sq. feet respectively, totaling to 5500 Sq. feet, on portion of land admeasuring 560 Sq. yards our of total land admeasuring 2823.75 Sq. yards, on Plot No.43, Industrial Development

Area (IDA), Mallapur, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, (formerly R.R.District). The total monthly rent in respect of the schedule premises lastly paid by the defendants to plaintiffs in September, 2015 was Rs. 61,876/-. From the inception of the tenancy as per mutual understanding the defendants use to pay the monthly rents to the plaintiffs,

OS.No.125/2020

7 directly on their name through account payee cheques or online transfer etc., Last monthly rent, which the defendants had paid to the plaintiffs in respect of the schedule premises was on 28-12-2015 for the month of September 2015. On 28-12-2015, the defendants had paid total rent of Rs.61,876/- to the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 directly.

Thereafter from October, 2015 the defendants had been deliberately and intentionally withheld the payment of monthly rents to the plaintiffs and dodging the matter on one pretext or the other, on the ground that the defendants were suffering from business loss and could not arrange funds on time for payment of monthly rents, and orally assured the plaintiffs that they would pay all the outstanding arrears of rents, as early as possible and will continue to pay the monthly rents in respect of schedule premises without any default. They have bonafidely believed the oral assurance and promise of the defendants and requested for prompt payment of monthly rents. Since October, 2015 the defendants have been dodging the matter of payment of rents, cleverly putting the plaintiffs in a false impression that they would pay the monthly rents at the earliest. Inspite of repeated requests made by the plaintiffs on number of times, there has been no change in defendants approach and they continued their mischievous acts of dodging the matter by misguiding the plaintiffs with oral promises. Off late, the defendants have started evading the plaintiffs when the plaintiffs, are strictly demanding the defendants for payment of monthly rents in respect of the schedule premises. Two rental agreements referred above are admittedly unregistered and as such the tenancy of the defendants in the schedule premises is month to month, commencing from 1st day of every English calendar month and end by last day of the same English calendar month, terminable by 15 days advance notice. The defendants are due payable monthly rents to the plaintiffs along with agreed enhancement. Besides the arrears of rent Rs.39,76,152/- the defendants are also liable to pay electricity dues of Rs.5000/- commencing from October 2017 to November 2019. The defendants have no right and authority to continue in possession of the schedule premises without paying rents to plaintiffs. The said schedule premises would fetch more than Rs.1,30,000/- per month

OS.No.125/2020

8 if it is let out today to third parties. In view of defendants nonchalant attitude and default of payment of monthly rents and other chargers as referred above etc., and also in exercise of the right of the plaintiffs to determine the tenancy of the defendants, the plaintiffs have issued a notice through their Advocate dt. 06-12-2019, determining the tenancy of the defendants by 31-10-2020 and gave the defendants more than 30 days time coinciding with the end of the tenancy month to vacate the schedule premises and handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiffs and also pay the arrears of rents of Rs.39,76,152/- along with Electricity dues of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiffs. The said notices dt.16-12-2019 was sent through registered post acknowledgement due, however, the defendants with a malafide intention evaded to receive the quit notice by managing the postal personnel. The said quit notices was also sent to the defendants herein at their residential address, which is also unclaimed by the defendants. The defendants have willfully withheld the payment of monthly rents from October, 2015 onwards, till November 2019, amounts to Rs.39,76,152/- which is due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs. Inspite of quit notice dt.06-12- 2019, the defendants deliberately and intentionally had not vacated the suit schedule property and had not paid the arrears of rent, thereby causing unnecessary mental agony and untold hardship to the plaintiffs. The suit schedule property is centrally located in the hub of the commercial locality and would fetch more than Rs.1,30,000/- per month if it is let out today. The defendants after having the knowledge of the quit notice, have no right or authority to withhold the possession of the suit schedule property under their control and as such the defendants is liable for payment of mesne profits at Rs.1,30,000/- per month from February, 2020 to till the delivery of possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. Though the defendants due a payment of arrears of monthly rents from October 2015 to till date, however, the plaintiff as per law cannot seek recovery of arrears of rent beyond three years period, as such the plaintiffs constrained to seek recovery of arrears of rent from January 2017, which is within the period of limitation of 3 years. Thus, the defendants therefore liable to pay the arrears

OS.No.125/2020

9 of rent Rs.29,73,768/- for the last three years i.e, from January 2017. Since the defendants unlawfully withholding the possession of the suit schedule property and not paying the admitted monthly rents and as such the plaintiffs have no other option except to file the present suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property and for recovery of arrears of mesne profits. Hence constrained to file the present suit. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiffs placed reliance on oral testimony of PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-8 documents. Ex.A-1: is the C.C of partnership deed of plaintiffs, dt. 30-11-1983, Ex.A2: is the C.C of sale deed bearing document No.2142/1994, dt. 25-03-1994, Ex.A3: Office copy of Quit Notice addressed by counsel for plaintiff to the defendants, dt. 06-12-2019, Ex.A4 is the Original Postal

Receipts (4 Nos.) dt. 06-12-2019, Ex.A5 is the Original Return Postal Cover, dt. 07-12- 2019, Ex.A6 is the Original Return Postal Cover, dt. 09-12-2019, Ex.A7 is the Original

Return Postal Cover, dt. 09-12-2019, Ex.A8 is the Original Return Postal Cover, dt. 07- 12-2019.

7. From the evidence present on record it is to be seen whether there is any substance in the claim made by the plaintiff for grant of relief claimed in the suit. As per the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff got issued Ex.A3 Quit notice to the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property and handover the same to the plaintiffs and pay the arrears of rent, but as per Ex.A5 to A8 the said notice has been returned as unclaimed.

8. Be that as it may, in order to rebut the case of the plaintiff, the defendants failed to contest the suit for the reasons best known. If at all the rights of the defendants are infringed, the defendants ought to have taken steps to made appearance and contest the suit but no such endeavor made. The plaintiffs cannot be suffered due to acts of the defendants and they cannot squat upon the property without payment of rents and deprive the plaintiffs to enjoy the fruits of the decree since it is the ultimate relief expected by the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment. So, unless the contrary is proved, the

OS.No.125/2020

10 plaintiff cannot be non-suited. With regard to eviction and recovery of possession from the defendants this court is inclined to grant the said relief. The rest of the claim for arrears of rents and mesne profits, a separate enquiry is required and the plaintiff is at liberty to file separate petition for such entitlement. Thus this point is answered partly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

9. In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs directing the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property within 2 months and handover vacant physical possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff. With regard to arrears of rent,

Electricity dues and mesne profits the suit is dismissed. However the plaintiff is at liberty to file separate petition for entitlement of the same.

(Typed to my dictation by stenographer directly on the system, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 10th day of June, 2021.)

