Smt T.Madhavi

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Karimnagar

Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex · Karimnagar · Telangana

Smt T.Madhavi, II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Karimnagar, is posted at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex, Karimnagar, Telangana, India. 1,616 court orders on record since 2015. 18 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, EP, JCC cases.

1,616

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/199/2012

GAJJELA VENKATAIAH vs GAJJELA LINGAIAH

10 Apr 2018

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KARIMNAGAR.

Tuesday, this the 10th day of April, 2018.

PRESENT: T.MADHAVI,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

O.S.NO.199/2012

Between:

1.Gajjela Venkaiah, S/o Hanmaiah, Aged: 60 years, Occu: Agriculture and labour.

2.Gajjela Rajaiah, S/o Hanmaiah, Aged: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture and labour. Both are R/o Vannaram village, Ramadugu Mandal of Karimnagar District. …Plaintiffs.

And

Gajjela Lingaiah, S/o Pochaiah, Aged: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Vannaram village, Ramadugu Mandal of Karimnagar District.

…Defendant.

CLAIM: Suit for perpetual injunction by restraining the defendant, and his family members, his men, servants, agents, etc., and all other persons related to the defendant or claiming under him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

This suit is coming before me on 07022018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Venugopal, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri P.Sugunakar Rao, Advocate for the defendant, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following: :: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a suit for perpetual injunction against sole defendant with costs.

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

2) The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are own brothers. The plaintiff No.1 is having Ac.014 guntas of land and plaintiff No.2 is having Ac.013 guntas of land in survey No.151/35 in single compact block, situated at

Vannaram village of Ramadugu Mandal of Karimngar District (hereinafter called as suit lands). Both the plaintiffs acquired the suit lands through their ancestors. Actually, the survey number of the suit land was 151, but it was subdivided several times and changed and now the subdivision number is 35. The plaintiffs have been doing agriculture in respect of their shares of land by getting irrigation facility from the village tank. The defendant is their brother in relation. The father of plaintiffs and father of defendant are brothers. Hence, the defendant is also having Ac.020 guntas of land in the same survey number. The plaintiffs are having another brother Gajjela Mallaiah who is also having Ac.013 guntas of land in the same survey number.

Hence, the names of plaintiffs and defendant were recorded in revenue records in respect of their shares. Therefore, the plaintiffs were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit lands.

2.1) The defendant is intending to occupy the suit lands by dispossessing the plaintiffs. Hence, on 02062012 the defendant along with his men came to the suit lands, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit lands. With great difficulty, the plaintiffs resisted the attempts of the defendant and his men. The defendant threatened them that he will definitely occupy the suit lands on some other day. Hence, having no other way, they filed this suit for perpetual injunction.

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

3) The defendant filed his written statement admitting his relationship with the plaintiffs and further stated that he is owner and possessor of Ac.120 guntas of land in survey No.151/35, including the suit land admeasuring Ac.027 guntas as he inherited the same from his father late Gajjela Pochaiah. As his father was landless poor person belongs to Scheduled Caste, the Government assigned Ac.120 guntas in survey No.151/35 and his father was in possession by cultivating the same and he died due to illhealth. After his death, the defendant succeeded the said land and he has been in possession by cultivating the same. He applied for mutation before the Revenue Officials and the same was mutated on his name. Pattedar pass book and title deed were also issued in favour of the defendant. The plaintiffs filed this suit in respect of Ac.027 guntas in survey No.151/35 claiming rights over part of his land of Ac.120 guntas. In fact, the plaintiff No.1 is not the owner and possessor of Ac.014 guntas and plaintiff No.2 is not the owner and possessor of Ac.013 guntas in survey No.151/35. The plaintiffs were never in possession and cultivating the said lands. With an intention to grab his land of Ac.027 guntas, they filed this suit. The brother of plaintiffs is also not having Ac.013 guntas in suit survey number as claimed by the plaintiffs.

3.1) The plaintiffs managed the revenue officials and got entered their names in possession column of pahanies for the years 200607, 200708, 200809 and 20092010. After knowing about the same, he applied before the Revenue Officials for rectification of wrong entries.

On his application, the Revenue Officials conducted enquiry and the 4

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

Tahsildar, Ramadugu issued a memo dated 10022012 vide File

No.B/1591/2011 by rectifying the said wrong entries and ordered to enter his name in the possession column of survey No.151/35. The plaintiffs filed this suit with a false claim, though they are not having title, possession and interest over the suit lands and he is owner of

Ac.120 guntas in survey No.151/35, including the suit land. Finally, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4)Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were settled for trial:

1)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction, as prayed for?

2)To what relief?

5) In support of the case of plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.20 through him.

In support of the case of the defendant, the defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.5 through him. He also got examined one Javvaji Prakash as D.W.2.

6) Heard both the counsel.

7) As per the arguments of the counsel for the plaintiffs, both the plaintiffs and defendant got properties from their ancestors though it is a Government land. All are cultivating their respective lands in survey

No.151. The survey No.151 is of 39 bits. Proceedings were issued under Ex.A.5 dated 10022012. In pahanies in survey Nos.151/24, 151, three names were shown in Khabja column. The name of Pochaiah 5

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

was shown since 199394. In his cross examination, the defendant admitted that the plaintiffs are having land in the same survey number, but he cannot say the boundaries. There is no question of interference over the land of defendant by the plaintiffs, as there is no need to the plaintiffs to go into the land of defendant. Pattedar passbook is created and it is showing the land in survey No.151/2 to an extent of Ac.027 guntas. Basing on the said created document, the defendant is trying to interfere into the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs.

8)Whereas, the counsel for the defendant argued that as per the case of the plaintiffs, they acquired the land from their ancestors in survey No.151, but its subdivisions were changed. They admitted that the defendant is having Ac.020 guntas in the same survey number.

Their another brother is having Ac.013 guntas in the same survey number, but he is not a party to the suit. They denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit land. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land. The defendant is having Ac.120 guntas in the same survey number as owner and pattedar of Ac.120 guntas. But the suit is filed for Ac.113 guntas in survey No.151/35. The defendant inherited the land from his father Pochaiah, whose name was shown in records as possessor and pattedar. The plaintiffs managed the revenue officials and got entered their names in possession column of 200607 pahanies etc. Soon after knowing about this, the defendant applied before the

Tahsildar for rectification of records. On that, the Tahsildar issued a memo stating that the entries entered in the pahanies have to be rectified and the name of defendant is showing in total columns of pahani of the year 201112. The suit is filed in 2012, hence the relevant year is 201112 which is showing the name of defendant. The 6

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

names of plaintiffs were not note down in any of the documents for the year of filing of the suit. Pahanies were issued long back for survey

No.151. The admissions of the plaintiffs themselves are showing that the defendant is having land in the same survey number.

9) ISSUE NO.1 :Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction, as prayed for?

As per the case of the plaintiffs, they are own brothers and defendant is their agnate. All are having lands in suit survey number.

The father of defendant is brother of their father. Originally, the survey number of the suit land was 151, but it was subdivided several times and finally, its subdivision number is 35, in which the plaintiff No.1 is having Ac.014 guntas of land and plaintiff No.2 is having Ac.013 guntas of land. As the defendant has been trying to interfere with their possession over the suit land, they filed this suit.

9.1) Whereas, the version of the defendant is quite opposite to their version though he agreed his relationship with the plaintiffs. As per the case of defendant, none of the plaintiffs are having possession and enjoyment or ownership over the suit land at any point of time. The

Government issued land to his father as he was poor and landless person. During his life time, his father did agriculture in suit land as possessor and owner. After his death, he succeeded the same. Mutation proceedings were also issued in his favour. Pattedar passbook and title deed were also issued in his favour. But the plaintiffs managed the revenue officials and got entered their names in pahanies. He also applied before the Tahsildar for rectification of entries in pahanies.

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

10) As the plaintiffs knocked the doors of this Court for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant, the burden is on them only to prove that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit land as on the date of filing of the suit, on which the defendant tried to interfere and dispossess them.

11) The plaintiff No.1, as P.W.1, reiterated the contents of plaint in his chief examination affidavit and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.20. Exs.A.1 to A.20 all are certified copies of pahanies i.e., Exs.A.1 to A.8 are certified copies of pahanies from the years 200304 to 201011, Ex.A.9 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 198182, Ex.A.10 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 198990, Ex.A.11 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 199091, Ex.A.12 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 199394, Ex.A.13 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 199495,

Ex.A.14 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 199596, Ex.A.15 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 199697, Ex.A.16 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 199798, Ex.A.17 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 199899, Ex.A.18 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 19992000, Ex.A.19 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 200102 and Ex.A.20 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 200203.

11.1) In his cross examination, P.W.1 stated as follows:

The suit schedule property is Government land. The defendant is the son of his junior paternal uncle. He does not know the total extent of land in survey No.151 and also how many bits are there in the said survey number. He further admitted that the Government, 30 years back, issued patta in the name father of defendant by name Pochaiah to an extent of Ac.10 ½ guntas in survey No.151/35. Since 30 years, the name of father of defendant is coming in revenue records and after his 8

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

death, the name of defendant is coming as pattedar and possessor of suit land. Here he volunteered that the defendant managed and got entered his name in revenue records. Pattedar pass book and title deed were issued in the name of defendant in respect of suit land. Himself and plaintiff No.2 are not having pattedar pass book and title deed in respect of suit land and they have not filed any document to show that they are owners of the suit land. He does not know when partition took place between his father and his two brothers. After partition between his father and his brothers, the Government issued patta to Pochaiah who is the father of defendant. Here, the witness again volunteered that he does not know. He denied the suggestion that he colluded with revenue officials and got entered the names of himself and plaintiff No.2 in possession column of pahani of the year 200304, basing on which he is claiming title and possession over the suit land, though they were never in possession of the suit land. He finally denied the suggestion that the defendant is the owner and possessor of Ac.120 guntas of land.

12) The defendant as D.W.1 and one Javvaji Prakash as D.W.2 reiterated the contents of written statement in their chief examination affidavit. Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked in the chief examination affidavit of

D.W.1. They are, Ex.B.1 is the original pattedar pass book of Gajjela

Pochaiah. Ex.B.2 is the original pattedar pass book of Gajjela

Ramalingaiah. Ex.B.3 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 200809. Ex.B.4 is mutation proceedings issued by Tahsildar in favour of

Pochaiah dated 31102008 and Ex.B.5 is the memo issued by Tahsildar,

Ramadugu vide No.1591/2011 dated 10022012.

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

12.1) In his cross examination, D.W.1 stated as follows:

He admitted that his grand father had three sons and the plaintiffs are sons of his senior paternal uncle. The suit land is in

Ac.125 guntas and he does not know the total extent of suit survey number. The suit land was given to his father by the Government. Since that period, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He also admitted that the land in survey No.151 is a Government land. He does not know the bit number of survey No.151 of their land. He denied the suggestion that originally, he is having Ac.020 guntas of land only in survey No.151/35, but by adding '1' before 20 guntas, he is claiming

Ac.120 guntas. The boundaries of Ac.120 guntas of his land in survey

No.151/35 are, on East: Land of Gajjela Durgaiah and Mallaiah, West:

Land of Gajjela Venkataiah, North: Village tank and South: Land of

Srihari. He does not know upto what period, the names of plaintiffs were shown in possession columns of pahanies in respect of land in survey

No.151/35. The plaintiffs are also having Ac.100 guntas of land in suit survey number, but he cannot give the boundaries. He denied the suggestion that on furnishing wrong information, he got obtained Ex.B.5.

The plaintifs filed an application for rectification of entries in pahanies and he is also attending the same. Finally, he stated that he is only doing cultivation of the suit land.

12.2) In his cross examination, D.W.2 stated as follows:

He knows the defendant since his childhood, but he is not his relative. He is having Ac.300 guntas of land in survey No.57 and he knows the suit land. There is tank between his land and suit land. The survey nunber of suit land is 151/27. Both the plaintiffs, their brother 10

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

Mallaiah and defendant are having equal extent of land in survey No.151.

He knows the boundaries of Ac.10 ½ guntas as, on East: Pedda

Cheruvu, West: Lands of Durgaiah and Mallaiah, North: Land of

Venkataiah and South: Land of Rajaiah.

13) From the above evidence of P.W.1, D.W.1 and D.W.2, there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties and also having land by defendant in suit survey number. Here, the main contention of defendant is that none of the plaintiffs and their brother were in possession and cultivation of the suit land. He is having Ac.120 guntas which he succeeded from his father Pochaiah. After his death, he has been in possession and enjoynment of the same by doing cultivation.

Here, the documents under Exs.A.1 to A.20 have to be looked into.

14) Ex.A.1 is the pahani for the year 200304 obtained under Right to Information Act 2005, wherein the land in survey No.151/35 was shown in the name of Gajjela Pochaiah, S/o Lasmaiah as pattedar,

Gajjela Venkataiah as possessor for Ac.010 guntas, Gajjela Mallaiah as possessor for Ac.013 guntas and Gajjela Rajaiah as possessor of Ac.014 guntas.

14.1) Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 200405 obtained under Right to Information Act. Ex.A.2 is also showing the name of Gajjela Pochaiah as pattedar and kathadar, but Gajjela

Venkataiah, Mallaiah and Rajalingaiah were shown as possessors.

14.2) Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 200506 obtained under Right to Information Act, wherein the land in survey

No.151/35 was shown in the name of Gajjela Pochaiah as pattedar and 11

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

kathadar and the names of Lingaiah, Venkataiah, Mallaiah and Rajaiah were shown as possessors.

14.3) Ex.A.4 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 200607 obtained under Right to Information Act. In this also, the name of

Pochaiah was shown as kathadar and pattedar for survey No.151/35, whereas the names of Lingaiah, Venkataiah, Rajaiah and Mallaiah were shown as possessors, so also Exs.A.5, A.6 and A.7 were showing the name of Pochaiah as pattedar and the names of plaintiffs and defendant were shown as possessors. Except the pahanies, no other document was filed by the plaintiffs to show their lawful possession over the suit land.

15) Whereas, Ex.B.1 which is pattedar pass book of Gajjela Pochaiah, is showing Ac.300 guntas in survey No.151/27 and Ac.060 guntas in survey No.151/24. Ex.B.2 is the pattedar pass book of Gajjela

Ramalingaiah, S/o Pochaiah (defendant) is showing Ac.120 guntas in survey No.151/35. Ex.B.3 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 200809, wherein the land in survey No.151/35 was shown in the name of Gajjela Lingaiah as kathadar, pattedar and possessor. Ex.B.4 is the mutation proceedings dated 31102008 for Ac.132 guntas in which

Ac.120 guntas from survey No.151/35 was mentioned. Ex.B.5 is the memo issued by Tahsildar dated 10022012, wherein the rectification of pahani was ordered for Ac.120 guntas in survey No.151/35.

16) As the plaintiffs are asking that they have been in possession and enjoyment of land in survey No.151/35 to an extent of Ac.014 guntas for plaintiff No.1 and Ac.013 guntas for plaintiff No.2, they ought to have filed documents to support their case. But unfortunately, they completely relied on pahanies only, though the defendant raised his voice 12

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

that by colluding with revenue officials, the plaintiffs got entered their names in pahanies on which he applied for rectification of pahanies and the same was allowed. At this stage, the burden is heavily on the shoulders of plaintiffs only that the entries in pahanies are true and genuine, and basing on that, they want to establish their case that they are owners and possessors of Ac.027 guntas in survey No.151/35 which is a compact bit. At the same time, the plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 clearly admitted about having land by defendant in the same survey number saying that since 30 years, the father of defendant was in possession of

Ac.10 ½ guntas, after the death of father of defendant, his name was shown in revenue records. Himself and his brother are not having pattedar pass books in respect of suit land. All the above admissions of plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 are showing that the defendant is also having land in the same survey number prior to the death of his father. At the same time, the plaintiffs failed to prove their title incidentally and they also failed to prove their possession over the suit land as on the date of filing of the suit. If we believe the documents of the plaintiffs, even for discussion purpose, then also, the admissions of P.W.1 plays a vital role that the defendant is also having land in suit survey number. At that stage, the alleged interference dated 02062012 has to be proved by the plaintiffs only. But unfortunately, the plaintiffs have not succeeded to prove the alleged interference of the defendant over the suit land on 02062012.

17) From the above discussions, this Court came to conclusion that there are no merits in this suit to decree the matter. The issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

18) ISSUE NO.2:

In view of the findings of this Court on issue No.1, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

19) IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs to avoid future complications between the parties as they are agnates and having lands in adjacent survey numbers.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2018.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Gajjela Venkaiah. D.W.1: Gajjela Lingaiah. D.W.2: Javvaji Prakash.

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A.1:Certified copy of pahani for the year 200304 (five sheets). Ex.A.2:Certified copy of pahani for the year 200405 (five sheets). Ex.A.3:Certified copy of pahani for the year 200506 (five sheets). Ex.A.4:Certified copy of pahani for the year 200607 (six sheets). Ex.A.5:Certified copy of pahani for the year 200708. Ex.A.6:Certified copy of pahani for the year 200809 (five sheets). Ex.A.7:Certified copy of pahani for the year 200910 (four sheets). Ex.A.8:Certified copy of pahani for the year 201011. Ex.A.9:Certified copy of pahani for the year 198182 issue by Deputy Tahsildar, Ramadugu (4 sheets). Ex.A.10:Certified copy of pahani for the year 198990 issue by Deputy Tahsildar, Ramadugu (5 sheets). Ex.A.11:Certified copy of pahani for the year 199091 issue by Deputy Tahsildar, Ramadugu (4 sheets). Ex.A.12:Certified copy of pahani for the year 199394 issue by Deputy Tahsildar, Ramadugu (4 sheets). Ex.A.13:Copy of pahani for the year 199495 issue by Deputy Tahsildar, Ramadugu.

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

Ex.A.14:Copy of pahani for the year 199596 issue by Deputy Tahsildar, Ramadugu (6 sheets). Ex.A.15:Copy of pahani for the year 199697 issue by Deputy Tahsildar, Ramadugu (5 sheets). Ex.A.16:Copy of pahani for the year 199798 issue by Deputy Tahsildar, Ramadugu (5 sheets). Ex.A.17:Copy of pahani for the year 199899 issue by Deputy Tahsildar, Ramadugu (4 sheets). Ex.A.18:Copy of pahani for the year 19992000 issue by Deputy Tahsildar, Ramadugu. Ex.A.19:Copy of pahani for the year 200102 issue by Deputy Tahsildar, Ramadugu (5 sheets). Ex.A.20:Copy of pahani for the year 200203 issue by Deputy Tahsildar, Ramadugu (6 sheets).