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR defendants

PW1- Aravind V. Rana- NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A-1: is the C.C of partnership deed of plaintiffs, dt. 30-11-1983, Ex.A2: is the C.C of sale deed bearing document No.2142/1994, dt. 25-03-1994, Ex.A3: Office copy of Quit Notice addressed by counsel for plaintiff to the defendants,

dt. 06-12-2019,

Ex.A4 is the Original Postal Receipts (4 Nos.) dt. 06-12-2019, Ex.A5 is the Original Return Postal Cover, dt. 07-12-2019, Ex.A6 is the Original Return Postal Cover, dt. 09-12-2019, Ex.A7 is the Original Return Postal Cover, dt. 09-12-2019, Ex.A8 is the Original Return Postal Cover, dt. 07-12-2019. FOR defendant -NIL-

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR

Present : G. Sunitha Ravindra Reddy, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar

WEDNESDAY, THE 2 nd DAY OF JUNE, 2021

O.S. NO. 725 OF 2020

M.Ravi Kumar, S/o Late Yadaiah, Aged 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.9-11, Opp: Alind, Gopi Nagar, Sherilingampally, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

A N D

M/s Sridevi Women’s Hostel, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr.Vardheneedi Srinivas, S/o Manikyala Rao, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Hostel Business, R/o H.No.1/98/89/4, Sai Nagar, Back side Durga Temple, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081.

...Defendant

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me today in the presence of Sri. M. Penta Reddy Counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri. P. Bosu Babu counsel for Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for eviction, recovery of possession, arrears of rents.

2.It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of suit property consisting of ground + four upper floors building in 140 Sq.yads at H.No.1-98- 89/4, Sainagar, Madhapur, R.R.District. He purchased suit property under

Regd.AGPA dt. 05-7-2008 bearing document No.5140/2008 from its earlier owner P. Srinivas and other for valid consideration and inducted into vacant physical possession. After purchasing the suit property with an intention to 2 establish hostel in the suit property had altered the building to start hostel business by investing huge amount. The defendant had approached him and offered better rent for running hostel business in the suit property. He accepted the offer of the defendant and entered into oral rental agreement. As per the said agreement, the defendant agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.80,000/- till the year 2010 and thereafter the defendant has to enhance the rent @ 5% on existing rent on every calender year. The defendant has regularly paid agreed monthly rent to him till February 2020 as per his convenience by paying two or three installments per month some times by way of cash and sometimes by way of depositing amount in his account. In the month of March 2020 the defendant had approached him and requested that due to Covid-19 the business was not running properly as such he will pay the rent after two or three months for which plaintiff had considered his request. In the year 2018 the plaintiff being the

Regd.AGPA Holder of suit property obtained regular Regd. Sale Deed dated 14- 11-2018 bearing document No.18863/2018 in his name and obtained Mortgage

Loan from Eenadu Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd by depositing the title documents of suit property and paying monthly installments to the said loan amount by receiving rental amounts from the defendant. The plaintiff has regularly requested the defendant to pay the monthly rent as the bank officials insisting him for payment of EMI. But the defendant failed to pay the rent as per his promise and actively filed a false suit against him and one of his vendor by name P.Srinivas before the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally vide OS.

No.334/2020 by pleading false allegations and by mentioning wrong address of plaintiff and obtained exparty interim injunction order from the court. The vendor of plaintiff P. Srinivas has no concern with the suit property and he never interfered the defendant’s possession and he is residing at Secunderabad. The plaintiff had filed counter and written statement in the said suit and the same is pending. The plaintiff had issued legal notice dt. 20-8-2020 to the defendant by demanding the arrears of rent and also demanded the defendant to vacate the 3 suit property. But the defendant with malafide intentions managed the postal authorities and returned the same by endorsing incomplete address for want of addressee name. As such the plaintiff issued another notice by changing the date as 26-08-2020 and the same was served to the defendant on 28-08-2020.

The defendant issued reply with false and un-tenable allegations on 02-09-2020 by showing monthly rent as Rs.39,000/- instead agreed rent as per the understanding between plaintiff and defendant. The defendant till date neither paid the arrears of rents nor he vacated the suit property as demanded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is intending to establish his business office in the suit property for his own. The defendant has no right to remain in occupation of the suit schedule property after issuing legal notice to him by terminating the lease by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is liable to be evicted from the said property forthwith and he is in unauthorized possession of the suit property and he is willful defaulter for payment of monthly rent to the plaintiff. Therefore the defendant is liable to evict from the suit property. The plaintiff having no other effective alternative remedy, is constrained to approach the court to secure the relief of eviction of defendant from the suit schedule property together with payment of all amounts payable by the defendant including all arrears of rent from March 2020 to till date of handing over physical and vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. Hence, constrained to file the present suit.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendant made appearance and filed written statement denying all the allegations made in the plaint except those which are admitted in the written statement. It is the case of the defendant that It is true that the plaintiff was owner of the suit property and the defendant had approached him for running hostel business under the name and style of M/s.

Devi Women’s Hostel and agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.39,000/- per month excluding electricity, water charges and other charges and upon agreeing terms and conditions mentioned in the said oral agreement and deposited an amount of 4

Rs. 2,30,000/- to the petitioners towards refundable security deposit and shall be refunded to defendant at the time of vacating suit property without interest. The defendant have invested an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- for the purpose of hostel renovation and other fittings and fixtures. There was no rental agreement to show that the defendant had agreed to pay rent of Rs.80,000/- till 2010 and thereafter agreed to enhance the rent @ 5% on existing rent on every calendar year. The calculation mentioned in Tabular column of I.A No.458/2020 in OS. No.725/2020 an amount of Rs.1,30,310/- per month. The defendant has regularly paying rent every month in the form of cash through the associates of the plaintiff. The plaintiff always hesitates to take the rent in the form of cheque due to income tax issues. The defendant agreed orally that the defendant will be in position for 30 years from the year 2008 and in view of mutual understanding between plaintiff and defendant it was agreed by the both the parties orally and the plaintiff gave the permission to the defendant to set up the hostel. The plaintiff committed to defendant if in future if the plaintiff have thought of selling the suit schedule property the plaintiff will intimate the defendant and give him the high priority.

The plaintiff is a financer and have several properties and the plaintiff does not have any thought of setting of hostel business. The defendant filed injunction plaintiff with OS. No.334/2020 on the file of I Addl Junior Civil Judge at

Kukatpally, the plaintiff is coming with all cooked stories. The defendant is in peaceful possession from the year 2008. At the time of taking the above suit schedule property the defendant have invested huge amount approximately

Rs.50,00,000/- and converted residential house to hostel purpose. Initially the said property has only one floor, the defendant have invested and constructed two more floors with the plaintiff permission and running the hostel. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

4.Basing on the above pleadings in plaint and written statement the following issues were framed for determination of the case.

5

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction and recovery of possession of defendant as prayed for ?

2. Whether the defendant is liable to pay arrears of rents from March 2020 to till date of filing the suit as prayed for ?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, PW-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 documents were marked. On behalf of defendant, no oral or documentary evidence adduced subsequent to dismissal of IA.No.228/2021 filed for rejection of plaint.

6.Heard both sides.

7. Issue No.1 & 2:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction and recovery of possession for defendant as prayed for ?

2. Whether the defendant is liable to pay arrears of rents from March 2020 to till date of filing the suit as prayed for ?