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.B.1:Original pattedar pass book of Gajjela Pochaiah vide No.2152. Ex.B.2:Original pattedar pass book issued by MRO for Gajjela Rama Lingaiah. Ex.B.3:Certified copy of pahani for the year 200809. Ex.B.4:Mutation proceedings issued by Tahsildar, Ramadugu in favour of Gajjela Pochaiah dated 31102008. Ex.B.5:Memo issued by Tahsildar Ramadugu vide No.1591/2011

dated 10022012.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

OS/199/2012

GAJJELA VENKATAIAH vs GAJJELA LINGAIAH

10 Apr 2018

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KARIMNAGAR.

Tuesday, this the 10th day of April, 2018.

PRESENT: T.MADHAVI,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

O.S.NO.199/2012

Between:

1.Gajjela Venkaiah, S/o Hanmaiah, Aged: 60 years, Occu: Agriculture and labour.

2.Gajjela Rajaiah, S/o Hanmaiah, Aged: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture and labour. Both are R/o Vannaram village, Ramadugu Mandal of Karimnagar District. …Plaintiffs.

And

Gajjela Lingaiah, S/o Pochaiah, Aged: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Vannaram village, Ramadugu Mandal of Karimnagar District.

…Defendant.

This is a suit for perpetual injunction against sole defendant with costs.

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

2) The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

Hence, the names of plaintiffs and defendant were recorded in revenue records in respect of their shares. Therefore, the plaintiffs were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit lands.

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

On his application, the Revenue Officials conducted enquiry and the 4

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

Tahsildar, Ramadugu issued a memo dated 10022012 vide File

Ac.120 guntas in survey No.151/35, including the suit land. Finally, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4)Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were settled for trial:

1)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction, as prayed for?

2)To what relief?

5) In support of the case of plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.20 through him.

In support of the case of the defendant, the defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.5 through him. He also got examined one Javvaji Prakash as D.W.2.

6) Heard both the counsel.

No.151. The survey No.151 is of 39 bits. Proceedings were issued under Ex.A.5 dated 10022012. In pahanies in survey Nos.151/24, 151, three names were shown in Khabja column. The name of Pochaiah 5

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

names of plaintiffs were not note down in any of the documents for the year of filing of the suit. Pahanies were issued long back for survey

No.151. The admissions of the plaintiffs themselves are showing that the defendant is having land in the same survey number.

9) ISSUE NO.1 :Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction, as prayed for?

As per the case of the plaintiffs, they are own brothers and defendant is their agnate. All are having lands in suit survey number.

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

11.1) In his cross examination, P.W.1 stated as follows:

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

D.W.1. They are, Ex.B.1 is the original pattedar pass book of Gajjela

Pochaiah. Ex.B.2 is the original pattedar pass book of Gajjela

Ramalingaiah. Ex.B.3 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 200809. Ex.B.4 is mutation proceedings issued by Tahsildar in favour of

Pochaiah dated 31102008 and Ex.B.5 is the memo issued by Tahsildar,

Ramadugu vide No.1591/2011 dated 10022012.

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

12.1) In his cross examination, D.W.1 stated as follows:

He admitted that his grand father had three sons and the plaintiffs are sons of his senior paternal uncle. The suit land is in

Ac.120 guntas. The boundaries of Ac.120 guntas of his land in survey

No.151/35 are, on East: Land of Gajjela Durgaiah and Mallaiah, West:

Land of Gajjela Venkataiah, North: Village tank and South: Land of

Srihari. He does not know upto what period, the names of plaintiffs were shown in possession columns of pahanies in respect of land in survey

The plaintifs filed an application for rectification of entries in pahanies and he is also attending the same. Finally, he stated that he is only doing cultivation of the suit land.

12.2) In his cross examination, D.W.2 stated as follows:

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

Mallaiah and defendant are having equal extent of land in survey No.151.

He knows the boundaries of Ac.10 ½ guntas as, on East: Pedda

Cheruvu, West: Lands of Durgaiah and Mallaiah, North: Land of

Venkataiah and South: Land of Rajaiah.

Here, the documents under Exs.A.1 to A.20 have to be looked into.

14) Ex.A.1 is the pahani for the year 200304 obtained under Right to Information Act 2005, wherein the land in survey No.151/35 was shown in the name of Gajjela Pochaiah, S/o Lasmaiah as pattedar,

Gajjela Venkataiah as possessor for Ac.010 guntas, Gajjela Mallaiah as possessor for Ac.013 guntas and Gajjela Rajaiah as possessor of Ac.014 guntas.

14.1) Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 200405 obtained under Right to Information Act. Ex.A.2 is also showing the name of Gajjela Pochaiah as pattedar and kathadar, but Gajjela

Venkataiah, Mallaiah and Rajalingaiah were shown as possessors.

14.2) Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 200506 obtained under Right to Information Act, wherein the land in survey

No.151/35 was shown in the name of Gajjela Pochaiah as pattedar and 11

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

kathadar and the names of Lingaiah, Venkataiah, Mallaiah and Rajaiah were shown as possessors.

14.3) Ex.A.4 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 200607 obtained under Right to Information Act. In this also, the name of

15) Whereas, Ex.B.1 which is pattedar pass book of Gajjela Pochaiah, is showing Ac.300 guntas in survey No.151/27 and Ac.060 guntas in survey No.151/24. Ex.B.2 is the pattedar pass book of Gajjela

Ac.120 guntas from survey No.151/35 was mentioned. Ex.B.5 is the memo issued by Tahsildar dated 10022012, wherein the rectification of pahani was ordered for Ac.120 guntas in survey No.151/35.

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

17) From the above discussions, this Court came to conclusion that there are no merits in this suit to decree the matter. The issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

18) ISSUE NO.2:

In view of the findings of this Court on issue No.1, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

19) IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs to avoid future complications between the parties as they are agnates and having lands in adjacent survey numbers.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2018.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Gajjela Venkaiah. D.W.1: Gajjela Lingaiah. D.W.2: Javvaji Prakash.

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

O.S.NO. 199 OF 2012

FOR DEFENDANT:

dated 10022012.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

OS/415/2012

ANUPURAM VIJAYA LAXMI vs ANUPURAM THIRUPATHI

16 Apr 2018

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KARIMNAGAR.

Monday, this the 16th day of April, 2018.

PRESENT: T.MADHAVI,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

O.S.NO.415/2012

Between:

Anupuram Vijayalaxmi, W/o Veeraiah, Aged: 37 years, Occu: Household, R/o Koratapally village, Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District.

…Plaintiff.

And

1.Anupuram Thirupathi, S/o Mallaiah, Aged: 43 years, Occu: Business.

2.Anupuram Madhavi @ Manga, W/o Thirupathi, Aged: 38 years, Occu: House hold. Both are R/o H.No.102764/2, Vidyanagar, Karimnagar.

…Defendants.

CLAIM: Suit for perpetual injunction by restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents etc. and all other persons related to the defendants or claiming under them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

This suit is coming before me on 15022018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Venugopal, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M.Anil Kumar, Advocate for the defendants, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following: :: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants

No.1 and 2 with costs.

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

2) The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendants No.1 and 2 are husband and wife. The defendant

No.1 is younger brother of husband of plaintiff. The plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of land measuring 466 square yards in survey

No.66, plot Nos.21 and 22 situated at Seetharampur village of

Karimnagar Mandal and District (hereinafter called as suit land). The plaintiff acquired the suit land through registered sale vide document 5186/1999 dated 17111999 from one Edla Rajesham and Panjala

Jagnmohan Goud for a valid consideration. Since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by according permission for construction vide proceedings No.GP/SRP/B85/201112 dated 03082011 from Grampanchayath, Seetharampur. Accordingly, she paid required property tax. She constructed basement, dug a bore well in the suit land.

2.1) While so, the defendants No.1 and 2 who are strangers to the suit land are intending to occupy the same by dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. On 09082012 the defendants along with their men came to the suit land and tried to occupy the suit land by dispossessing the plaintiff. The plaintiffs resisted the attempts of the defendants with her men and with the help of local people. The defendants threatened her that they will definitely occupy the suit land on some other day. The plaintiff being a lady could not restrain the defendants from occupying the suit land. Hence this suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants with costs.

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

3) The defendants admitted their relationship with the plaintiff in their written statement and they denied other allegations of the plaint in the following manner:

The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. The documents filed by the plaintiff did not establish ownership and possession of the plaintiff, as they are created only for the purpose of this suit. The plea of the plaintiff that she was accorded permission by the

Grampanchayath is not correct and does not create any right in her favour over the suit land. In fact, the defendant No.1 is the younger brother of husband of plaintiff. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff and her husband approached them and requested for financial help to a tune of

Rs.5,00,000/. Considering the relationship and the necessity, the defendant No.1 agreed to advance Rs.5,00,000/ to the plaintiff and her husband by mobilizing funds from his friends and relatives. As per the convenience, the defendant No.1 has advanced Rs.5,00,000/ on 14032012. The said loan amount was paid in the presence of witness namely Anupuram Rajalingu. The plaintiff agreed to repay the said loan amount by lifting chits. The defendants have not insisted for execution of any document by the plaintiff in view of close relationship between them. The said loan transaction was occurred at the house of defendant No.1. The plaintiff has agreed to repay the loan amount as and when demanded preferably within a period of three months and she further assured that if she fails to repay the loan amount, she will execute a sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of suit land.

3.1) After lapse of three moths, when defendants requested the plaintiff and her husband to repay the loan amount, the plaintiff evaded for repayment for the reasons best known to them. Then the matter 4

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

was referred to their respective elders. On that, a panchayath was conducted on 07072012 in which the elders advised the plaintiff and her husband to pay back the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/ which was availed by them on 14032012 along with interest. The plaintiff and her husband have not satisfied with the above advise of elders and started threatening the defendants that they cannot do anything against them and they are not going to pay the loan amount. The plaintiff and her husband also filed a complaint with Rural Police Station,

Karimnagar with false allegations and the Police considered the falsity of complaint and closed the same advising the plaintiff and her husband not to indulging in filing false cases against the defendants.

Then they filed this suit only to harass the defendants and their family members. There is no truth in the contents of plaint, as they never tried to occupy the suit land of the plaintiff at any time and the allegations are made only for the purpose of this suit claim. There is no cause of action to the plaintiff to file this suit and finally prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4)Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were settled for trial:

1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

2)To what relief?

5) In support of the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 through her. She also got examined one Anupuram Mallaiah as P.W.2.

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

In support of the case of the defendants, the defendant No.1 got examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on their behalf. They also got examined one Anupuram Rajalingu as D.W.2.

6) Heard the arguments of both the counsel.

7) ISSUE NO.1 :Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

There is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. The main contention of the plaintiff is that she purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deed vide document

No.5186/1999 dated 17111999. After that, she obtained permission from the Grampanchayath, constructed a basement wall and dug a well in the suit land. While so, the defendants No.1 and 2 who are their close relatives and who are not having any rights over the suit land, have been trying to interfere with her possession over the suit land. On 982012 when the defendants tried to dispossess her from the suit land, with the help of her neighbours and family members, she restrained the attempts of the defendants with a great difficulty. Then the defendants threatened her that on any day, they will occupy the suit land.

7.1) Whereas, the case of the defendants is that the plaintiff is not owner and possessor of the suit land. She never obtained permission from Grampanchayath and it will not confer any right to the plaintiff over the suit land. Basing on their relationship, the plaintiff and her husband approached them for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/. Keeping the relationship between the parties in mind and basing on the necessity of the plaintiff's family, the defendant No.1 advanced Rs.5,00,000/ on 14032012 without taking any document from the plaintiff. The said transaction was occurred in the house of defendant No.1 in the presence of Anupuram 6

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

Rajalingu (D.W.2). At that time, the plaintiff agreed to repay the said amount with interest whenever demanded by the defendants, preferably within three months. She also underwent to hand over the suit property to the defendants, if she fails to repay the said amount with interest within agreed time. But surprisingly, when the defendants asked the plaintiff and her husband to repay the amount, they eveded to repay the said amount. On that a panchayath was held before the elders on 07072012, wherein the elders advised the plaintiff to repay the amount to the defendants with interest. But the plaintiff and her husband not satisfied with the advise of elders. As a counter blast, they filed this suit with false allegations. They also went to the extent of filing a false criminal complaint against the defendants. But fortunately the Police closed that crime alleging that the allegations were false.

8) Now, it would be seen how far the plaintiff will prove her case that as on the date of filing of the suit, she was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit land, in which the defendants tried to interfere with her possession and enjoyment without having any right or title over the same.

9) As the plaintiff knocked the doors of this Court for the relief of perpetual injunction, the entire burden to prove her case is on her shoulders only without depending on the weakness in the case of defendants.

10) The gist of chief examination affidavit contents of P.W.1 are one and the same to the contents of plaint. She got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 in her chief examination affidavit.

10.1) Ex.A.1 is the registered sale deed vide document No.5186/1999

dated 17111999. Ex.A.2 is the property tax receipt dated 05072014.

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

Ex.A.3 is the property tax receipt dated 02042015. Ex.A.4 is the property tax receipt dated 16112016.

10.2) In her cross examination, P.W.1 stated as follows:

She admitted her relationship with the defendants. She further stated in her cross examination that she purchased 466 square yards from one Edla Rajesham and Panjala Jaganmohan Goud. But she does not know how her vendors acquired the said 466 square yards of land.

She does not know whether she filed any link documents to show the title of her vendors. She denied the suggestion that Ex.A.1 is a created document and Exs.A.2 to A.4 are obtained from Grampanchayath in collusion with Grampanchayath Officials. She also denied the suggestion that herself and her husband borrowed Rs.5,00,000/ on 14032012 from the defendants and as they demanded to pay the amount, they filed this suit. She also denied the suggestion that they gave assurance that if she fails to repay the amount, she will give the suit land to the defendants for the said amount. They have not preferred to give Police complaint on 09082012 against the defendants.

11) One Anupuram Mallaiah who is the father of husband of plaintiff, deposed as P.W.2. In his chief examination affidavit, he stated that the plaintiff is owner and possessor of 466 square yards in survey No.66, plots No.21 and 22. she purchased the same under document

No.5186/1999. The defendant No.1 is his younger son and defenadant

No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. Both the defendants are not having any right or title over the suit property, but intentionally they are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff only to harass her.

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

11.1) In his cross examination, P.W.2 stated as follows:

He does not know the name of locality where the plaintiff purchased the suit land, but it was towards Alphores College. He does not remember the date of purchase and boundaries of her purchased land. One year back, the plaintiff told him that the defendants tried to interfere with the suit land. He denied the suggestion of borrowing

Rs.5,00,000/ by plaintiff from the defendants.

12) The defendant No.1, as D.W.1, reiterated the contents of his written statement in his chief examination affidavit, but no documents were marked through him.

12.1) In his cross examination, D.W.1 stated as follows:

He is doing agriculture and business of granite stones. One

Durgam Jagan Goud is his botherinlaw. He does not know for what relief, O.S.167/2012 was filed. He denied the suggestion that he got filed

O.S.167/2012 against the plaintiff through his brotherinlaw Durgam

Jagan Goud. He has not filed any document to show that on 07072012 a panchayath was conducted, in which the elders advised the plaintiff and her husband. He has also not filed any document to show that on 14032012 the plaintiff and her husband took an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/ from him. He is not having any document with regard to the alleged complaint filed by the plaintiff against him in Rural Police

Station, Karimnagar. He does not know when and from whom, the plaintiff purchased this suit property. He does not know about the present status of suit property. He further admitted that he is no way related with this suit property. He does not know whether the plaintiff is owner and possessor of this suit property, she constructed a house in 9

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

this suit property and residing in the same. They are not having any joint family properties. Finally, he denied the suggestion that when plaintiff constructed her house in the plot, he interfered and objected the same, then she filed this suit and as a counter blast, he got filed O.S.167/2012 by forging the signature of this plaintiff.

13) One Anupuram Rajalingu reiterated the contents of written statement as D.W.2 in his chief examination affidavit.

13.1) In his cross examination, D.W.1 stated as follows:

The defendant No.1 is his adopted son. The fatherinlaw of plaintiff is his own elder brother. He does not know whether Durgam

Jagan filed a Civil Suit over this suit property for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. He does not know whether the plaintiff constructed a house in this suit schedule property. He does not know the extent and location of this suit schedule property. He went to the extent of saying that he does not know who filed this suit against whom. There was no document between the plaintiff and defendants with regard to alleged transaction of lending Rs.5,00,000/ to the plaintiff by defendants No.1 and 2, so also there was no document with regard to alleged panchayath before the community elders on 07072012.

14) Ex.A.1 is the registered sale deed vide document No.5186/1999

dated 17111999, which is showing that it was executed by Edla

Rajesham and Panjan Jagan Mohan Goud in favour of Anupuram

Vijayalaxmi (plaintiff), wherein it was mentioned that the vendors of plaintiff purchased the property from Kasarla Hanumanthi, S/o Pedda

Mallaiah vide document No.4827/1997 dated 02081997. Now, they are selling the same to the plaintiff for Rs.93,200/. Possession was handed 10

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

over to her. The schedule of Ex.A.1 is showing that it was executed for the land of 466 square yards and there are no structures in the suit land.

It is having boundaries as on East: 20 feet width road, West: Plot No.20,

North: Plot No.11 and South: PWD Road.

14.1) Ex.A.2 is the property tax receipt dated 05072014 for house

No.2234/1/2. Exs.A.3 and A.4 are also house tax receipts dated 0204 2015 and 16112016. This suit was filed in the year 2012, but Exs.A.2 to A.4 are pertaining to the period of after filing of the suit.

15) It is clear from the recitals of Ex.A.1 about the details of vendor of plaintiff's vendors with document number. Hence, the suggestion given to P.W.1 in the cross examination that she has not filed any document to show the title of her vendors, has no legs to stand.

Moreover, Ex.A.1 is not a certified copy and it is a original document. It was executed in 1999. As per this record, till today, it was not questioned by any one either the defendants or any third person, hence it is in existence right from 1999.

16) On one hand, the defendant No.1, as D.W.1, stated in his written statement that the plaintiff is not having any right over the suit schedule land. But in his cross examination, he stated that he does not know whether the plaintiff is owner and possessor of this suit schedule property, but she constructed a house in the suit property and residing in the same. When he is not having knowledge how she acquired the property, how can he say that she is not having any right over the suit property. Moreover, this suit is filed for the relief of perpetual injunction only. Even though the title of the parties can be looked into incidentally.