These issues are interrelated and thus taken up together. The Plaintiff filed this suit for eviction, recovery of possession, arrears of rent. In order to grant such a relief, the plaintiff has to establish the jural relationship between the parties and quit notice was issued to the defendant so also quantum of rents. It may be appreciated by looking into the entire suit record for better adjudication of the case. It is the case of the plaintiff in nutshell that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit property consisting of ground + four upper floors building in 140

Sq.yads at H.No.1-98-89/4, Sainagar, Madhapur, R.R.District. He purchased suit property under Regd. AGPA dt. 05-7-2008 bearing document No.5140/2008 from its earlier owner P. Srinivas and other for valid consideration and inducted into vacant physical possession. After purchasing the suit property with an intention to establish hostel in the suit property had altered the building to start hostel business by investing huge amount. The defendant had approached him and offered better rent for running hostel business in the suit property. He accepted the offer of the defendant and entered into oral rental agreement. As per the said 6 agreement, the defendant agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.80,000/- till the year 2010 and thereafter the defendant has to enhance the rent @ 5% on existing rent on every calender year. The defendant has regularly paid agreed monthly rent to him till February 2020 as per his convenience by paying two or three installments per month some times by way of cash and sometimes by way of depositing amount in his account. In the month of March 2020 the defendant had approached him and requested that due to Covid-19 the business was not running properly as such he will pay the rent after two or three months for which plaintiff had considered his request. In the year 2018 the plaintiff being the

Regd.AGPA Holder of suit property obtained regular Regd. Sale Deed dated 14- 11-2018 bearing document No.18863/2018 in his name and obtained Mortgage

Loan from Eenadu Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd by depositing the title documents of suit property and paying monthly installments to the said loan amount by receiving rental amounts from the defendant. The plaintiff has regularly requested the defendant to pay the monthly rent as the bank officials insisting him for payment of EMI. But the defendant failed to pay the rent as per his promise and actively filed a false suit against him and one of his vendor by name P.Srinivas before the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally vide OS.

No.334/2020 by pleading false allegations and by mentioning wrong address of plaintiff and obtained exparty interim injunction order from the court. The vendor of plaintiff P. Srinivas has no concern with the suit property and he never interfered the defendant’s possession and he is residing at Secunderabad. The plaintiff had filed counter and written statement in the said suit and the same is pending. The plaintiff had issued legal notice dt. 20-8-2020 to the defendant by demanding the arrears of rent and also demanded the defendant to vacate the suit property. But the defendant with malafide intentions managed the postal authorities and returned the same by endorsing incomplete address for want of addressee name. As such the plaintiff issued another notice by changing the date as 26-08-2020 and the same was served to the defendant on 28-08-2020.

7

The defendant issued reply with false and un-tenable allegations on 02-09-2020 by showing monthly rent as Rs.39,000/- instead agreed rent as per the understanding between plaintiff and defendant. The defendant till date neither paid the arrears of rents nor he vacated the suit property as demanded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is intending to establish his business office in the suit property for his own. The defendant has no right to remain in occupation of the suit schedule property after issuing legal notice to him by terminating the lease by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is liable to be evicted from the said property forthwith and he is in unauthorized possession of the suit property and he is willful defaulter for payment of monthly rent to the plaintiff. Therefore the defendant is liable to evict from the suit property. The plaintiff having no other effective alternative remedy, is constrained to approach the court to secure the relief of eviction of defendant from the suit schedule property together with payment of all amounts payable by the defendant including all arrears of rent from March 2020 to till date of handing over physical and vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. Hence, constrained to file the present suit.

8.In order to substantiate his case the plaintiff had placed reliance on oral testimony of PWs-1 & 2 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-8 documents. Ex.A1: C.C of Regd. Sale Deed dt. 14-11-2018 bearing doc.No.18863/2018, Ex.A2: is C.C of

Regd. Memorandum of deposit title deed, dt. 14-11-2018 bearing doc.No.18864/2018, Ex.A3: is the Original Bank Statement of plaintiff dt. 01-01- 2018 to 14-08-2020, Ex.A4: is the Original Bank Statement of plaintiff dt. 01-04- 2019 to 31-03-2020 Ex.A5: is the Office copy of legal notice dt. 20-08-2020 issued to defendant along with postal receipt, Ex.A6: is the original postal return cover, Ex.A7: is the office copy of legal notice dt. 26-08-2020 issued to defendant along with postal receipt, Ex.A8 is the reply notice dt. 02-09-2020.

8

9.From the evidence present on record it is to be seen whether there is any substance in the claim made by the plaintiff or to the contrary whether the stand taken by the defendant has been vindicated.

10.In order to rebut the case of the plaintiffs, the defendant had not adduced any rebuttal evidence subsequent to dismissal of IA.No.228/2021 filed by defen- dant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint. Much prior to that the plaintiff had filed IA.No.458/2021 under Order XV-A of CPC for arrears of rents.

The same was allowed directing the defendant to pay the arrears of admitted rents @ Rs.39,000/- per month from March 2020 to till date and continue to de- posit the monthly rents on or before 10th of every succeeding month till disposal of suit either directly or to the credit of the petitioner into the bank account fur- nished by the petitioner. On failure to do so, the defence of respondent is struck off”. Inspite of said directions to comply the orders dated 04-03-2021, the defen- dant had intentionally voilated nor challenged before the Appellate court and thus become final. Thereafter the plaintiff had filed IA.No.229/2021 to struck off the defence of the defendant and the said application was allowed and defence of the defendant was struck off. Merely because, the defendant had filed OS.

No.334/2020 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Kukatpally against the plain- tiff and another and obtained exparte ad-interim injunction order against them is not fatal to the case of the plaintiff. In fact, the act of the defendant in filing suit and petitions is to avoid payment of rents is nothing but delay tactics and to squat upon the property. The plaintiff as a landlord cannot be suffered due to such acts of the tenant. Viewed in any angle, the documents of the plaintiff cannot be countenanced for any purpose, that too on strength of certain allegations levelled by the defendant and the plaintiff had validly terminated the tenancy of the defendants and thus the plaintiff had proved his case without any iota of doubt. However, with regard to quantum of rent @ Rs.1,30,310/- as there is no proof in support of the said version, this court is not satisfied and the same 9 was discribed in IA.No.458/2020. The relevant extract of the order in

IA.No.458/2020 is that “ It is apparent from the record that the respondent had

filed OS. No.334/2020 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Kukatpally against the petitioner and another and obtained exparte ad-interim injunction order against them in which he categorically stated that the monthly rent was

Rs.39,000/-. So the question that inevitably falls for consideration is with regard to quantum of rents. Except bank statement to show the deposit of rents by the respondent in the account of the petitioner, no other rental receipt filed. Even there is no clear indication that the monthly rent was paid as per the mutual un- derstanding between the parties @ 5% enhancement every year. So it is highly ridiculous to accept the case of the petitioner with regard to quantum of rents.