As the sale deed of P.W.1 under Ex.A.1 is no way contested till now, it gives rights and possession to the plaintiff over the suit property right 11

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

from 1999. In support of my opinion, I am relying on the following decisions reported in: (1) 2011 (3) ALT 229 between G.Venkat Ratnam Vs. Kollipara

Jhansi Lakshmi, wherein it was held as follows: '' In a suit for perpetual injunction simplicitor, question of title cannot be decided, and at the most, it can be referred to, for a limited purpose. When the trial court framed an issue touching on the title, parties could certainly have objected to it. It appears that they too invited a finding on that and adduced evidence. Therefore, the trail court has undertaken intensive discussion, mostly on the question of title. As a matter of fact, the issues relating to title and injunction were dealt with together. On finding that the property was purchased by the ancestors of the appellant, through Ex.A.1 dated 28031916, and that there is no subsequent sale by the owners of the land, it held that the appellant proved his title''.

''It is equally settled that a person claiming an item of property through sale, cannot fall back upon the plea of adverse possession. One cannot exist in the presence of the other''.

(2) 1993 (3) KarLJ 697 between K.Ramanathaiah Vs. Town

Municipal Council, Konapur, Arakalgud Taluq, Hassan District,

wherein it was held as follows: '' Perpetual injunction – Denial of relief prayed for by the appellant on the ground that his title over the property denied by other party is not justified in law when other party has not proved his own title''.

(3) In Fakirbhai Bhagwandas Vs. Maganlal Haribhai reported in

A.I.R 1951 Bombay 380, it was held as follows: ''It is not necessary for the person claiming injunction to 12

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

prove his title to the suit land. It would suffice if he proves that he was in lawful possession of the same and that his possession was invaded or threatened to be

invaded by a person who has no title thereof ''.

17) Apart from that the allegations levelled by the defendants that the plaintiff and her husband borrowed Rs.5,00,000/ from them, they arranged he said amount and when they demanded to repay the said amount, the plaintiff filed this suit, is not supported by either oral or documentary evidence. D.W.2, the alleged witness for said transaction, is close relative of D.W.1. D.W.1 was adopted by him as son. So, naturally, he may depose in support of his adopted son. But his clear admissions in the cross examination are giving scope that he does not know anything about the suit land i.e., where it is located, what are the boundaries and more particularly who filed this suit against whom. At the same time, there is no record with regard to alleged panchayath held on 07072012, wherein the elders advised the plaintiff and her husband to pay the amount with interest. It is also clear from the record that one Durgam Jagan Goud filed a suit vide O.S.167/2012 against the plaintiff for specific performance of contract. It appears from the record that there are disputes between the parties to this suit on different allegations. At the same time, D.W.1 in his cross examination clearly admitted that he is no way concerned with this suit schedule property.

18) From the above discussion, this Court came to conclusion that the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendants tried to interfere with her possession over the suit property. The issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

19) ISSUE NO.2:

In view of the findings of this Court on issue No.1, the suit is liable to be decreed without costs.

20) IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed by granting perpetual injunction by restraining the defendants No.1 and 2 from interfering into the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, without costs to avoid future litigation between the parties, as they are close relatives.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2018.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: Anupuram Vijaya Laxmi. D.W.1: Anupuram Thirupathi. P.W.2: Anupuram Mallaiah. D.W.2: Anupuram Rajalingu.

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A.1:Registered sale deed vide document No.5186/1999 dated 17111999. Ex.A.2:Property tax receipt dated 05072014. Ex.A.3:Property tax receipt dated 02042015. Ex.A.4:House tax receipt dated 16112016.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

N I L

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

OS/415/2012

ANUPURAM VIJAYA LAXMI vs ANUPURAM THIRUPATHI

16 Apr 2018

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KARIMNAGAR.

Monday, this the 16th day of April, 2018.

PRESENT: T.MADHAVI,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

O.S.NO.415/2012

Between:

Anupuram Vijayalaxmi, W/o Veeraiah, Aged: 37 years, Occu: Household, R/o Koratapally village, Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District.

…Plaintiff.

And

1.Anupuram Thirupathi, S/o Mallaiah, Aged: 43 years, Occu: Business.

2.Anupuram Madhavi @ Manga, W/o Thirupathi, Aged: 38 years, Occu: House hold. Both are R/o H.No.102764/2, Vidyanagar, Karimnagar.

…Defendants.

This is a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants

No.1 and 2 with costs.

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

2) The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendants No.1 and 2 are husband and wife. The defendant

No.1 is younger brother of husband of plaintiff. The plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of land measuring 466 square yards in survey

No.66, plot Nos.21 and 22 situated at Seetharampur village of

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

3) The defendants admitted their relationship with the plaintiff in their written statement and they denied other allegations of the plaint in the following manner:

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

4)Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were settled for trial:

1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

2)To what relief?

5) In support of the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 through her. She also got examined one Anupuram Mallaiah as P.W.2.

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

In support of the case of the defendants, the defendant No.1 got examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on their behalf. They also got examined one Anupuram Rajalingu as D.W.2.

6) Heard the arguments of both the counsel.

7) ISSUE NO.1 :Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

There is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. The main contention of the plaintiff is that she purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deed vide document

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

10) The gist of chief examination affidavit contents of P.W.1 are one and the same to the contents of plaint. She got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 in her chief examination affidavit.

10.1) Ex.A.1 is the registered sale deed vide document No.5186/1999

dated 17111999. Ex.A.2 is the property tax receipt dated 05072014.

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

Ex.A.3 is the property tax receipt dated 02042015. Ex.A.4 is the property tax receipt dated 16112016.

10.2) In her cross examination, P.W.1 stated as follows:

No.5186/1999. The defendant No.1 is his younger son and defenadant

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

11.1) In his cross examination, P.W.2 stated as follows:

Rs.5,00,000/ by plaintiff from the defendants.

12) The defendant No.1, as D.W.1, reiterated the contents of his written statement in his chief examination affidavit, but no documents were marked through him.

12.1) In his cross examination, D.W.1 stated as follows:

He is doing agriculture and business of granite stones. One

Durgam Jagan Goud is his botherinlaw. He does not know for what relief, O.S.167/2012 was filed. He denied the suggestion that he got filed

O.S.167/2012 against the plaintiff through his brotherinlaw Durgam

Rs.5,00,000/ from him. He is not having any document with regard to the alleged complaint filed by the plaintiff against him in Rural Police

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

13) One Anupuram Rajalingu reiterated the contents of written statement as D.W.2 in his chief examination affidavit.

13.1) In his cross examination, D.W.1 stated as follows:

The defendant No.1 is his adopted son. The fatherinlaw of plaintiff is his own elder brother. He does not know whether Durgam

14) Ex.A.1 is the registered sale deed vide document No.5186/1999

dated 17111999, which is showing that it was executed by Edla

Rajesham and Panjan Jagan Mohan Goud in favour of Anupuram

Vijayalaxmi (plaintiff), wherein it was mentioned that the vendors of plaintiff purchased the property from Kasarla Hanumanthi, S/o Pedda

Mallaiah vide document No.4827/1997 dated 02081997. Now, they are selling the same to the plaintiff for Rs.93,200/. Possession was handed 10

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

over to her. The schedule of Ex.A.1 is showing that it was executed for the land of 466 square yards and there are no structures in the suit land.

It is having boundaries as on East: 20 feet width road, West: Plot No.20,

North: Plot No.11 and South: PWD Road.

14.1) Ex.A.2 is the property tax receipt dated 05072014 for house

As the sale deed of P.W.1 under Ex.A.1 is no way contested till now, it gives rights and possession to the plaintiff over the suit property right 11

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

from 1999. In support of my opinion, I am relying on the following decisions reported in: (1) 2011 (3) ALT 229 between G.Venkat Ratnam Vs. Kollipara

''It is equally settled that a person claiming an item of property through sale, cannot fall back upon the plea of adverse possession. One cannot exist in the presence of the other''.

(2) 1993 (3) KarLJ 697 between K.Ramanathaiah Vs. Town

Municipal Council, Konapur, Arakalgud Taluq, Hassan District,

(3) In Fakirbhai Bhagwandas Vs. Maganlal Haribhai reported in

A.I.R 1951 Bombay 380, it was held as follows: ''It is not necessary for the person claiming injunction to 12

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

prove his title to the suit land. It would suffice if he proves that he was in lawful possession of the same and that his possession was invaded or threatened to be

invaded by a person who has no title thereof ''.

O.S.NO. 415 OF 2012

19) ISSUE NO.2:

In view of the findings of this Court on issue No.1, the suit is liable to be decreed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2018.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: Anupuram Vijaya Laxmi. D.W.1: Anupuram Thirupathi. P.W.2: Anupuram Mallaiah. D.W.2: Anupuram Rajalingu.

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A.1:Registered sale deed vide document No.5186/1999 dated 17111999. Ex.A.2:Property tax receipt dated 05072014. Ex.A.3:Property tax receipt dated 02042015. Ex.A.4:House tax receipt dated 16112016.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

N I L

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

MC/100008/2011

SOLLU MALLESHWARI AND ANOTHER. vs SOLLU SHYAMSUNDER.

12 Jun 2017

MC 8 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

AT KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:- Sm T Madhavi I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class. Karimnagar

Monday, the 12 th day of June, 2017

M.C. No. 8 of 2011

Between:- 1]Smt Sollu Malleshwari, W/o.Shyamsunder, Aged: 28 years, Occupation: Housewife, R/o.Saraswathinagar, Thegalaguttapalli village of Karimnagar Mandal and District 2]Sollu Sharani D/o.Shaymsunder Aged 2 years, Minor R/by her natural mother by name Sollu Malleshwari ……Petitioners

And

Sollu Shyamsunder, S/o.Lingaiah, Aged: 32 years, Occupation: Software Engineer, R/o.Flat No.302, Sai Datta Apartments, Attapur, Gummikonda colony, Hyderguda, Rajendranagar- Mandal, Ranareddy District

…..Respondent

This petition is coming on 09.06.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Md.Jameeluddin Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri E.Vikram Reddy & Gopu Laxma Reddy , Advocates for the the respondent having been heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following.