There is no habit of passing rental receipts to the respondent for the payment of monthly rents initially for Rs.80,000/- and enhanced from time to time and present rent of Rs.1,30,310/-. No evidence is forthcoming in support of the said version. It is strange to visualize that when the suit property was situated in hub of the city where there is high rental value, no prudent man will accept such huge rents of Rs.80,000/- and later enhanced rent of Rs.1,24,105/- basing on oral agreement which was never reduced to writing for all these years from 2008 to 2020. So no one can be blamed for their own acts and it is not the case of the petitioner that he is an illiterate. So the reasons assigned in the petition are not convincing. However, the respondent as a tenant cannot squat upon the prop- erty for the sake of his convenience by taking advantage that it was an oral lease agreement and has every right to pay the rents as per his convenience. It is al- ways at the option of the land lord whether to continue or discard the tenancy if there is any breach of contract. The respondent cannot deprive the petitioners to enjoy the fruits of the rents which are the ultimate relief expected by the peti- tioner in a suit for ejectment. So this court is inclined to allow the petition partly by directing the respondent to pay the arrears of rent @ Rs.39,000/- per month from March 2020 to till date and continue to deposit the monthly rents on or be- 10 fore 10th of every succeeding month till disposal of suit either directly or to the credit of the petitioner into the bank account furnished by the petitioner.” Thus, these issues are partly answered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

14. Issue No.3: To what relief ?

In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule property and hand over vacant physical possession to plaintiff within two months from the date of judgment. On failure to do the plaintiff is entitled for the same by due process of law. The plaintiff is also entitled for arrears of rents @ Rs.39,000/- per month from March 2020 to till date of handing over possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 2nd day of June 2021)

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

1. PW1 : M. Ravi KumarNil

2. PW2: Mangali Ravindar

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.A1: C.C of Regd. Sale Deed dt. 14-11-2018 bearing doc.No.18863/2018,

Ex.A2: is C.C of Regd. Memorandum of deposit title deed, dt. 14-11-2018 bearing doc.No.18864/2018,

Ex.A3: is the Original Bank Statement of plaintiff dt. 01-01-2018 to 14-08-2020,

Ex.A4: is the Original Bank Statement of plaintiff dt. 01-04-2019 to 31-03-2020

Ex.A5: is the Office copy of legal notice dt. 20-08-2020 issued to defendant along with postal receipt,

Ex.A6: is the original postal return cover, 11

Ex.A7: is the office copy of legal notice dt. 26-08-2020 issued to defendant along with postal receipt,

Ex.A8 is the reply notice dt. 02-09-2020

FOR DEFENDANTS

Nil

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

OS.No.768/2020

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR

Present : G. Sunitha Ravindra Reddy, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar

FRIDAY, THIS THE 4th DAY OF JUNE, 2021

OS. No. 768 OF 2020

Between : Dr. Nanduri Mandakini, W/o Dr. Nanduri Subrahmanyam, Aged about 71 years, R/o. Flat No.C- 501, NCC Urban Residency, Gachibowli, Hyderabad- 500 032.

...Plaintiff

AND

1. Dr. Nanduri Janaki Ram, S/o. Sri. N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy, , Aged about 76 years, R/o. H.No.76, Surya Enclave, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad.

2. S.M.T. K. Sita Devi, W/o. K.S. Sankara Rao, Aged about 63 years, R/o. H.No.1-60/8/6, E-17, Rolling Hills, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-500 032.

3. Smt. T.B.Mydhilidevi, W/o Sri. T.B. Pundarikakshudu, Aged about 61 years, R/o. Flat No.102, Reliance Enclave, Masjid Banda, Near Chirec Public School, Hyderabad-500 032.

(Amended as per the order in IA.No.82/2021 and in

IA.No.83/2021 dated 01-02-2021)

... Defendants

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 30-04-2021 in the presence of M/s. N. Kama Raju, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri Yogesh Kumar Herur, learned Counsel for defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff to declare the plaintiff is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property being the only legal heir of her husband, Dr.N.Subramanyam.

OS.No.768/2020

2

2.It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and Dr. Nanduri Subrahmanyam (who is hereinafter referred to as the ‘Husband’ got married in the year 1974 and they have no children out of the wedlock. The plaintiff and her husband were employed and from out of their income, they have jointly purchased the immovable properties I.e, All that vacant plot bearing No.50, admeasuring 380 square yards, situated at Sy.No.6/1, Quiet lands colony, Gachibowl, Serilingampally Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from M/s. Bahubali Oils and

Chemicals vide Registered Sale Deed dt.06-04-1999 bearing Document No.2497 of 1999, registered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, R.R.District and thereafter constructed a Villa with built-up area in an extent of 2600 square feet under an

Agreement for construction/Development dated 08-04-1999 with M/s. Bahubali Oils and Chemicals. (hereinafter referred to as the “Property-I). All that Apartment bearing No. Alpha 406, with built-up area in an extent of 1895 Square feet, admeasuring 91 Sq. yards, situated at Jayabheri Silicon Country, Kondapur,

Hyderabad, Telangana, having purchased the same from M/s. Jayabheri Properties

Private Limited and others vide Registered Sale Deed dt.06-08-2004 bearing

Document No.8408/2004, registered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar,

R.R.District. (hereinafter referred to as the Property-II). The plaintiff and her husband are in possession and enjoyment of the Immovable Properties aforementioned. The plaintiff and her husband lived together in Property-I and leased out property-II. While the matters stood thus, the husband executed a Will on 29-01-2018, bequeathing his half-share in the Immovable Properties to the plaintiff herein and thereafter, the husband died on 19-03-2018. The Will and the

Death Certificate issued by GHMC (hereinafter referred to as the plaint ‘A’ schedule of property). The plaintiff has become the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the half-share of the husband in the immovable properties. All that half-share in the residential house bearing Villa No.50, with built-up area in an extent of 1300 Sq.

OS.No.768/2020

3 feet (out of 2600 Sq. feet) in Plot admeasuring 190 Sq.yards (out of 380 Sq. yards), situated at Sy.No.6/1, Quiet Lands colony, Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal,

R.R.District. All that half-share in Apartment bearing No. Alpha 406, with built-up area in an extent of 947.50 Sq. feet (out of 1895 Sq. feet), admeasuring 45.50

Sq.yards (out of 91 Sq. yards) situated at Jayabheri Silicon Country, Kondapur,

Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the plaint ‘B’ schedule of property). The plaintiff intended to sell the plaint ‘B’ schedule of property but the prospective purchasers have been demanding to get a declaration that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the half-share of the husband in the plaint ‘B’ schedule of property, despite the existence of the Will and the fact that she is the sole successor of the Plaint Schedule properties belonging to the husband, being a Class I Heir under Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendants No.1 to 3 and the husband are the sons and daughters of Sri.N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy garu and Smt. L. Mahalaxmamma garu, both died on 18-01-1989 and 18-02-1998, respectively at Hyderabad. The Defendants Nos.1 to 3 are made parties in the above suit solely to avoid any litigation in the future, even though they have no right, title or interest in the plaint schedule of properties, in exclusion of the plaintiff , being the Class II heirs of the schedule under Sections 8 and 10 of the Hindu

Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, the plaintiff herein is the Sole Legal Heir of Sri

Nanduri Subramanyam with respect to plaint schedule of properties. Hence constrained to file the present suit.

4.On receipt of summons, the defendant No.1 filed written statement.

Defendant No.2 and 3 filed adoption memo on behalf of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 filed written statement admitting that the husband of the plaintiff is the younger brother of the first defendant and the second and third defendants are the younger sisters of the first defendant. The parents of the first defendant were

OS.No.768/2020

4

N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy and N. Mahalakshmamma. It is true that the plaintiff and her husband got married in the year 1974 and that they have no children out of the wedlock. The plaintiff and her husband have purchased properties -I and II out of their hard earned money. The husband of the plaintiff executed a Will on 29-01- 2018, bequeathing his half share in the immovable properties (Properties-I and II) to the plaintiff and thereafter he died on 19-03-2018. The plaintiff has become the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the half share of her husband in the immovable properties belonging to the plaintiff and her husband after death of the brother of the defendants. The half share of the husband of the plaintiff is described like A and B plaint schedule properties in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of Plaint A and B Schedule of properties, as she is the sole successor of plaint schedule of properties belonging to her husband being a Class-I heir under Section 10 of Hindu Succession Act. As stated supra, defendants No.1 to 3 and husband of the plaintiff are sons and daughters of N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy and N. Mahalakshmamma, who died on 18-01-1989 and 18-02-1998 respectively at Hyderabad. The defendants No.1 to 3 have no claim, title, interest whatsoever in the plaint A and B schedule of properties, as they absolutely belong to the plaintiff being the sole legal heir of Nanduri

Subrahmanyam, who is the brother of the defendants and husband of the plaintiff.