:: O R D E R ::

This is a petition filed u/sec.125 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner in MC No.8 of 2011 on the file of this Court to grant an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month to the petitioners i.e., Rs.10,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.20,000/- to the second petitioner towards their maintenance and to direct the respondent to pay the same to them every month from the date of petition.

2 The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

The petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 19.04.2009. At the time of marriage, on demand of respondent, the parents of petitioner No.1 gave Rs.8,00,000/- net cash, 14 tolas of gold and other valuable articles towards dowry. After marriage, both petitioners and

MC 8 of 2011

respondent lead marital life for six months. Out of wedlock, the petitioner No.2 was born. Since the date of marriage, the respondent and his parents started harassing the petitioner No.1 and one pretext or the other by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5 laksh. When the petitioner expressed her inability, they beat her and continued to harass her. Finally in the month of August, 2010, they necked her out of their house and having left with no other option, the petitioner No.1 along with her minor daughter is taking shelter at her parents house.

The petitioner No.1 has no source of income for her maintenance and of petitioner No.2. The respondent is working as a software Engineer and earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month towards his salary and is having means to pay the maintenance. Hence, the petition.

3A counter is filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein he admitted the relationship of petitioners with him, the rest of the allegations with regard to giving of dowry, harassment, necking them out from his house etc., have been denied. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 demanded the respondent to come to her parents house as illitum son-in-law, for which the respondent rejected and for that reason, the first petitioner on her own accord, left the house of respondent without any just cause and later, in spite of several efforts made by respondent to join his company, she failed to join and got filed this petition and the criminal case only to harass him. The respondent is not earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month as alleged by the petitioner and he is getting only Rs.42,000/- per month as his salary, which is not sufficient for himself and his parents. It is stated that the first petitioner is working as private teacher and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and getting rent of Rs.20,000/- per month from her house property and has sufficient income to maintain herself. Since the petitioner No.1 herself left the company of respondent, without just and reasonable cause, and as she is having means to maintain herself,

MC 8 of 2011

she is not entitled for any maintenance and the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4The petitioner No.1 was examined herself as PW-1 and one P

Srinivas was examined as PW-2 and one Bajanki Rajaiah was examined as PW-3.

5On the other hand, the respondent No.1 examined himself as

RW-1 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3.

6 Heard both sides.

Now the point for consideration is: Whether the petition is liable to be allowed or not as prayed for?

POINT 7There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties, in-as-much-as the respondent in his counter categorically admits that the first petitioner is his legally wedded wife and the petitioner No.2 is their daughter. The case of petitioner No.1 is that the respondent No.1 subjected her to cruelty on the demand of additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- on the instigation of his parents, he used to beat the petitioner No.1 blue and black on his demand. Finally, when, she expressed her inability to full-fill his desire, he necked her out from his house along with petitioner No.2 in the year 2010. Having no other alternative, she has been residing at her parents house along with petitioner No.2.

8On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that from the date of marriage, first petitioner harassed the respondent No.1 on the instigation of her parents, abused him in most filthy language, and insisted him to reside in her parents house as illa-tom son-in-law. He denied all the allegations of the first petitioner and finally he stated that he has been getting monthly salary of Rs.45,526/- per month from which, he has to spend his expenses and maintain his old age parents etc., As per his version, the petitioner No.1 studied upto B.Com computers and holding B.ED Degree and working as private Teacher

MC 8 of 2011

and earing Rs.10,000/- per month towards salary and the petitioner

No.1 also having two houses at Karimnagar town and getting

RS.10,000/- per month towards rent.

9Now, it would be seen how far the first petitioner will prove that

R-1 is having sufficient means and neglecting to maintain herself and petitioner No.2.

10Petitioner No.1 was examined herself as PW-1 and she reiterated the contents of petition averments in her chief examination affidavit.

In her cross-examination, she stated that by the date of her marriage, respondent was having job at Hyderabad. She denied the suggestion that she is adopted daughter to Irimella Rajaiah. She admitted that in the month of April, 2009 her marriage was performed with the respondent and they led marital life in the month of May, 2009. She denied suggestion that respondent took her to his house at

Athapur on 4-5-2009 and she came back to her parent house on 7-5- 2009 and forced him to live as a illutum son in law. She also denied the suggestion that whenever she was taken to the house of respondent, she used to stay there only for 2-3 days. Even after conforming pregnancy she came back to her parents house and she never stayed with respondent for a continuous period of one month.

She admitted that a panchayath was held before the elders on 23-4- 2011 and a written document was also executed between them in said panchayath. She also admitted that she went to Kerala with respondent, her mother also came with them. She again stated that as her daughter was in kinder age her mother accompanied with them.

She admitted that when respondent was transferred to Chennai he took her to Chennai along with him but she came to know about the filling of case after coming from Chennai. After coming from Chennai and after coming to know about the institution of restitution of conjugal rights petition she filed this case after two months of receiving summons. She admitted that she filed a criminal case on the

MC 8 of 2011

allegation of demand of additional dowry against respondent and his parents on 3-8-2011. She also further admitted that she attended in

O.P.No.852/2011 on the file of Family court, Hyderabad. But she does not know about the result of O.P.No.852/11. She has not preferred any appeal against the orders in OP No.852 of 2011. She denied the suggestion that at present, she is working as a private teacher. She admitted that before marriage she worked a private teacher as respondent not to work properly. When she worked as a private teacher, she received the salary of Rs.3000/- per month. She admitted that the respondent is paying the interim maintenance regularly in her

Bank account. She finally admitted that respondent is working in multi national company and earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month and his father is retired employee.

11PW-2 viz.,Petla Srinivas is examined as PW-2 and he deposed in his chief examination that he resided in the same locality of the father of PW-1 and he was attended the marriage of PW-1 with respondent. The respondent subjected the petitioner No.1 to cruelty by demanding additional dowry. In this regard, a panchayath was held. At the time of marriage, the father of PW-1 gave net cash of

Rs.8,00,000/-, 14 tulas of gold and other valuable articles to the respondent towards dowry. The respondent was studied Software

Engineer and working at Chennai and getting monthly more than

Rs.50,000/- per month and his father also getting pension and his brother was also employee. The respondent is having landed properties and house plots at Hyderabad city, he is not having other burden, except maintaining PW-1 and his daughter. The father of PW-1 is suffering from Chronicle health problems i.e., BP and he is not in a condition to do any work. PW-1 and her daughter completely depending on respondent income only,as they have no properties or other income to maintain themselves.

MC 8 of 2011

In his cross-examination he stated that at present he is residing at Subashnagar, Karimnagar. Pw1 is residing at Saraswathinagar of

Theegalaguttapalli. Father of Pw1 is his brother in law in relation. He admitted that Pw1 is adopted daughter of Rajaiah. Pw1 completed

B.Ed course. No document was executed with regard to presentation of dowry. He cannot give the dates of panchayaths which was held on the matrimonial matters of Pw1 and respondent. Himself,

Vijayenderreddy and one Bejjani Rajaiah attended the said panchayaths from the side of Pw1 and from the side of respondent his uncle M.Venkatesham and some relatives who belong to Godavarikhani attended. He was also present in the panchayath held in the year 2011 may be in the months of June or July, but no document was executed into writing in that panchayath. He denied the suggestion that petitioner forced the respondent to live as Illitam son in law, he refused the same, they filed a false case against him. He voluntarily stated that disputes arose between Pw1 and respondent No.1 as respondent demanded to transfer household property of Rajaiah

Karimnagar on his name.

12 PW-3 viz.,Bajanki Rajaiah deposed in his chief examination that he is the co-worker with the father of PW-1 and he attended marriage of PW-1 and he is the elder in the panchayath. He also deposed same lines in his chief-affidavit as stated by PW-2.

In his cross-examination, he admitted that he is working in

Survey and Land Records. Father of Pw1 was his colleague. He further admitted that Pw1 is adopted daughter of Rajaiah. He do not remember the dates when panchayaths were held on the matrimonial matters of Pw1 and her husband but he acted as one of the panchayath elder and documents were executed between them in the

MC 8 of 2011

said panchayaths. He also admitted that on 23.4.2011 document was executed in a panchayath in which the elders admonished her husband to look after the welfare of PW-1 in which he also scribed his signature.

On confronting the signatures on a document dated 23.4.2011. He also further admitted that Pw1 completed degree and she is not doing any job.

13The respondent reiterated the contents of counter in his chief- examination affidavit. He further admitted that OP No.852 of 2011 was decreed in his favour on 23.07.2014 by directing the petitioner to join his company within two months from the date of Order. After that he also got issued legal notice to the petitioner requesting her to join his society, but the petitioner has failed to join his society even today. He is regularly paying maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and PW2 and PW-3 are nearest relatives to PW-1, they gave false evidence in the Court.