Hence, prays to decree the suit.

6.On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues are framed for determination of the suit.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as the absolute owner of Plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property by virtue of sole legal heir of her husband Dr.N.Subramanyam as prayed for ?

2. To what relief?

OS.No.768/2020

5

7.During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, Plaintiff got examined as PW- 1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-11 documents. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defendant.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Issue No.1:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as the absolute owner of Plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property by virtue of sole legal heir of her husband Dr.N.Subramanyam as prayed for ?

The plaintiff filed this suit to declare her as absolute owner of suit schedule property. In order to grant such a relief, the plaintiff should be clear about her case.

It may be appreciated by looking into the entire suit record for better adjudication of the case. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and Dr. Nanduri

Subrahmanyam (who is hereinafter referred to as the ‘Husband’ got married in the year 1974 and they have no children out of the wedlock. The plaintiff and her husband were employed and from out of their income, they have jointly purchased the immovable properties I.e, All that vacant plot bearing No.50, admeasuring 380 square yards, situated at Sy.No.6/1, Quiet lands colony, Gachibowl, Serilingampally

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from M/s. Bahubali Oils and Chemicals vide Registered Sale Deed dt.06-04-1999 bearing Document

No.2497 of 1999, registered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, R.R.District and thereafter constructed a Villa with built-up area in an extent of 2600 square feet under an Agreement for construction/Development dated 08-04-1999 with M/s.

Bahubali Oils and Chemicals. (hereinafter referred to as the “Property-I). All that

Apartment bearing No. Alpha 406, with built-up area in an extent of 1895 Square feet, admeasuring 91 Sq. yards, situated at Jayabheri Silicon Country, Kondapur,

Hyderabad, Telangana, having purchased the same from M/s. Jayabheri Properties

Private Limited and others vide Registered Sale Deed dt.06-08-2004 bearing

OS.No.768/2020

6

Document No.8408/2004, registered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar,

R.R.District. (hereinafter referred to as the Property-II). The plaintiff and her husband are in possession and enjoyment of the Immovable Properties aforementioned. The plaintiff and her husband lived together in Property-I and leased out property-II. While the matters stood thus, the husband executed a Will on 29-01-2018, bequeathing his half-share in the Immovable Properties to the plaintiff herein and thereafter, the husband died on 19-03-2018. The Will and the

Death Certificate issued by GHMC (hereinafter referred to as the plaint ‘A’ schedule of property). The plaintiff has become the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the half-share of the husband in the immovable properties. All that half-share in the residential house bearing Villa No.50, with built-up area in an extent of 1300 Sq.

feet (out of 2600 Sq. feet) in Plot admeasuring 190 Sq.yards (out of 380 Sq. yards), situated at Sy.No.6/1, Quiet Lands colony, Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal,

R.R.District. All that half-share in Apartment bearing No. Alpha 406, with built-up area in an extent of 947.50 Sq. feet (out of 1895 Sq. feet), admeasuring 45.50

Sq.yards (out of 91 Sq. yards) situated at Jayabheri Silicon Country, Kondapur,

Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the plaint ‘B’ schedule of property). The plaintiff intended to sell the plaint ‘B’ schedule property but the prospective purchasers have been demanding to get a declaration that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the half-share of the husband in the plaint ‘B’ schedule of property, despite the existence of the Will and the fact that she is the sole successor of the Plaint Schedule properties belonging to the husband, being a Class I Heir under Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendants No.1 to 3 and the husband are the sons and daughters of Sri.N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy garu and Smt. L. Mahalaxmamma garu, both died on 18-01-1989 and 18-02-1998, respectively at Hyderabad. The Defendants Nos.1 to 3 are made parties in the above suit solely to avoid any litigation in the future, even though they have no

OS.No.768/2020

7 right, title or interest in the plaint schedule of properties, in exclusion of the plaintiff , being the Class II heirs of the schedule under Sections 8 and 10 of the Hindu

Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, the plaintiff herein is the Sole Legal Heir of Sri

Nanduri Subramanyam with respect to plaint schedule of properties. Hence constrained to file the present suit.

10.In order to substantiate her case, the plaintiff placed reliance on oral testimony of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A-1 to A-11 documents. Ex.A1 is the C.C of the

Registered Sale Deed bearing doc.No.2497/1999, registered in the office of the joint

Sub-Registrar, R.R.District. Dated 06-04-1999, Ex.A1 is the C.C of the Registered

Sale Deed bearing doc.No.8408/2004, registered in the office of the joint Sub-

Registrar, R.R.District. Dated 06-08-2004, Ex.A3: is Original Agreement for construction/Development pertaining to the plaint ‘A’ schedule of property, dt. 08- 04-1999 (counsel for defendants has no objection for marking the xerox copy),

Ex.A4 is Original Will executed by the husband of the plaintiff, dt. 29-01-2018,

Ex.A5 is original of the death certificate of the husband of the plaintiff, dt. 04-04- 2018, Ex.A6 is xerox copy of the death certificate of Sri. N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy garu, dt. 19-01-1989 (counsel for the defendants has no objection for marking the xerox copy). Ex.A7 is Xerox copy of the Death Certificate of Smt. L.

Mahalaxmamma garu, dt. 14-07-1998 (counsel for the defendants has no objection for marking the xerox copy). Ex.A8 is C.C of the Statement of Encumbrance pertaining to plaint ‘A’ schedule of property, dt. 04-09-2020, Ex.A9 is C.C of the

Statement of Encumbrance pertaining to plaint ‘B’ schedule of property, dt. 04-09- 2020, Ex.A10 is C.C of the Market Value Certificate pertaining to plaint ‘A’ schedule of property, dt. 05-09-2020, Ex.A11 is C.C of the Market Value Certificate pertaining to plaint ‘B’ schedule of property, dt. 05-09-2020. Since Ex.A6 and A7 are photostat

OS.No.768/2020

8 copies, marked through Advocate Commissioner as the said documents are discarded as they here no probative value in the eye of law.

11.It is the specific case of defendants that the husband of the plaintiff is the younger brother of the first defendant and the second and third defendants are the younger sisters of the first defendant. The parents of the first defendant were N.V.

Suryanarayana Murthy Garu and N. Mahalakshmamma Garu. It is true that the plaintiff and her husband got married in the year 1974 and that they have no children out of the wedlock. The plaintiff and her husband have purchased properties -I and II out of their hard earned money. The husband of the plaintiff executed a Will on 29-01-2018, bequeathing his half share in the immovable properties (Properties-I and II) to the plaintiff and thereafter he died on 19-03-2018.

The plaintiff has become the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the half share of her husband in the immovable properties belonging to the plaintiff and her husband after death of the brother of the defendants. The half share of the husband of the plaintiff is described like A and B plaint schedule properties in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of Plaint A and B Schedule of properties, as she is the sole successor of plaint schedule of properties belonging to her husband being a Class-I heir under Section 10 of Hindu Succession Act. As stated supra, defendants No.1 to 3 and husband of the plaintiff are sons and daughters of N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy Garu and N.

Mahalakshmamma Garu, who died on 18-01-1989 and 18-02-1998 respectively at

Hyderabad. The defendants No.1 to 3 have no claim, title, interest whatsoever in the plaint A and B schedule of properties, as they absolutely belong to the plaintiff being the sole legal heir of Nanduri Subrahmanyam, who is the brother of the defendants and husband of the plaintiff. Hence, prayed to decree the suit. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants.

OS.No.768/2020

9 12.From the evidence present on record and on the back ground of rival contentions raised by both parties, it is to be seen whether there is any substance in the claim made by the plaintiff or to the contra whether the stand taken by the defendants has been vindicated.

13.Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is deemed fit to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act 1963 and Section 102 of

Indian Evidence Act 1873. Under Sec. 102 of Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof in a suit proceedings lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. In view thereof, the initial burden of proving the same is on the plaintiff and later shifts on the defendant. Under Section 34 of Specific Relief

Act, 1963 that any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such character or right and the court may in its discretion, make therein a declaration that he is so entitled and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief.

14.As noticed, the plaintiffs in support of their claim placed reliance on oral testimony of Pw-1 coupled with Ex.A-1 to A-9 documents. The defendants have no objection to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff and they admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In view of admissions made in the Written Statement, and as there is no denial that the plaintiff is the sole legal heir of Late Subramanyam and flow of title to her in respect of suit schedule properties is through her husband, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as claimed for. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

OS.No.768/2020

10

15. Issue No.2: To what relief ?

In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner and peaceful possessor of suit schedule A and B properties. In view of close relationship between the parties, there is no order as to costs.

(Typed to my dictation by stenographer directly on the system, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 4th day of June, 2021)

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

PW-1: N. Mandakini- NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 is the C.C of the Registered Sale Deed bearing doc.No.2497/1999, registered in the office of the joint Sub-Registrar, R.R.District. Dated 06-04-1999,

Ex.A2 is the C.C of the Registered Sale Deed bearing doc.No.8408/2004, registered in the office of the joint Sub-Registrar, R.R.District. Dated 06-08-2004,

Ex.A3: is Original Agreement for construction/Development pertaining to the plaint ‘A’ schedule of property, dt. 08-04-1999 (counsel for defendants has no objection for marking the xerox copy),

Ex.A4 is Original Will executed by the husband of the plaintiff, dt. 29-01-2018,

Ex.A5 is original of the death certificate of the husband of the plaintiff, dt. 04-04- 2018,

OS.No.768/2020

11

Ex.A6 is C.C of the Statement of Encumbrance pertaining to plaint ‘A’ schedule of property, dt. 04-09-2020,

Ex.A7 is C.C of the Statement of Encumbrance pertaining to plaint ‘B’ schedule of property, dt. 04-09-2020,

Ex.A8 is C.C of the Market Value Certificate pertaining to plaint ‘A’ schedule of property, dt. 05-09-2020,

Ex.A9 is C.C of the Market Value Certificate pertaining to plaint ‘B’ schedule of property, dt. 05-09-2020.

FOR DEFENDANT

- NIL -

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

1

OS. No. 88 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

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

PRESENT: SMT G SUNITHA RAVINDRA REDDY I Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, FAC Principal Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District.

Dated on this the 28 th Day of August, 2019

OS. No. 88 of 2019

BETWEEN:-

1. Suman Devi, W/o late Munilal Gupta, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Housewife

2. Rajesh Gupta, S/o late Munilal Gupta, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Pvt Employee

3. Renu Kumari, D/o late Munilal Gupta, Aged about 23 years, Occ: Household

4. Vijesh Gupta, S/o late Munilal Gupta, Aged about 21 years, Occ: Student (All R/o: H.No.4-40-211, Pragathi Nagar, Near Pochamma Temple, Kukatoalli Municipality, Balanagar Mandal, GHMC Medchal District (previously Ranga Reddy District) … Plaintiffs

AND

1. Sudeshanand Gupta, S/o Ramadhar Gupta, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o: H.No.4-40-150, Pragathi Nagar, Near Pochamma Temple, Kukatpalli Municipality, Balanagar Mandal, GHMC, Medchal District (previously Ranga Reddy District)

2. All concerned ... Defendants

This suit coming for final hearing before me on 02-08-2019 in the presence of Sri. J. Ramakrishna, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of defendants set exparte and remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for the plaintiffs and upon perusal of the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 2

OS. No. 88 of 2019

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed to declare the plaintiffs as the sole legal heirs of the deceased – Munilal Guptha, S/o Thufani Guptha who died on 01.09.2017 and to award costs of the suit.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are that, they are related to each other and legal heirs of deceased namely Munilal Guptha, who was an employee of Laser

Shaving (India) Private Limited situated at Narsapur Road, Balanagar and he died on 01.09.2017 leaving behind him the plaintiffs ie., plaintiff No. 1 is wife, plaintiffs No. 2 and 4 are sons and plaintiff No.3 is daughter of the said deceased.

Further the plaintiff stated that, during the life time of deceased Munilal Guptha, he acquired a house premises bearing No.4-40-211, admeasuring 38 Sq. Yards consisting of 2 rooms Asbestos roofing, in Sy.No.347, situated at Pragathi Nagar,

Kukatpalli Mandal, Medchal District (previously Balangar Mandal, R. R. District) and the name of Munilal Guptha was also mutated in the local municipality and the Munilal Guptha used to pay the property tax in his name regularly to concerned municipality and the land in Sy.No.347 Kukatpalli village is

Government land and subsequently the Government of Telangana regularized the above said house premises in the name of the plaintiff no.1 in file No.

B1/323BN12KP042015-6869, dt: 24.08.2015 vide Assignment patta for land under possession. It is also further stated by the plaintiff is that, the plaintiffs are only the Surviving legal heirs of said late Munilal Guptha under Section 8 of

Hindu Succession Act being class I legal heirs, the plaintiffs are the successors, legal representatives, surviving legal heirs of deceased Munilal Guptha and after the death of Munilal Guptha. Then the plaintiffs intend to mutate their names in the municipal records, in respect of the said property, they went to concerned

Kukatpalli Municipal office on 12.11.2018, but the defendant no.1 who is a distant 3

OS. No. 88 of 2019

relative of plaintiffs came to the Kukatpalli Municipal office and raised objection in mutating the names of the plaintiffs in the municipal records in respect of the above said property by denying the legal heir ship with the above said deceased

Munilala Guptha and claiming that he is also one of the legal heir of the Munilal

Guptha. The defendants have no right to deny the status of the plaintiffs without any base or documentary proof and particularly the defendant no.1 is not at all a legal heir of the deceased Munilal Guptha. As such prays this court to declare them as sole legal heirs of deceased Munilal Guptha, S/o Thufani Guptha, who died on 01.09.2017.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendants no.2 remained exparte. No objections received from defendant no.2 whereas the defendant no.1 was present and filed a Memo stating that he has no objection to decree the suit, memo is recorded and the case is posted for exparte evidence.

4.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff no.2 was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A11 documents. Ex.A1 is Death

Certificate of deceased Munilal Guptha, Ex.A2 is Office copy of details of land regularize issued by Thasildar, Balanagar, Ex.A3 to Ex.A6 are Aadhar Cards of

Plaintiffs 1 to 4, Ex.A7 is Company ID card of Munilal Guptha, Ex.A8 is Water demand notice, Ex.A9 is Electricity bill cum notice, Ex.A10 Property tax receipts,

Ex.A11 is Market value certificate.

5.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

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

4

OS. No. 88 of 2019

POINT:-

7.To prove their case, plaintiff no.2 was examined as PW1. he deposed on behalf of him and on behalf of other plaintiffs that, Munilal Guptha died on 01.09.2017 who is an employee of Laser Shaving (India) Private Limited situated at Narsapur Road, Balanagar and the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of the deceased ie., plaintiff no. 1 is wife, plaintiffs no. 2 and 4 are sons and plaintiff no.3 is daughter of the said deceased. PW1 further stated that, during the life time of deceased Munilal Guptha had acquired a house premises bearing No.4- 40-211, admeasuring 38 Sq. Yards consisting of 2 rooms Asbestos roofing, in

Sy.No.347, situated at Pragathi Nagar, Kukatpalli Mandal, Medchal District (previously Balangar Mandal, R. R. District) and the name of the Munilal Guptha was mutated in the local municipality and the Munilal Guptha used to pay the property tax in his name regularly to concern municipality and the land in

Sy.No.347 Kukatpalli village is Government land and subsequently the

Government of Telangana regularized the above said house premises in the name of the plaintiff no.1 in file No. B1/323BN12KP042015-6869, dt: 24.08.2015 vide Assignment patta for land under possession. The plaintiffs are only the

Surviving legal heirs of said late Munilal Guptha under Section 8 of Hindu

Succession Act being class-I legal heirs, the plaintiffs are the successors, legal representatives, surviving legal heirs of deceased Munilal Guptha and after the death of Munilal Guptha. The plaintiffs intend to mutate their names in the municipal records, in respect of the said property, they went to concerned

Kukatpalli Municipal office on 12.11.2018, but the defendant no.1 who is a distant relative of plaintiffs came to the Kukatpalli Municipal office and raised objection in mutating the names of the plaintiffs in the municipal records in respect of the above said property by denying the legal heir ship with the above 5

OS. No. 88 of 2019

said deceased Munilal Guptha and claiming that he is also one of the legal heir of the Munilal Guptha. The defendant has no right to deny the status of the plaintiffs without any base or documentary proof and particularly the defendant No.1 is not at all a legal heirs of the deceased Munilal Guptha.

8.Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is deemed fit to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act and Section 102 of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. Under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 that any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such character or right and the court may in its discretion, make therein a declaration that he is so entitled and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief. Under Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof in a suit proceedings lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. So, the initial burden of proving the same is on the plaintiffs.

9.In order to substantiate their case, the plaintiffs have placed reliance on oral testimony of PW1 coupled with Exs. A1 to A11 documents. As per the evidence of PW1 is that, after the death of Munilal Guptha, the plaintiffs intended to mutate their names in the municipal records and accordingly they went to the concerned Kukatpalli Municipal office on 12.11.2018 inrespect of the above said property, the defendant no.1 who is their distant relative came to Kukapalli

Municipal office and raised objection in mutating their names in the municipal records in respect of the above said property by denying the legal heir-ship to them with the above said property. The plaintiffs are unable to mutate their names in the municipal records, unless they get the status declaration from this

Court. To support the said contention, PW1 filed Ex.A1-death certificate of 6

OS. No. 88 of 2019

deceased, Ex.A2 details of land regularize issued by Tahasildhar, Balanagar. The other exhibits from Ex.A3 to Ex.A6 are the Aadhar Cards of the plaintiffs, the electricity bill cum notice, property tax receipts, market value certificate and Id card of deceased where he worked which supports the evidence of PW1 that, they are the only legal heirs of the deceased. The defendants failed to contest the suit and remained exparte. If at all the rights of defendant no.1 is infringed, he ought to have taken steps to challenge the suit proceedings. But no such endevour made. Unless the contrary is proved, the plaintiffs cannot be non- suited. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed declaring the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of the deceased Munilal Guptha, S/o Thufani Guptha. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly on the system, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th Day of August, 2019.

FAC Principal Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1 : Rajesh Guptha -None- 7

OS. No. 88 of 2019

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1: Death Certificate of deceased Munilal Guptha Ex.A2: Copy of details of land regularized issued by Thasildar, Balanagar Ex.A3 to Ex.A6: Aadhar Cards of Plaintiffs 1 to 4 Ex.A7: Company ID card of Munilal Guptha Ex.A8: Water demand notice Ex.A9: Electricity bill cum notice Ex.A10: Property tax receipts Ex.A11: Market value certificate.

FOR DEFENDANTS:-Nil-

FAC Principal Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District

OS.100/2021

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR

Present : G. Sunitha Ravindra Reddy, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar

WEDNESDAY, THE 2 nd DAY OF JUNE, 2021

OS. No. 100 OF 2021

Between :

1.Smt. Challaka Balamani, W/o Late Challaka Narsing Rao, Aged about 50 years, Occupation : Home Maker, H.No.1-7-13, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-500013.

2.Smt. Rama, W/o. Bhasker Rao, D/o. Late Challaka Narsing Rao, Aged 30 years, Occupation: Home Maker, H.No.1-7-13, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-500013.

3.Kum Uma, D/o Late Challaka Narsing Rao, Aged 20 years, Occupation: Student, H.No.1-7-13, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad- 500013.

...Plaintiffs

AND

1.MRO Office, 2-1-94/3, National Highway 163, Laxma Reddy Colony,Uppal, Malkajgiri District.

2.All Concerned.

... Defendants

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 23.01.2020 in the presence of T.V.V. Nissi Kumari, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs to declare them as legal heirs of late

Challaka Narsing Rao.

2.It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 is wife and plaintiff No.2 and 3 are daughters of Late Challaka Narsing Rao and he passed away on 24-08-

OS.100/2021

2 2020 leaving behind the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 as his only legal heirs. During the life time of Late Challaka Narsing Rao, who is the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 and 3 purchased: Schedule of property wide Doc.No.6523 of 1996. Schedule of Property was purchased in Partition between 3 members and

Schedule ‘B’ alloted to Mr.Late Challaka Narsing Rao, vide Dco.No.9798 of 2004.

Schedule of property vide Doc.No.1088 of 2010. Schedule of property was purchased as a joint sale deed along with another person (Mr.T. Venkateshwarlu vide Doc.No.14797 of 2019. The Late Challaka Narsing Rao along with plaintiffs was in continuous ownership and possession of the schedule property. All the utility connections of the schedule property such as land valuation certificates of the above, electricity bills property tax receipts were drawn in the name of Late

Challaka Narsing Rao. Upon the demise of Late Challaka Narsing Rao the petitioners approached the defendant No.1, requesting to issue legal heirs certificate, The defendant No.1 insisted the plaintiffs to approach competent court.

Upon demise of Late Challaka Narsing Rao, the plaintiffs have solely succeeded the total share of Late Challaka Narsing Rao in the schedule property. The plaintiffs are the sole surviving legal heirs of Late Challaka Narsing Rao and have succeeded to the share of the Late Challaka Narsing Rao in the schedule property in accordance with personal law applicable to the parties. On the account of demise of Late Challaka Narsing Rao, the plaintiffs are intending to mutate their names as the joint owners of the suit schedule property and converting the utility bills and other documents pertaining to the schedule property in the name of the plaintiffs. Hence constrained to file the present suit.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendants No.1 and 2 remained exparte.

4.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW-1 and Ex.A-1 to A-19 documents were marked. Ex.A1: is the

OS.100/2021

3

Original Death Certificate of Late Challaka Narsing Rao, Ex.A2: is the Self attested copy of Aadhar bearing No.291669262415 of Plaintiff No.1, Ex.A3: is the Self attested copy of Aadhar bearing No.728344263296 of Plaintiff No.2,

Ex.A4: is the Self attested copy of Aadhar bearing No.882129560206 of Plaintiff

No.3, Ex.A5: is the CC of Sale Deed bearing No.6523/1996, dated 20.11.1996,

Ex.A6: is the CC of Partition Deed bearing No.9798/2004, dated 17.09.2004,

Ex.A7: is the CC of Agreement of sale Cum General Power of Attorney with possession document bearing No.1088/2010, dated 19.02.2010, Ex.A8: is the

CC of Sale Deed bearing No.14797/2019, dated 05.10.2019, Ex.A9: is the

Original Land Valuation Certificate for Schedule-A, dated 21.09.2020, EX.A10: is the Original Land Valuation Certificate for Schedule-B, dated 21.09.2020,

Ex.A11: is the Original Land Valuation Certificate for Schedule-C, dated 21.09.2020, Ex.A12: is the Original Land Valuation Certificate for Schedule-D,

dated 21.09.2020, Ex.A13: is the Original electricity bill payment statement for

the Schedule-A, Ex.A14: is the Original electricity bill payment statement for the Schedule-B, Ex.A15: is the Original property tax receipt for Schedule-A, bearing PIN No.10203113357, dated 10.04.2020, Ex.A16: is the Original

Encumbrance Certificate for the Doc bearing No.6523/1996, dated 20.01.2021,

Ex.A17: is the Original Encumbrance Certificate for the Doc bearing

No.9798/2004, dated 20.01.2021, Ex.A18: is the Original Encumbrance

Certificate for the Doc bearing No.1088/2010, dated 20.01.2021, Ex.A19: is the

Original Encumbrance Certificate for the Doc bearing No.14797/2019, dated 20.01.2021, 5.Heard learned counsel for plaintiffs.

6.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declare them as legal heir of Late Challaka Narsing Rao as prayed for?

POINT:-The plaintiffs filed this suit to declare them as legal heir of Late

Challaka Narsing Rao. In order to grant such a relief, the plaintiffs should be clear

OS.100/2021

4 about their case. It may be appreciated by looking into the entire suit record for better adjudication of the case. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 is wife and plaintiff No.2 and 3 are daughters of Late Challaka Narsing Rao and he passed away on 24-08-2020 leaving behind the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 as his only legal heirs. During the life time of Late Challaka Narsing Rao, who is the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 and 3 purchased: Schedule of property wide Doc.No.6523 of 1996. Schedule of Property was purchased in

Partition between 3 members and Schedule ‘B’ alloted to Mr.Late Challaka Narsing

Rao, vide Dco.No.9798 of 2004. Schedule of property vide Doc.No.1088 of 2010.

Schedule of property was purchased as a joint sale deed along with another person (Mr.T. Venkateshwarlu vide Doc.No.14797 of 2019. The Late Challaka

Narsing Rao along with plaintiffs was in continuous ownership and possession of the schedule property. All the utility connections of the schedule property such as land valuation certificates of the above, electricity bills property tax receipts were drawn in the name of Late Challaka Narsing Rao. Upon the demise of Late

Challaka Narsing Rao the petitioners approached the defendant No.1, requesting to issue legal heirs certificate, The defendant No.1 insisted the plaintiffs to approach competent court. Upon demise of Late Challaka Narsing Rao, the plaintiffs have solely succeeded the total share of Late Challaka Narsing Rao in the schedule property. The plaintiffs are the sole surviving legal heirs of Late Challaka

Narsing Rao and have succeeded to the share of the Late Challaka Narsing Rao in the schedule property in accordance with personal law applicable to the parties.

On the account of demise of Late Challaka Narsing Rao, the plaintiffs are intending to mutate their names as the joint owners of the suit schedule property and converting the utility bills and other documents pertaining to the schedule property in the name of the plaintiffs. Hence constrained to file the present suit.

OS.100/2021

5

7.Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is deemed fit to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act and Section 102 of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. Under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 that any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such character or right and the court may in its discretion, make therein a declaration that he is so entitled and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief. Under Sec. 102 of

Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof in a suit proceedings lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. So, the initial burden of proving the same is on the plaintiffs.

8.In order to substantiate their case, the plaintiffs have placed reliance on oral testimony of PW-1 coupled with Exs. A1 to A19 documents. The documents on record clinchingly prove the case of the plaintiffs. In order to rebut the said version of the plaintiffs, the defendants were reluctant to contest the suit and remained exparte. Unless the contrary is proved, the plaintiffs cannot be non-suited and thus the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants declaring the plaintiffs as legal heirs of Late Challaka Narsing Rao. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

(Typed to my dictation by stenographer directly on the system, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 2nd day of June 2021.)

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1- Smt. Challaka Balamani- NIL -

OS.100/2021

6

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: is the Original Death Certificate of Late Challaka Narsing Rao

Ex.A2: is the Self attested copy of Aadhar bearing No.291669262415 of Plaintiff

No.1

Ex.A3: is the Self attested copy of Aadhar bearing No.728344263296 of Plaintiff

No.2

Ex.A4: is the Self attested copy of Aadhar bearing No.882129560206 of Plaintiff

No.3

Ex.A5: is the CC of Sale Deed bearing No.6523/1996, dated 20.11.1996

Ex.A6: is the CC of Partition Deed bearing No.9798/2004, dated 17.09.2004

Ex.A7: is the CC of Agreement of sale Cum General Power of Attorney with possession document bearing No.1088/2010, dated 19.02.2010.

Ex.A8: is the CC of Sale Deed bearing No.14797/2019, dated 05.10.2019

Ex.A9: is the Original Land Valuation Certificate for Schedule-A, dated 21.09.2020

EX.A10: is the Original Land Valuation Certificate for Schedule-B, dated 21.09.2020

Ex.A11: is the Original Land Valuation Certificate for Schedule-C, dated 21.09.2020

Ex.A12: is the Original Land Valuation Certificate for Schedule-D, dated 21.09.2020

Ex.A13: is the Original electricity bill payment statement for the Schedule-A

Ex.A14: is the Original electricity bill payment statement for the Schedule-B

Ex.A15: is the Original property tax receipt for Schedule-A, bearing PIN

No.10203113357, dated 10.04.2020

Ex.A16: is the Original Encumbrance Certificate for the Doc bearing

No.6523/1996, dated 20.01.2021

Ex.A17: is the Original Encumbrance Certificate for the Doc bearing

No.9798/2004, dated 20.01.2021

OS.100/2021

7

Ex.A18: is the Original Encumbrance Certificate for the Doc bearing

No.1088/2010, dated 20.01.2021

Ex.A19: is the Original Encumbrance Certificate for the Doc bearing

No.14797/2019, dated 20.01.2021

FOR DEFENDANTS

-NIL-

I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.