In his cross-examination, he stated that since ten years he has been working as Software Engineer in US Technology at Chennai and getting monthly salary of Rs.42,000/-. He denied the suggestion that the petitioner was ready to join his society as per the orders in OP

NO.852 of 2011 , but he refused to accept the same. He denied the suggestion that he demanded to transfer the property of petitioner

No.1 on his name as she is adopted daughter to her father. He further denied suggestion that he is drawing monthly salary of more than

Rs.1,50,000/- as Software Engineer since 10 years. He also denied the suggestion that he neglected the petitioner No.1 and 2, she suffered mentally and she is not in a position to do any job and they solely depending on her parents . At present petitioner No.2 is five years old and going to School. He does not know to which school the petitioner

No.2 is going. He is ready to pay the educational expenses of his

MC 8 of 2011

daughter though he is paying interim maintenance regularly to the petitioners.

14From the above evidence, it is clear that PW-1 is adopted daughter of her parents, but she denied the same. PW-1 stated that the disputes arose between Pw1 and respondent No.1 as respondent demanded to transfer household property of Rajaiah of Karimnagar on his name. PW-2 and PW-3 stated the same in their cross-examination.

It also clear from the record that several panchayaths were conducted between the parties. On 23.04.2011 a panchayath was conducted in which, both parties agreed to live together without filing any case against them. As per Ex.R-1, exparte order was passed in OP No.852 of 2011 by directing the petitioner to join his/respondent society. It is clear from the record that an interim maintenance was granted to the petitioner No.1 from the date of petition and the respondent has been regularly paying the same.

15The counsel for the petitioner argued that no parent will ask the son-in-law to come to their house as ilatum-son-in-law by leaving his good job at Chennai. But, with greedy eye, the respondent insisted the petitioner and her father to transfer properties of father of PW-1 on his name. As such, disputes arose between the parties, on which, a panchayath was held.

16The counsel for the respondent argued that from the date of marriage, the petitioner used to harass the respondent to come to her parents house as Illatum son-in-law. When the respondent took the petitioner along with him to Chennai, the mother of the petitioner went along with them. The petitioner is in the habit of leaving the society of the respondent without informing the same to him.

Whenever the respondent used to request the petitioner not to leave his society, she used to scolding him in filthy language. The counsel for

MC 8 of 2011

the respondent further argued that if the interim maintenance of

Rs.7000/- per month to the petitioners No.1 and 2, is made absolute, they have no objection and they will not prefer any appeal, as the respondent is getting meager salary of Rs.42,000/- per month. The allegations against the petitioner No.1 are that the respondent is getting monthly salary of Rs.1,50,000/- per month, but, she has not filed any document to that effect. But, the respondent admitted in his chief examination that he is getting monthly salary of Rs.42,000/- per month. The allegation against the respondent is that the petitioner

No.1 herself left his society in the year 2010 and several panchayaths were held, since then she has been residing at her parents house along with petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 studied upto B.SC computers and also completing B.Ed course and earing Rs.10,000/- per month as a private teacher. But, the respondent has not filed any document to that effect. Fortunately or unfortunately, the respondent failed to establish the earning capacity of the petitioner as Teacher. It is natural duty of the respondent being husband of first petitioner and father of petitioner No.2 to look after them through their life. The respondent also came forward to bear the educational expenses of their child though he is paying maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month to the petitioners No.1 and 2. In the above said circumstances, keeping in view of living status and earning capacity of both parties, this petition is liable to be partly allowed.

17 In the result, the petition is partly allowed by granting an amount of Rs.3500/- per month to the first petitioner which was given in Crl.MP.No.1504 of 2013 by making it absolute and Rs.6500/- per month to the second petitioner from the date of petition to be payable on or before 10th of every month to the Bank account of first petitioner (Already, the respondent has been paying monthly maintenance of

MC 8 of 2011

Rs.7000/- per month to the petitioners No.1 and 2 to the Bank of account of first petitioner).

The arrears of maintenance amount shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioners No.1 and 2 within six months from the date of pronouncement of this order. (After deducting Rs.7000/- per month from the date of petition, balance of Rs.3000/- from the date of petition shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioners)

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of June 2017

I- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR THE PETITIONER. FOR THE RESPONDENT.

PW-1 Sollu MalleshwariRW-1 Sollu Shaymsunder PW-2: Petla Srinivas PW-3: Bajanki Rajaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Petitioners: Nil

For the Respondents :

Ex.R-1 :CC of Order in OP No.852 of 2011 on the file of

Hon'ble Judge Addl.Family Court Hyderabad dated 23.07.2014

Ex.R-2: CC family dispute understand dated 23.04.2011 Ex.R-3: is office copy of Legal notice dated 9.02.2015 issued by the respondent to the petitioner.

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Karimnagar.

Order Record 1,540 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/1/2017	M/s. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., Karimnagar vs Chelugu Brahmaiah	27 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
EP/297/2017	Kapil Chits Pvt.Ltd. Karimnagar R/by, Its Manager D.Hanmanth Rao vs J-2 Gunda Srinivas	27 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
EP/209/2017	Sardar Kishan Singh vs Mekala Sampth	25 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
EP/231/2017	Rao Brothers Chit Fund Pvt.Ltd, Karimnagar R/by M.Sudheer vs Sanga Ramesh	25 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
EP/309/2017	Kapil Chits Pvt. Ltd, Mankammathota Br. Its Br.Manager D.Hanmantha Rao vs J-3 Chevula Deva Raju	25 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
EP/92/2016	Chakra Chits Pvt. Ltd Br. KNR vs Kuchana Ramdev	20 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
EP/337/2017	Thippani Rathnakar vs Pilli Ahalya	20 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
OS/415/2012	ANUPURAM VIJAYA LAXMI vs ANUPURAM THIRUPATHI	16 Apr 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/155/2014	CHANNILLA KRISHNA RAO vs MEESALA JANI @ PRABHAKAR	13 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
OS/170/2016	Gampa Chandra Shekhar vs D.1 Boini Srinivas	12 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
EP/53/2014	MS. KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT LTD vs KANAPARTHY NARSIHA CHARY	11 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
EP/124/2012	MARGADARSHI CHIT FUND LTD vs JAVVAJI HANMANTHU	11 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
EP/326/2017	Kapil Chits Pvt.Ltd, Rampur Br. Its R/by D,M. D.hanumantha Rao vs Konkata Balaiah	11 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
OS/199/2012	GAJJELA VENKATAIAH vs GAJJELA LINGAIAH	10 Apr 2018	JUDGMENT	—
EP/8/2016	MANOVIKAS CHIT FUNDS P LTD. vs BOOTKURI KARUNAKAR	06 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
EP/150/2017	Bathini Rajaiah vs Vadluri Sampath	06 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
EP/184/2015	MS. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND LTD. vs KODAKANDLA SAMBA MURTHY	06 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
EP/98/2017	Kapil Chits Pvt. Ltd. Karimnagar. vs Bhukya Mohan	04 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
EP/169/2017	Kapil Chits Pvt.Ltd., Karimnagar Its Br. Manager, D.Hanmanth Rao vs Vutukuri Venkata Ramana Reddy	04 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
EP/199/2017	Kapil Chits Pvt. Ltd, karimnagar Its DM D.Hanmantha Rao vs Mogili Surender	04 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
OS/16/2012	BODDIREDDY NARAYANA REDDY vs ARELLI ASHAIAH	04 Apr 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/75/2013	POLOJU RAJAIAH vs POLOJU SATYANARAYANA	03 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
OS/310/2013	VADIYALA YASHWANTH REDDY vs AP VETERINARY ASSOCIATION	02 Apr 2018	ORDER	—
EP/82/2009	MS KAPIL CHIT FUNDS P LTD vs GOUSI	29 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/160/2015	KAPIL CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED vs VANGALA SAMMAIAH	29 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/188/2010	MS SHRIRAM CHITS PVT. LTD., BR-I vs KODATI RAJALINGAM	29 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
OS/28/2009	MANDALA ARUNA vs MANDALA AHALYA	29 Mar 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/396/2011	KODITHYALA MAHESH KUMAR vs MADURI PAPAIAH	29 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/43/2010	Ms.MARGADARSHI CHIT FUND LTD vs BOMMIDI VENKATESHAM	28 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/64/2013	KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT LTD vs BHUPALLY SWAMY	28 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/126/2017	M/s. Margadarshi Chit Fund Ltd., karimnagar. vs Madugula Vani	28 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/168/2010	SAINI VIJAYA LAXMI vs NARSINGA RAO	28 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/190/2017	M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt.Ltd, Karimnagar its R/by Br Manager A. Chandraiah vs Sangathi Satyanarayana	28 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/200/2017	Kapil Chits Pvt. Ltd., Ramnagar, Br. Its D.M. D.Hanumantha Rao vs Madireddy Nagaraju	28 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/229/2017	Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd, Karimnagar Its R/by D.M. D.Hanmantha Rao vs Keeri Sanjay	28 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
OS/208/2008	RAGULA SUBADRA vs GURRAM YELLAIAH	28 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
OS/326/2009	THONTI BHUMVVA vs YEGURLA RAMULU @ RAMAIAH	28 Mar 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/361/2008	BATTU SUJATHA vs THUNGANI KANKAMMA	28 Mar 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/407/2007	MAURAM SATYANARAYANA vs GATTU BABU RAO	27 Mar 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/450/2009	KOREPU LINGA REDDY vs THEEGALA ANJAIAH	27 Mar 2018	JUDGMENT	—
EP/66/2017	M/s.Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. vs Padakanti Srinivas-JD1	23 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/111/2017	Sannihitha Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., KNR. vs Chiluveri Srinivas	23 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/144/2014	margadarshi chit fund vs Vsb bharathi and others	23 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/45/2015	MS MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT LTD vs CHANDRAGIRI THIRUPATHI	21 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/174/2011	MS SHRIRAM CHITS PVT. LTD., BRANCH-I, KARIMNAGAR vs MD.ARIF AHMED	21 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/278/2017	Kapil Chits Pvt.Ltd., Karimnagar Its Br.Manager D.Hanmanth Rao vs Gugulothu Nandya	21 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
OS/85/2009	DYAVANAPALLI SHYAMALA vs PERUMANDLA SRINIVAS	20 Mar 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/103/2013	KANDULA KAMALAKAR vs KANDULA NARENDER	20 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/14/2009	Ms.KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT. LTD. KARIMNAGAR vs M.RAJAIAH	16 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/124/2017	M/s. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., Karimnagar. vs Puli Ashok	16 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/306/2017	Kapil Chits Pvt. Ltd., Mankamma Thota, R/by its D.M. D.Hanumantha Rao vs Bommadeni Raj Kumar	16 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/317/2017	Kapil Chits Pvt.Ltd. Ramnagar Br. Its R/by DM. D.Hanumantha Rao vs Muppa Rajesham	16 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
OS/722/2012	CHELIMELA ANANTHA RAO vs KANKAM SAMMAIAH	15 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/11/2012	MARGADARSHI CHIT FUND LTD., KARIMNAGAR vs DODDA RATHNAKAR REDDY	14 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/44/2015	MS. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PVT. LTD., vs BANDARI RAMESH	14 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/150/2009	Ms.SHRIRAM CHITS PVT. LTD. BRANCH, KARIMNAGAR vs AKULA VENKATA LAXMI BABJI	14 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/247/2017	M/S Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd, Br.Karimnagar I its Manager Gangaiah vs Khaja Saleem	14 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/250/2017	M/S.Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., Its Manager Gangaiah vs Nenavath Shankar	14 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
OS/188/2007	MD. RAJ MOHAMMED vs KASARLA KISTA REDDY	13 Mar 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/227/2017	Allepu Rajamouli vs Life Insurance Corporation of India R/by Its Br. Manager, Br.II Karimnagar	13 Mar 2018	JUDGMENT	—
EP/156/2010	MS SHRIRAM CHITS PVT. LTD., BR-1 vs M.VIJAYA LAXMI	09 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/329/2017	Kapil Chits Pvt. Ltd. Gandhiroad Br., Its Br.Manager D.Hanmantha Rao vs J-2 Bura Padmaja	09 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/332/2017	Margadarshi Chit Fund Ltd, Karimnagar Its Br. Manager A Chandraiah vs Mandala Ram Reddy	09 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
OS/20/2018	Md. Azaruddin vs Neha Tarannum	08 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/91/2017	Kapil Chits Pvt. Ltd, Karimnagar vs Bhukya Mohan	07 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/151/2010	MS SHRIRAM CHITS PVT LTD BR 1 vs LEEKKALA RAJAIAH	07 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/246/2017	M/S Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd, Br.Karimnagar I its Manager Gangaram vs Tati Sadan Goud	07 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/248/2017	M/S Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd, Br.Karimnagar I its Manager Gangaiah vs T.Prabhakar	07 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
EP/260/2017	M/s.Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd, Karimnagar II Its Manager,P.Nagavender Rao vs Badugu Madhusudhan	07 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
OS/435/2011	JAMPALA VENKATAMMA vs MEDI KISHTAIAH	07 Mar 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/575/2010	ENUGALA RAJI REDDY vs ENUGALA RANGA REDDY	07 Mar 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/2/2008	SMT. THUNUKI KANAKAMMA vs THODUPUNURI ANJANEYULU	06 Mar 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/224/2017	Sardar Govind Singh vs Burra Srinivas	06 Mar 2018	ORDER	—
OS/149/2008	EGURLA SRINIVAS vs KADARI MALLAIAH	05 Mar 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/157/2011	SHAIK UMAR vs KUTURU LAXMI @ MAHAMOODA BEGUM	05 Mar 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/284/2017	Vangala Murali Krishna vs Tonti Yellaiah	05 Mar 2018	JUDGMENT	—
EP/35/2017	Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt.Ltd.Rep.Br.Manager.A.Chandraiah vs Nagunuri Narsagoud	28 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
EP/72/2016	Margardari Chit Fund Pvt Ltd KNR vs Chittampally Srinivas	28 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
EP/86/2011	LORVEN CHITS HI-PUR FINANCE AND LESING COMPANY R vs SINGIREDDY THIRUPATHI REDDY	28 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
EP/157/2008	Ms.SHRIRAM CHITS PVT.LTD. vs SD.MOUZAMUDDIN	28 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
OS/163/2015	ALLENKI ANJANEYULU vs BOLLA SRINIVAS	28 Feb 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/285/2009	PALOJI SAROJANA vs GOLLAPALLY BHARATHAMMA	28 Feb 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/467/2015	NIMMANAVENI SURESH vs THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER	27 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
EP/13/2012	MS SHRIRAM CHITS PVT. LTD., KARIMNAGAR vs R.CHANDRAMOULI	23 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
EP/75/2016	Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd vs Mohammad Anwar Hussain	23 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
EP/265/2017	Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd, Br.karimnagar Its Manager P.Nagavender Rao vs J.2 G.Narender Reddy	23 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
EP/117/2015	MS. SHRIRAM CHITS PVT. LTD. vs NAGNOORI SRINIVAS	22 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
OS/214/2011	SUNKARI MALLA REDDY vs DULUGUNTI LALITHA	22 Feb 2018	JUDGMENT	—
EP/23/2010	Ms.KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT LTD vs SARDAR GURUNAM SINGH	21 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
EP/45/2010	MS KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT. LTD.,KARIMNAGAR vs RAM CHANDER	21 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
EP/103/2009	MS SHRIRAM CHITS PVT.LTD., KARIMNAGAR vs B.SUNANDA	21 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
EP/121/2010	MS SHRIRAM CHITS PVT. LTD.,BR-I vs THOTA NARSAIAH	21 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
EP/135/2017	M/s. Shriram Chits Pvt.Ltd., Karimnagar Branch - I vs Nenavath Shankar	21 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
EP/271/2017	Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd, Br.karimnagar Its Manager P.Nagavender Rao vs Syed Afzal	21 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
OS/109/2007	THADEM RAMAIAH vs THADEM RAJAMALLAIAH	20 Feb 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/203/2009	AMARAM PAPI REDDY vs AMARAM MALLA REDDY	19 Feb 2018	JUDGMENT	—
OS/382/2011	DURGAM SUDHEER KUMAR vs DURGAM KOMURAIAH	19 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
EP/19/2016	KAPIL CHISTS KAKATIYA PVT. LTD. vs MOHD. HAMEED	16 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
EP/53/2009	POLADI RAVINDER RAO vs BARAJU PRABHAKAR REDDY	16 Feb 2018	ORDER	—
EP/76/2017	Rao Brothers Chit Fund Pvt Ltd vs Siddi Satynarayana	16 Feb 2018	ORDER	—

Showing 100 of 1,540 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2018		26
Mar 2018		61
Feb 2018		47
Jan 2018		47
Dec 2017		37
Nov 2017		86
Oct 2017		52
Sep 2017		24
Aug 2017		31
Jul 2017		47
Jun 2017		56
May 2017		60

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt T.Madhavi handled?

Smt T.Madhavi has handled 1616 court orders since 2015 at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 66 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt T.Madhavi hear?

Based on available records, Smt T.Madhavi primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) and Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Original Suits) at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt T.Madhavi currently posted?

Smt T.Madhavi is posted as II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Karimnagar at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex, Karimnagar, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt T.Madhavi available online?

Yes. 18 judgments by Smt T.Madhavi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt T.Madhavi dispose cases?

Smt T.Madhavi disposes approximately 66 cases per month, based on 1616 orders handled over their tenure at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt T.Madhavi serving?

Smt T.Madhavi has been serving at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex since 2015.

Case Types

CC 47%

EP 17%

JCC 16%

OS 13%

PRC 3%

DVC 2%

STC 2%

MC 0%

Posting History

May 2017 — Jun 2017

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Karimnagar · 2 orders
May 2017 — Apr 2018

Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class Karimnagar · 484 orders
Dec 2015 — Jun 2017

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Karimnagar · 920 orders
Dec 2015 — Dec 2015

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Karimnagar
May 2015 — Dec 2015

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mobile for Trail of Cases Under PCR Act -cum- III Addl. Junior Civil Judge Karimnagar · 210 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Convicted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Mr. S Shiva Kumar

Prl District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar

154 orders

Sri D. Venkatesh

I Addl District and Sessions Judge

753 orders

Smt.C.Pavani

Chairman LRAT- cum -II Addl District and Sessions...

8 orders

Smt. A. Neeraja

Spl Judge for Trial of cases under SCs and STs Act...

580 orders

J.Kavitha

Judge Family Court cum IV Addl District and Sessio...

474 orders

Mr. Yashwant Singh Chauhan

Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate...

0 orders

Ms. Damerla Preethi

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional...

1,206 orders

Sri Chirag Mehta

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mobile...

717 orders

Sri Banothu Rajeshwar

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Tra...

437 orders

Sri. Jamana Venkata Satya Raj Kiran

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Addition...

579 orders

Smt K Rani

Senior Civil Judge Karimnagar

40 orders

Nama Santosh Kumar

Spl Judge for Trail of SPE and ACB Cases -cum- VI...

7 orders

← View all judges at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex