Smt. T. Mahathi Vaishnavi

Page No. 1 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: Smt. T. Mahathi Vaishnavi

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Mancherial

Wednesday, this the 26th day of April, 2023

O.S.No.106 of 2021

Between:-

1. Thatipelli Srinivas S/o. Sudharshan, Age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.C-46, Narsingapuram, R/M. Jaipur, Mancherial District.

2. Thatipelli Shobharani W/o. Srinivas, Age: 46 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No.C-46, Narsingapuram, R/M. Jaipur, Mancherial District.

3. K.V. Chidananda Kumari W/o. Pratap, Age: 62 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. H.No.11-25/1, Mancherial Town and District.

4. Gundam Ram Narayana S/o. Rajalingu, Age: 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.4-23/1, Nagasamudram, R/M. Dandepelli, Mancherial District.

…Plaintiffs //AND//

1. M. Mokthadar S/o. Khadear, Age: 64 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Mancherial Town and District.

2. Athar Azeez S/o. Abdul Azeez, Age: 548, Occ: Business, R/o. Mancherial Town and District.

3. Abdul Moyed S/o. Abdul Majeed, Age: 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Mancherial Town and District.

4. Sabihanusrath W/o. M.D. Usmankhan, Age: 67 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Mancherial Town and District. …Defendants

This suit came before me on 20.03.2023 for hearing in the presence of Sri Gaddam Srinivas, Advocate for the plaintiffs and defendants No.3 and 4 remained exparte, suit against defendants No.1 and 2 dismissed as not pressed, having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

This is a suit filed for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over the suit schedule land bearing Sy.No.247/2 measuring 16,577 square yards (Ac.3-17 guntas) situated at Garmilla shivar, within the limits of

Mancherial municipality and declaration of registered sale deeds document Nos.4493/2001 dated 07.01.2001, 4496/2001 dated

Page No. 2 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

07.12.2001, 4510/2001 dated 07.12.2001 and 4788/2001 dated 26.12.2001 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The plaintiffs are the owners and possessor of the non agricultural land measuring 16,577 square yards (Ac.3-17 guntas) in Sy.No.247/2 of

Garmilla shivar situated within Mancherial municipality. Plaintiffs jointly purchased the suit schedule land from 1) Dheeti Ravi, 2) Panagatla

Venkateshwarlu, 3) Durgam Naresh and 4) Appasu Kishan through registered sale deed No.3889/2019 dated 16.03.2019. The said 1)

Dheeti Ravi, 2) Panagatla Venkateshwarlu, 3) Durgam Naresh and 4)

Appasu Kishan jointly purchased the land to an extent of Ac.3-38 guntas in the same Sy.No.247/2 of Garmilla shivar from 1) Katukojula

Srinivasachari, 2) Chilakabathini Silvaraj, 3) Kanthala Srinivas Reddy, 4)

Katukojula Ramanachary through registered sale deed bearing

No.8511/2014 dated 21.08.2014 on the file of Sub-Registrar Officer,

Mancherial and mutated in the revenue records vide proceeding

No.B/ROR/1028/2014 dated 29.10.2014.

3.Later, they made an application for conversion of the said land into non-agricultural land, as such the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Mancherial after due enquiry converted the said land from agricultural land to non-agricultural land vide proceeding No.B1/475/2018 dated 23.04.2018. The said 1) Katukojula Srinivasachari, 2) Chilakabathini

Silvaraj, 3) Kanthala Srinivas Reddy, 4) Katukojula Ramanachary purchased the said land from 1) Siddam Ramesh, 2) Pedishetti Mogili and 3) Kankanala Sateesh through registered sale deed bearing

No.2024/2011 dated 08.03.2011 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office,

Mancherial and they purchased the said land from original pattadar

Palakurti Rajamma W/o. Late Ranga goud, R/o. Old Garmilla village of

Page No. 3 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

Mancherial through registered sale deed bearing No.1572/2005 dated 05.03.2005 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Mancherial.

4.The plaintiffs erected cement poles with iron fencing around the suit schedule land. The plaintiffs No.1 and 2’s son Thatipelli Harish established a saw mill in the suit schedule land in the name and style of

M/s. Sri Srinivasa Sawmill and Depot (Primary Wood Based Industries) vide License No.8198/1972-(S10) dated 24.12.2019 and File

No.1276/2019-F6 issued by Forest Divisional Officer, Mancherial. For the said purpose the plaintiffs constructed permanent structure in the suit land and erected machinery in that and ready to start production. The

NPDCL, Divisional Officer, Mancherial has accorded requisite power connectionvidememoNo.DE/MANCHERIAL/AE/F.NO.TS-

IPASS/D.NO.122/20-21 dated 22.05.2020. The plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of purchase.

5.The defendants are trying to trespass into the suit land premises with an intention to cause damage to the machinery though they have no right or possession over the suit schedule land. On 29.11.2020 at about 10-00 am., the defendants and some others attempted to trespass into suit land. The plaintiffs reported to the police, Mancherial but police advised to approach the court. The plaintiffs have prima- facie case and balance of convenience is also in their favour. On 10.12.2020 the plaintiffs enquired with their vendors about the reason why defendants are interfering into the suit land upon which they informed that originally Palakurthi Ranga Goud was the owner, pattadar and possessor of the land bearing Sy.No.247 measuring Ac.7-36 guntas, situated at Garmilla shivar, R/M. Mancherial and he died leaving his two sons namely Palakurthi Sailu and Palakurthi Bheema Goud who

Page No. 4 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

succeeded the said land. They divided the said land equally and their names were recorded as pattadars and possessor of each Ac.3-38 guntas in Sy.No.247 of Garmilla shivar in revenue records.

6.Palakurthi Sailu died on 18.04.1964 leaving three sons i.e., Ranga

Goud @ Ganga Goud, Shankar Goud and Linga Goud and widow

Palakurthi Rajamma. During his life time, Palakurthi Sailu never sold his land of Ac.3-38 guntas to anybody and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same and after his death, the said land was succeeded by his three sons and his wife and they were also in possession and enjoyment of the same. Int he year 1994, one Poreddy

Mallaiah and Poreddy Lasmaiah, both sons of Rajaiah have managed the

Revenue officials and basing on a simple sale deed dated 14.05.1961 allegedly executed by Palakurthi Sailu got mutation in their favour in revenue record, though the possession was continued with Palakurthi

Rajamma, Ranga Goud @ Ganga Goud, Shankar Goud and Linga Goud who were the sons of Palajurthi sailu.

7.Subsequently, basing on the false revenue entries, Poreddy

Mallaiah and Poreddy Lasmaiah prepared plots on paper and executed several sale deeds in favour of others including the defendants. The defendants who purchased some plots form Poreddy Mallaiah and

Poreddy Lasmaiah through registered sale deeds bearing No.4493/2011

dated 07.01.2001, 4496/2001 dated 07.12.2001, 4510/2001 dated

07.12.2001 and 4788/2001 dated 26.12.2001 are trying to occupy the suit land. Thus, neither the defendants nor their vendors have any manner of right or possession whatsoever over the suit land, but with the help of false and fabricated sale deeds, they are trying to occupy the suit land.

Page No. 5 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

8.The vendor of the plaintiffs also produced a copy of order passed by the Tahsildar, Mancherial vide proceeding No.B/ROR/1028/2014 dated 29.10.2014 against the vendors of the defendants before the plaintiffs.

On perusal of the said document, it is revealed that against the orders of mutation in favour of vendors of defendants, the original pattadar

Palakurthi Rajamma W/o. Ranga Rao filed appeal before the RDO

Mancherial vide appeal No.G/4270/2014 to set aside the mutation passed in favour of Poreddy Mallaiah and Poreddy Lasmaiah. The RDO

Mancherial conducted enquiry and allowed the appeal by setting aside the mutation order vide File No.ROR/GR/553/1989 dated 20.09.1994.

Aggrieved by the said order, Poreddy Lasmaiah (One of the vendors of defendants) filed Revision before the Joint Collector, Adilabad vide

Revision Petition No.D4/ROR/6/05 dated 30.04.2009. The Joint Collector,

Adilabad allowed the Revision by setting aside the order of the RDO

Mancherial and directed Denovo enquiry by the Tahsildar, Mancherial.

Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Mancherial issued notices to all the parties, considered all the documents, and passed the order dated 29.10.2014 holding that illegal mutation was passed in favour of Poreddy Mallaiah and Poreddy Lasmaiah who were vendors of the defendants and set aside the revenue entries and restored the revenue entries in favour of original pattadar Palakurthi Rajamma W/o. Ranga Goud and her purchasers including the vendors of the plaintiffs.

9.The defendants or their vendors no right or possession over the suit land, but they are trying to occupy the suit land with the help of illegal and false documents. As such, the plaintiffs sought perpetual injunction against the defendants and for declaration of sale deeds of defendants are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit.

Page No. 6 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

10. Upon registering the suit, summons were ordered to be served on the defendant. Accordingly, the summons sent to the defendants were served on them sufficiently. On 01.08.2022 the suit is dismissed as not pressed by the plaintiff against defendants No.1 and 2 as they died.

Despite sufficient service of summons the defendants No.3 and 4 did not appear before this court and they were set-exparte on 01.08.2022.

11. During the course of plaintiffs evidence, the plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW-1 and Exs.A1 to A8 documents marked through PW-1.

Kade Yellaiah who is third party to the suit was examined as PW-2 and

Son of the plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW-3 and Ex.A9 and A10 documents marked through PW-3.

12. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

13. Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants over the suit schedule property?

3. whether the (4) sale deed documents are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs as prayed for ?

4. If so, as to what relief?

POINT NO.1:

14.The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners and possessor of the non agricultural land measuring 16,577 square yards (Ac.3-17 guntas) in Sy.No.247/2 of Garmilla shivar situated within

Mancherial municipality. Plaintiffs jointly purchased the suit schedule land from 1) Dheeti Ravi, 2) Panagatla Venkateshwarlu, 3) Durgam

Page No. 7 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

Naresh and 4) Appasu Kishan through registered sale deed

No.3889/2019 dated 16.03.2019. The said 1) Dheeti Ravi, 2) Panagatla

Venkateshwarlu, 3) Durgam Naresh and 4) Appasu Kishan jointly purchased the land to an extent of Ac.3-38 guntas in the same

Sy.No.247/2 of Garmilla shivar from 1) Katukojula Srinivasachari, 2)

Chilakabathini Silvaraj, 3) Kanthala Srinivas Reddy, 4) Katukojula

Ramanachary through registered sale deed bearing No.8511/2014 dated 21.08.2014 on the file of Sub-Registrar Officer, Mancherial and mutated in the revenue records vide proceeding No.B/ROR/1028/2014 dated 29.10.2014. they made an application for conversion of the said land into non-agricultural land, as such the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Mancherial after due enquiry converted the said land from agricultural land to non-agricultural land vide proceeding No.B1/475/2018 dated 23.04.2018. The said 1) Katukojula Srinivasachari, 2) Chilakabathini

Silvaraj, 3) Kanthala Srinivas Reddy, 4) Katukojula Ramanachary purchased the said land from 1) Siddam Ramesh, 2) Pedishetti Mogili and 3) Kankanala Sateesh through registered sale deed bearing

No.2024/2011 dated 08.03.2011 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office,

Mancherial and they purchased the said land from original pattadar

Palakurti Rajamma W/o. Late Ranga goud, R/o. Old Garmilla village of

Mancherial through registered sale deed bearing No.1572/2005 dated 05.03.2005 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Mancherial.

15.The plaintiffs contended that they erected cement poles with iron fencing around the suit schedule land. The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 son

Thatipelli Harish established a saw mill in the suit schedule land in the name and style of M/s. Sri Srinivasa Sawmill and Depot (Primary Wood

Based Industries) vide License No.8198/1972-(S10) dated 24.12.2019 and File No.1276/2019-F6 issued by Forest Divisional Officer, Mancherial.

For the said purpose the plaintiffs constructed permanent structure in

Page No. 8 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

the suit land and erected machinery in that and ready to start production. The NPDCL, Divisional Officer, Mancherial has accorded requisite power connection vide memo No.DE/MANCHERIAL/AE/F.NO.TS-

IPASS/D.NO.122/20-21 dated 22.05.2020. The plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of purchase. The Defendants who have no right or possession over the suit property, interfered into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land with an intention to grab the suit property. To prove the contention of plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.2 got examined as

PW1, one third party to the suit was also examined as PW-2 and son of the plaintiff No.1 was also examined as PW-3 and Exs.A1 to Ex.A8 documents were marked through PW-1 and Ex.A9 and A10 documents were marked through PW-3. Their evidence reiterated the plaint averments.

16.It can be seen from the documentary evidence that Ex.A1 is

Registered sale deed No.3889/2019 dated 18.03.2009 shows that 1)

Dheeti Ravi, 2) Panagatla Venkateshwarlu, 3) Durgam Naresh and 4)

Appasu Kishan jointly sold to an extent of Ac.3-17 guntas in Sy.No.247/2 to the plaintiffs. Ex.A2 is Registered sale deed No.8511/2014 dated 23.08.2014 shows that 1) Katukojula Srinivasachari, 2) Chilakabathini

Silvaraj, 3) Kanthala Srinivas Reddy, 4) Katukojula Ramanachary jointly sold the suit schedule land to the vendors of the plaintiffs. Ex.A3 is

Registered sale deed No.2024/2011 dated 18.03.2011 shows that 1)

Siddam Ramesh, 2) Pedishetti Mogili and 3) Kankanala Sateesh sold the suit schedule property to vendors’ vendors of the plaintiffs. Ex.A4 is

Registered sale deed No.1572/2005 dated 1572/2005 dated 05.03.2005 shows that Palakurthi Rajamma W/o. Ranga Goud sold the suit schedule property to 1) Siddam Ramesh, 2) Pedishetti Mogili and 3) Kankanala

Sateesh. Exs.A5 to A8 are CC of registered sale deeds which show that

Page No. 9 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

Poreddy Mallaiah and Poreddy Lasmaiah jointly sold to an extent of 440 sq.yards to defendant No.1, 330 square yards to defendant No.2, 200 square yards to defendant No.3, 200 square yards to defendant No.4 in

Sy.No.247 respectively. Ex.A9 is Sawmill permission proceeding

No.1276/2019-F6 issued by the Forest Divisional Officer, Mancherial and

Ex.A10 is Form No.II, Sawmill License issued by Forest Divisional Officer,

Mancherial.

17.On perusal of the record it can be seen that the summons were served on defendants. The defendants No.1 and 2 died, as such, the suit against defendants No.1 and 2 was dismissed as not pressed. Despite service of summons, the Defendants No.3 and 4 did not appear before this court to contest the suit, due to which they were set exparte on 01.08.2022. Upon careful scrutiny of the documentary evidence under

Ex.A1 to A10 coupled with oral evidence of PWs-1 to PW-3, it appears that the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. To disprove the averments made by the plaintiffs, defendants did not choose to appear and file written statement before this court. Hence the evidence of the plaintiffs adduced by the plaintiffs remains unchallenged and un-rebutted. As such, the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction over the suit schedule property.

Accordingly the point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.

POINT NO.2 :

18.In view of answering point No.1, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

Page No. 10 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

POINT NO.3:

19.It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the original owner and pattadar of the land in Sy.No.247/2 of Garmilla Shivar situated within

Mancherial municipality by name Palakurthi Rajamma W/o. Ranga Goud challenged the mutation effected by the MRO/Tahsildar in favour of

Poreddy Mallaiah and Poreddy Lasmaiah under appeal before RDO

Mancherial vide Appeal No.G/4270/2014. The RDO, Mancherial while allowing the said appeal, set aside the mutation order vide File

No.ROR/GR/553/1989 dated 20.09.1994 passed in favour of Poreddy

Mallaiah and Poreddy Lasmaiah i.e., the alleged vendors of the defendants and that the RDO Mancherial. It is the further contention of the plaintiffs that thereafter, the Poreddy Lasmaiah filed a Revision

before the Joint Collector, Adilabad vide Revision Petition

No.D4/ROR/6/05 dated 30.04.2009. In turn, the Joint Collector, Adilabad allowed the said Revision Petition by setting aside the order of RDO,

Mancherial and directed the Tahsildar, Mancherial to conduct De-novo enquiry and pass orders. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Mancherial issued notices to all the parties and after due enquiry, passed an order on 29.10.2014 holding that illegal mutation was passed in favour of

Poreddy Mallaiah and Poreddy Lasmaiah who are vendors of the defendants and set aside the revenue entries and restored the revenue entries in favour of original pattadar Palakurthi Rajamma W/o. Ranga

Goud and her purchasers including vendors of the plaintiffs. The said contention of the plaintiffs is not denied or controverted by way of filing written statement or any documentary proof by the defendants, since they remained exparte. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs on this aspect is established by way of oral evidence. If at all any appeal is preferred by the defendants, they would have appeared before this court by way of filing written statement or any documentary proof in support of their contention. Therefore, the defendants failed to rebut or

Page No. 11 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

challenge the said contention of the plaintiffs. In the absence of any evidence from the side of the defendants, as they remained exparte the plaintiffs have successfully established their case that the sale deeds under Ex.A-5 to A-8 are null and void. Hence, this point is answered.

POINT NO.4:

20. IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed by granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over the suit schedule land bearing

Sy.No.247/2 measuring 16,577 square yards (Ac.3-17 guntas) situated at

Garmilla shivar, within the limits of Mancherial municipality. Further, the suit is decreed by declaring the registered sale deeds document

Nos.4493/2001 dated 07.01.2001, 4496/2001 dated 07.12.2001, 4510/2001 dated 07.12.2001 and 4788/2001 dated 26.12.2001 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. No order as to costs. If any miscellaneous petitions are pending, they shall stand closed.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno, and after corrections

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26 th day of April, 2023.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:For Defendants:- PW1: Thatipelli Shobarani (Plaintiff) -None- PW2: Kade Yellaiah PW3: Thatipelli Harish

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Registered sale deed No.3889/2019 dated 18.03.2009

Ex.A2: Registered sale deed No.8511/2014 dated 23.08.2014

Ex.A3: Registered sale deed No.2024/2011 dated 18.03.2011

Ex.A4: Registered sale deed No.1572/2005 dated 05.03.2005

Page No. 12 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

Ex.A5: CC of Registered sale deed No.4493/2001 dated 07.12.2001

Ex.A6: CC of Registered sale deed No.4496/2001 dated 07.12.2001

Ex.A7: CC of Registered sale deed No.4510/2001 dated 07.12.2001

Ex.A8: CC of Registered sale deed No.4788/2001 dated 28.12.2001

Ex.A9: Sawmill permission proceeding No.1276/2019-F6 issued by the

Forest Divisional Officer, Mancherial

Ex.A10: Form No.II, Sawmill License issued by Forest Divisional Officer,

Mancherial

For Defendants: -NIL-

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

Page No. 1 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: Smt. T. Mahathi Vaishnavi

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Mancherial

Wednesday, this the 26th day of April, 2023

O.S.No.106 of 2021

Between:-

1. Thatipelli Srinivas S/o. Sudharshan, Age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.C-46, Narsingapuram, R/M. Jaipur, Mancherial District.

2. Thatipelli Shobharani W/o. Srinivas, Age: 46 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No.C-46, Narsingapuram, R/M. Jaipur, Mancherial District.

3. K.V. Chidananda Kumari W/o. Pratap, Age: 62 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. H.No.11-25/1, Mancherial Town and District.

4. Gundam Ram Narayana S/o. Rajalingu, Age: 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.4-23/1, Nagasamudram, R/M. Dandepelli, Mancherial District.

…Plaintiffs //AND//

1. M. Mokthadar S/o. Khadear, Age: 64 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Mancherial Town and District.

2. Athar Azeez S/o. Abdul Azeez, Age: 548, Occ: Business, R/o. Mancherial Town and District.

3. Abdul Moyed S/o. Abdul Majeed, Age: 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Mancherial Town and District.

4. Sabihanusrath W/o. M.D. Usmankhan, Age: 67 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Mancherial Town and District. …Defendants

This suit came before me on 20.03.2023 for hearing in the presence of Sri Gaddam Srinivas, Advocate for the plaintiffs and defendants No.3 and 4 remained exparte, suit against defendants No.1 and 2 dismissed as not pressed, having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

This is a suit filed for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over the suit schedule land bearing Sy.No.247/2 measuring 16,577 square yards (Ac.3-17 guntas) situated at Garmilla shivar, within the limits of

Mancherial municipality and declaration of registered sale deeds document Nos.4493/2001 dated 07.01.2001, 4496/2001 dated

Page No. 2 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

07.12.2001, 4510/2001 dated 07.12.2001 and 4788/2001 dated 26.12.2001 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The plaintiffs are the owners and possessor of the non agricultural land measuring 16,577 square yards (Ac.3-17 guntas) in Sy.No.247/2 of

Garmilla shivar situated within Mancherial municipality. Plaintiffs jointly purchased the suit schedule land from 1) Dheeti Ravi, 2) Panagatla

Venkateshwarlu, 3) Durgam Naresh and 4) Appasu Kishan through registered sale deed No.3889/2019 dated 16.03.2019. The said 1)

Dheeti Ravi, 2) Panagatla Venkateshwarlu, 3) Durgam Naresh and 4)

Appasu Kishan jointly purchased the land to an extent of Ac.3-38 guntas in the same Sy.No.247/2 of Garmilla shivar from 1) Katukojula

Srinivasachari, 2) Chilakabathini Silvaraj, 3) Kanthala Srinivas Reddy, 4)

Katukojula Ramanachary through registered sale deed bearing

No.8511/2014 dated 21.08.2014 on the file of Sub-Registrar Officer,

Mancherial and mutated in the revenue records vide proceeding

No.B/ROR/1028/2014 dated 29.10.2014.

3.Later, they made an application for conversion of the said land into non-agricultural land, as such the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Mancherial after due enquiry converted the said land from agricultural land to non-agricultural land vide proceeding No.B1/475/2018 dated 23.04.2018. The said 1) Katukojula Srinivasachari, 2) Chilakabathini

Silvaraj, 3) Kanthala Srinivas Reddy, 4) Katukojula Ramanachary purchased the said land from 1) Siddam Ramesh, 2) Pedishetti Mogili and 3) Kankanala Sateesh through registered sale deed bearing

No.2024/2011 dated 08.03.2011 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office,

Mancherial and they purchased the said land from original pattadar

Palakurti Rajamma W/o. Late Ranga goud, R/o. Old Garmilla village of

Page No. 3 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

Mancherial through registered sale deed bearing No.1572/2005 dated 05.03.2005 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Mancherial.

4.The plaintiffs erected cement poles with iron fencing around the suit schedule land. The plaintiffs No.1 and 2’s son Thatipelli Harish established a saw mill in the suit schedule land in the name and style of

M/s. Sri Srinivasa Sawmill and Depot (Primary Wood Based Industries) vide License No.8198/1972-(S10) dated 24.12.2019 and File

No.1276/2019-F6 issued by Forest Divisional Officer, Mancherial. For the said purpose the plaintiffs constructed permanent structure in the suit land and erected machinery in that and ready to start production. The

NPDCL, Divisional Officer, Mancherial has accorded requisite power connectionvidememoNo.DE/MANCHERIAL/AE/F.NO.TS-

IPASS/D.NO.122/20-21 dated 22.05.2020. The plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of purchase.

5.The defendants are trying to trespass into the suit land premises with an intention to cause damage to the machinery though they have no right or possession over the suit schedule land. On 29.11.2020 at about 10-00 am., the defendants and some others attempted to trespass into suit land. The plaintiffs reported to the police, Mancherial but police advised to approach the court. The plaintiffs have prima- facie case and balance of convenience is also in their favour. On 10.12.2020 the plaintiffs enquired with their vendors about the reason why defendants are interfering into the suit land upon which they informed that originally Palakurthi Ranga Goud was the owner, pattadar and possessor of the land bearing Sy.No.247 measuring Ac.7-36 guntas, situated at Garmilla shivar, R/M. Mancherial and he died leaving his two sons namely Palakurthi Sailu and Palakurthi Bheema Goud who

Page No. 4 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

succeeded the said land. They divided the said land equally and their names were recorded as pattadars and possessor of each Ac.3-38 guntas in Sy.No.247 of Garmilla shivar in revenue records.

6.Palakurthi Sailu died on 18.04.1964 leaving three sons i.e., Ranga

Goud @ Ganga Goud, Shankar Goud and Linga Goud and widow

Palakurthi Rajamma. During his life time, Palakurthi Sailu never sold his land of Ac.3-38 guntas to anybody and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same and after his death, the said land was succeeded by his three sons and his wife and they were also in possession and enjoyment of the same. Int he year 1994, one Poreddy

Mallaiah and Poreddy Lasmaiah, both sons of Rajaiah have managed the

Revenue officials and basing on a simple sale deed dated 14.05.1961 allegedly executed by Palakurthi Sailu got mutation in their favour in revenue record, though the possession was continued with Palakurthi

Rajamma, Ranga Goud @ Ganga Goud, Shankar Goud and Linga Goud who were the sons of Palajurthi sailu.

7.Subsequently, basing on the false revenue entries, Poreddy

Mallaiah and Poreddy Lasmaiah prepared plots on paper and executed several sale deeds in favour of others including the defendants. The defendants who purchased some plots form Poreddy Mallaiah and

Poreddy Lasmaiah through registered sale deeds bearing No.4493/2011

dated 07.01.2001, 4496/2001 dated 07.12.2001, 4510/2001 dated

07.12.2001 and 4788/2001 dated 26.12.2001 are trying to occupy the suit land. Thus, neither the defendants nor their vendors have any manner of right or possession whatsoever over the suit land, but with the help of false and fabricated sale deeds, they are trying to occupy the suit land.

Page No. 5 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

8.The vendor of the plaintiffs also produced a copy of order passed by the Tahsildar, Mancherial vide proceeding No.B/ROR/1028/2014 dated 29.10.2014 against the vendors of the defendants before the plaintiffs.

On perusal of the said document, it is revealed that against the orders of mutation in favour of vendors of defendants, the original pattadar

Palakurthi Rajamma W/o. Ranga Rao filed appeal before the RDO

Mancherial vide appeal No.G/4270/2014 to set aside the mutation passed in favour of Poreddy Mallaiah and Poreddy Lasmaiah. The RDO

Mancherial conducted enquiry and allowed the appeal by setting aside the mutation order vide File No.ROR/GR/553/1989 dated 20.09.1994.

Aggrieved by the said order, Poreddy Lasmaiah (One of the vendors of defendants) filed Revision before the Joint Collector, Adilabad vide

Revision Petition No.D4/ROR/6/05 dated 30.04.2009. The Joint Collector,

Adilabad allowed the Revision by setting aside the order of the RDO

Mancherial and directed Denovo enquiry by the Tahsildar, Mancherial.

Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Mancherial issued notices to all the parties, considered all the documents, and passed the order dated 29.10.2014 holding that illegal mutation was passed in favour of Poreddy Mallaiah and Poreddy Lasmaiah who were vendors of the defendants and set aside the revenue entries and restored the revenue entries in favour of original pattadar Palakurthi Rajamma W/o. Ranga Goud and her purchasers including the vendors of the plaintiffs.

9.The defendants or their vendors no right or possession over the suit land, but they are trying to occupy the suit land with the help of illegal and false documents. As such, the plaintiffs sought perpetual injunction against the defendants and for declaration of sale deeds of defendants are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit.

Page No. 6 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

10. Upon registering the suit, summons were ordered to be served on the defendant. Accordingly, the summons sent to the defendants were served on them sufficiently. On 01.08.2022 the suit is dismissed as not pressed by the plaintiff against defendants No.1 and 2 as they died.

Despite sufficient service of summons the defendants No.3 and 4 did not appear before this court and they were set-exparte on 01.08.2022.

11. During the course of plaintiffs evidence, the plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW-1 and Exs.A1 to A8 documents marked through PW-1.

Kade Yellaiah who is third party to the suit was examined as PW-2 and

Son of the plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW-3 and Ex.A9 and A10 documents marked through PW-3.

12. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

13. Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment over the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants over the suit schedule property?

3. whether the (4) sale deed documents are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs as prayed for ?

4. If so, as to what relief?

POINT NO.1:

14.The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners and possessor of the non agricultural land measuring 16,577 square yards (Ac.3-17 guntas) in Sy.No.247/2 of Garmilla shivar situated within

Mancherial municipality. Plaintiffs jointly purchased the suit schedule land from 1) Dheeti Ravi, 2) Panagatla Venkateshwarlu, 3) Durgam

Page No. 7 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

Naresh and 4) Appasu Kishan through registered sale deed

No.3889/2019 dated 16.03.2019. The said 1) Dheeti Ravi, 2) Panagatla

Venkateshwarlu, 3) Durgam Naresh and 4) Appasu Kishan jointly purchased the land to an extent of Ac.3-38 guntas in the same

Sy.No.247/2 of Garmilla shivar from 1) Katukojula Srinivasachari, 2)

Chilakabathini Silvaraj, 3) Kanthala Srinivas Reddy, 4) Katukojula

Ramanachary through registered sale deed bearing No.8511/2014 dated 21.08.2014 on the file of Sub-Registrar Officer, Mancherial and mutated in the revenue records vide proceeding No.B/ROR/1028/2014 dated 29.10.2014. they made an application for conversion of the said land into non-agricultural land, as such the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Mancherial after due enquiry converted the said land from agricultural land to non-agricultural land vide proceeding No.B1/475/2018 dated 23.04.2018. The said 1) Katukojula Srinivasachari, 2) Chilakabathini

Silvaraj, 3) Kanthala Srinivas Reddy, 4) Katukojula Ramanachary purchased the said land from 1) Siddam Ramesh, 2) Pedishetti Mogili and 3) Kankanala Sateesh through registered sale deed bearing

No.2024/2011 dated 08.03.2011 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office,

Mancherial and they purchased the said land from original pattadar

Palakurti Rajamma W/o. Late Ranga goud, R/o. Old Garmilla village of

Mancherial through registered sale deed bearing No.1572/2005 dated 05.03.2005 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Mancherial.

15.The plaintiffs contended that they erected cement poles with iron fencing around the suit schedule land. The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 son

Thatipelli Harish established a saw mill in the suit schedule land in the name and style of M/s. Sri Srinivasa Sawmill and Depot (Primary Wood

Based Industries) vide License No.8198/1972-(S10) dated 24.12.2019 and File No.1276/2019-F6 issued by Forest Divisional Officer, Mancherial.

For the said purpose the plaintiffs constructed permanent structure in

Page No. 8 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

the suit land and erected machinery in that and ready to start production. The NPDCL, Divisional Officer, Mancherial has accorded requisite power connection vide memo No.DE/MANCHERIAL/AE/F.NO.TS-

IPASS/D.NO.122/20-21 dated 22.05.2020. The plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of purchase. The Defendants who have no right or possession over the suit property, interfered into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land with an intention to grab the suit property. To prove the contention of plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.2 got examined as

PW1, one third party to the suit was also examined as PW-2 and son of the plaintiff No.1 was also examined as PW-3 and Exs.A1 to Ex.A8 documents were marked through PW-1 and Ex.A9 and A10 documents were marked through PW-3. Their evidence reiterated the plaint averments.

16.It can be seen from the documentary evidence that Ex.A1 is

Registered sale deed No.3889/2019 dated 18.03.2009 shows that 1)

Dheeti Ravi, 2) Panagatla Venkateshwarlu, 3) Durgam Naresh and 4)

Appasu Kishan jointly sold to an extent of Ac.3-17 guntas in Sy.No.247/2 to the plaintiffs. Ex.A2 is Registered sale deed No.8511/2014 dated 23.08.2014 shows that 1) Katukojula Srinivasachari, 2) Chilakabathini

Silvaraj, 3) Kanthala Srinivas Reddy, 4) Katukojula Ramanachary jointly sold the suit schedule land to the vendors of the plaintiffs. Ex.A3 is

Registered sale deed No.2024/2011 dated 18.03.2011 shows that 1)

Siddam Ramesh, 2) Pedishetti Mogili and 3) Kankanala Sateesh sold the suit schedule property to vendors’ vendors of the plaintiffs. Ex.A4 is

Registered sale deed No.1572/2005 dated 1572/2005 dated 05.03.2005 shows that Palakurthi Rajamma W/o. Ranga Goud sold the suit schedule property to 1) Siddam Ramesh, 2) Pedishetti Mogili and 3) Kankanala

Sateesh. Exs.A5 to A8 are CC of registered sale deeds which show that

Page No. 9 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

Poreddy Mallaiah and Poreddy Lasmaiah jointly sold to an extent of 440 sq.yards to defendant No.1, 330 square yards to defendant No.2, 200 square yards to defendant No.3, 200 square yards to defendant No.4 in

Sy.No.247 respectively. Ex.A9 is Sawmill permission proceeding

No.1276/2019-F6 issued by the Forest Divisional Officer, Mancherial and

Ex.A10 is Form No.II, Sawmill License issued by Forest Divisional Officer,

Mancherial.

17.On perusal of the record it can be seen that the summons were served on defendants. The defendants No.1 and 2 died, as such, the suit against defendants No.1 and 2 was dismissed as not pressed. Despite service of summons, the Defendants No.3 and 4 did not appear before this court to contest the suit, due to which they were set exparte on 01.08.2022. Upon careful scrutiny of the documentary evidence under

Ex.A1 to A10 coupled with oral evidence of PWs-1 to PW-3, it appears that the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. To disprove the averments made by the plaintiffs, defendants did not choose to appear and file written statement before this court. Hence the evidence of the plaintiffs adduced by the plaintiffs remains unchallenged and un-rebutted. As such, the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction over the suit schedule property.

Accordingly the point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.

POINT NO.2 :

18.In view of answering point No.1, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

Page No. 10 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

POINT NO.3:

19.It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the original owner and pattadar of the land in Sy.No.247/2 of Garmilla Shivar situated within

Mancherial municipality by name Palakurthi Rajamma W/o. Ranga Goud challenged the mutation effected by the MRO/Tahsildar in favour of

Poreddy Mallaiah and Poreddy Lasmaiah under appeal before RDO

Mancherial vide Appeal No.G/4270/2014. The RDO, Mancherial while allowing the said appeal, set aside the mutation order vide File

No.ROR/GR/553/1989 dated 20.09.1994 passed in favour of Poreddy

Mallaiah and Poreddy Lasmaiah i.e., the alleged vendors of the defendants and that the RDO Mancherial. It is the further contention of the plaintiffs that thereafter, the Poreddy Lasmaiah filed a Revision

before the Joint Collector, Adilabad vide Revision Petition

No.D4/ROR/6/05 dated 30.04.2009. In turn, the Joint Collector, Adilabad allowed the said Revision Petition by setting aside the order of RDO,

Mancherial and directed the Tahsildar, Mancherial to conduct De-novo enquiry and pass orders. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Mancherial issued notices to all the parties and after due enquiry, passed an order on 29.10.2014 holding that illegal mutation was passed in favour of

Poreddy Mallaiah and Poreddy Lasmaiah who are vendors of the defendants and set aside the revenue entries and restored the revenue entries in favour of original pattadar Palakurthi Rajamma W/o. Ranga

Goud and her purchasers including vendors of the plaintiffs. The said contention of the plaintiffs is not denied or controverted by way of filing written statement or any documentary proof by the defendants, since they remained exparte. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs on this aspect is established by way of oral evidence. If at all any appeal is preferred by the defendants, they would have appeared before this court by way of filing written statement or any documentary proof in support of their contention. Therefore, the defendants failed to rebut or

Page No. 11 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

challenge the said contention of the plaintiffs. In the absence of any evidence from the side of the defendants, as they remained exparte the plaintiffs have successfully established their case that the sale deeds under Ex.A-5 to A-8 are null and void. Hence, this point is answered.

POINT NO.4:

20. IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed by granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over the suit schedule land bearing

Sy.No.247/2 measuring 16,577 square yards (Ac.3-17 guntas) situated at

Garmilla shivar, within the limits of Mancherial municipality. Further, the suit is decreed by declaring the registered sale deeds document

Nos.4493/2001 dated 07.01.2001, 4496/2001 dated 07.12.2001, 4510/2001 dated 07.12.2001 and 4788/2001 dated 26.12.2001 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. No order as to costs. If any miscellaneous petitions are pending, they shall stand closed.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno, and after corrections

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26 th day of April, 2023.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:For Defendants:- PW1: Thatipelli Shobarani (Plaintiff) -None- PW2: Kade Yellaiah PW3: Thatipelli Harish

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Registered sale deed No.3889/2019 dated 18.03.2009

Ex.A2: Registered sale deed No.8511/2014 dated 23.08.2014

Ex.A3: Registered sale deed No.2024/2011 dated 18.03.2011

Ex.A4: Registered sale deed No.1572/2005 dated 05.03.2005

Page No. 12 of 12 O.S.No.106 of 2021

Date: 26.04.2023

Ex.A5: CC of Registered sale deed No.4493/2001 dated 07.12.2001

Ex.A6: CC of Registered sale deed No.4496/2001 dated 07.12.2001

Ex.A7: CC of Registered sale deed No.4510/2001 dated 07.12.2001

Ex.A8: CC of Registered sale deed No.4788/2001 dated 28.12.2001

Ex.A9: Sawmill permission proceeding No.1276/2019-F6 issued by the

Forest Divisional Officer, Mancherial

Ex.A10: Form No.II, Sawmill License issued by Forest Divisional Officer,

Mancherial

For Defendants: -NIL-

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

1 of 12 O.S.No.164 of 2022

Dated 25.04.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: Smt. T. Mahathi Vaishnavi

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Mancherial

Tuesday, this the 25th day of April, 2023

O.S.No.164 of 2022

Between:-

Between:-

1. Reddimalla Krishtaphar Jayaraj @ ManchalaRaju S/o. Reddimalla Narsaiah @ Manchala Narsaiah, Age: 32 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. H.No. 23- 65/4, Sri Sri Nagar, Mancherial.

2. Reddimall @ Merugu Sony @ Mery Plarence, D/o. Reddimala Narsaiah, W/o. Merugu Nagabhushanam, Age: 29 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No. 8-6-1, Gajulamalapalli, Near Reddy Kota Mil, Thiruvuru, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. …Plaintiffs // AND //

1. The General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, represented by its General Manager, SRP-3 Incline, Srirampur, Mancherial District.

2. The General Manager, Gratuity Trust, Singareni Collieries company Limited, Kothagudem, Badradri Kothagudem District.

3. Regional Commissioner, Coal MInes Provident Fund, Millennium Complex, IB colony, Opp: Bus Stand, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District.

4. To whomsoever it may concern.

...Defendants

This suit came before me on 04.03.2023 for hearing in the presence of Sri Anudeep Nerella, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri A.Shyam Kishore, Advocate for defendants No.1 and 2. Defendant No.3 and 4 remained exparte. Having heard and stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

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

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the plaintiffs are Class-I legal heirs of deceased Reddimalla Narsaiah @ Manchala

Narsaiah, who worked as Haulage Operator with EC.No.02833255 at

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Srirampur and entitled to receive the terminal benefits of deceased payable by defendants No.1 to 3.

2 of 12 O.S.No.164 of 2022

Dated 25.04.2023

Case of the plaintiffs:-

2.The plaintiff No.1 is the son and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of deceased Reddimalla Narsaiah who worked as Haulage Operator with

EC.No.02833255 at SRP-3 Incline, Singareni Collieries Company Limited under the defendant No.1 to 3 company. The deceased Reddimalla

Narsaiah died on 22.05.2021 due to Covid-19, leaving the plaintiffs as his successors to succeed his estate. The wife of deceased Reddimalla

Narsaiah died on 29.12.2014 and there are no other Class-I legal heirs to Reddimall Narsaiah except the plaintiffs.

3.The plaintiffs approached the defendants company in the month of February-2022 for terminal benefits of their deceased father

Reddimalla Narsaiah and dependent job to plaintiff No.1. But the defendants company denied their status as son and daughter of deceased. The deceased Reddimalla Narsaiah had (21) months of service till the time of his death. On death of late Reddimalla Narsaiah being his Class-I legal heirs, plaintiffs are jointly entitled to his terminal benefits such as Gratuity, FBIS(A), FBIS(D), CMPF(HYD/059/000746),

Pension, SSF, Leave wages etc., payable by the defendants company.

As such, the plaintiffs filed this suit.

Case of the defendants :-

4.Defendants denied the material averments made in the plaint. It is admitted that Reddimalla Narsaiah was appointed in the service of defendant No.1 company on 10.04.1987 and worked as Hauler Operator in SRP-3&3A Incline with EC.No.2833255. As per the death certificate

dated 29.06.2021 issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths,

Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar, the Reddimalla Narsaiah died on 3 of 12 O.S.No.164 of 2022

Dated 25.04.2023

22.05.2021. As such, the deceased name was removed from the rolls of defendant No.1 company from 23.05.2021. As per the company rules every employee has to declare his family members at the time of his appointment. Accordingly, the ex-employee while in service had declared the following persons as his dependent family members.

As per Old EPR:

Sl.No. Name Relationship 1Nirmala Rani Wife 2KeshavuluFather 3Komuramma Mother 4SonyDaughter 5Krishtaphar JayarajSon 6RameshBrother

As per Service card dated 18.12.1987

Sl.No. Name Relationship 1Nirmala RaniWife 2Komuramma Mother 3SrinivasBrother 4Ramesh Brother

As per PS-3 dated 27.05.1998

Sl.No. Name Relationship 1Nirmala RaniWife 3Krishtaphar JayarajSon 4Mery Plarence Daughter

As per EPR-SAP

Sl.No. Name Relationship 1Nirmala Rani Wife 2KeshavuluFather old EPF 3Komuramma Mother 4SonyDaughter 5Krishtaphar JayarajSon 4 of 12 O.S.No.164 of 2022

Dated 25.04.2023

5.The deceased Reddimalla Narsaiah while in service executed nomination in favour of his wife Nirmala Rani with 100% share to receive all the terminal benefits. The fact that nominee and wife of deceased employee predeceased the employee in the year 2014 is not known to the defendant No.1 company, the deceased employee never intimated about the death of his wife Nirmala Rani while he was in service. The deceased employee during his life time or during his service never submitted any of his revised nominations in favour of any other member or dependents of his family members.

6.The Reddimalla Krishtaphar Jayraj submitted an application requesting the mine authorities to process all the terminal benefits and dependent employment in his favour as he is the legal heir of the deceased employee and enclosed all the supporting documents which are required to be examined before processing the claim. As such, at the time of scrutiny of the documents submitted by the plaintiff No.1, it is found that as per his SSC certificate (Issued on 30.04.2005) his name is

Manchala Raju S/o. Manchala Narsaiah with date of birth as 22.06.1990, in this regard it is to submit that as per the personal record of the employee, wherein his son’s name is recorded as Reddimalla

Krishtaphar Jayaraj with date of birth as 01.08.1989. As per the SSC certificate (Issued on 15.05.2008) plaintiff No.2 name is Manchala Sony

D/o. Manchala Narsaiah with date of birth as 17.08.1993. In this regard as per the personal record of the employee his daughter’s name is recorded in two different ways as Sony with date of birth as 01.03.1991 (As per old EPR and SAP) and as Mery Plarence with date of birth as 01.03.1991. At mine level the plaintiffs submitted their respective 5 of 12 O.S.No.164 of 2022

Dated 25.04.2023

Aadhar cards in which it is clearly mentioned as C/o. Reddimalla

Narsaiah” instead of F/o. Reddimalla Narsaiah.

7.As per the rules of defendant No.1 company if the employee is alive and had terminated from the services of the company on the ground of medical invalidation or superannuation all the terminal benefits will be settled in favour of the employee itself in other case, if the employee is expired then all his terminal benefits will be settled in favour of nominee as per nominations executed by the employee during his life time. As per the rules, the defendant No.1 company is under legal obligation to disburse the terminal benefits payable in respect of the said deceased employee to his nominee who was nominated by the employee while in service and if the nominee is also not available, all the terminal benefits shall be paid to the correct person as declared by the competent court of law.

8.In view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Rukhsana(Smt) and others v. Nazrunnisa (Smt) and another

[Civil Appeal No.402-03 of 2000], the defendant company had issued a circular No.CRP/PER/WEL/ATB/201/172 dated 10.01.2008 directing the concerned authorities to accept the decree (in absence of nominations) obtained by the legal heirs from the competent court of law and settle the terminal benefits in the manner indicated therein without insisting for submission of Succession Certificate. In this case employee expired and as per plaint nominee is also not available, which is not known to the defendants company. The defendants company is not personally aware of the family members of deceased employee. The plaintiff approached this court seeking a declaration decree so as to 6 of 12 O.S.No.164 of 2022

Dated 25.04.2023

enable him to legally put up their claims for payment of terminal benefits which are payable in respect of deceased employee who died without revising the nominations as required by the rules of the defendants company. The plaintiffs have no right to claim the terminal benefits of the deceased employee without being declared them as legal heirs of the deceased employee by producing oral and documentary evidence. As such, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit.

9.On sufficient service of summons, defendant No.3 failed to appear

before this court. As such, defendant No.3 was set exparte on

01.12.2022.

10.On application of the plaintiffs, this Court issued a paper publication for defendant No.4. But, no objections are received from any person. Hence, defendant No.4 was set-exparte on 20.01.2023.

11.On the basis of the above rival pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of

their status that the Plaintiff No.1 is the son, Plaintiff No.2

is the daughter of deceased Reddimalla Narsaiah @

Manchala Narsaiah who worked as Haulage Operator at

with EC.No.2833255 under the defendants No.1 to 3

company as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the

death benefits of the deceased Reddimalla Narsaiah @

Manchala Narsaiah from the defendants No.1 to 3

company ?

3. If so, to what relief ?

7 of 12 O.S.No.164 of 2022

Dated 25.04.2023

12. During the course of plaintiffs’ evidence, Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 were examined as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively and Exs.A1 to A14 documents are marked through PW1.

13. On the other hand, the contesting defendants did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf. Hence, the defendants evidence was closed.

14. Heard both sides.

Issue No.1:-

15. Theplaintiff No.1 is the son and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of deceased Reddimalla Narsaiah who worked as Haulage Operator with

EC.No.02833255 at SRP-3 Incline, Singareni Collieries Company Limited under the defendant No.1 to 3 company. The deceased Reddimalla

Narsaiah died on 22.05.2021 due to Covid-19, leaving the plaintiffs as his successors to succeed his estate. The wife of deceased Reddimalla

Narsaiah died on 29.12.2014 and there are no other Class-I legal heirs to Reddimalla Narsaiah except the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs approached the defendants company in the month of February-2022 for terminal benefits of their deceased father Reddimalla Narsaiah and dependent job to plaintiff No.1. But the defendants company denied their status as son and daughter of deceased. The deceased Reddimalla Narsaiah had (21) months of service till the time of his death. On death of late

Reddimalla Narsaiah, being his Class-I legal heirs, plaintiffs are jointly entitled to his terminal benefits such as Gratuity, FBIS(A), FBIS(D),

CMPF(HYD/059/000746), Pension, SSF, Leave wages etc., payable by the defendants company.

8 of 12 O.S.No.164 of 2022

Dated 25.04.2023

16.It is admitted by the defendant No.1 company that the deceased

Reddimalla Narsaiah was appointed in the service of defendant No.1 company on 10.04.1987 and worked as Haulage Operator in SRP-3&3A

Incline with EC.No.2833255. As per the death certificate dated 29.06.2021 issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Municipal

Corporation, Karimnagar, the Reddimalla Narsaiah died on 22.05.2021.

As such, the deceased name was removed from the rolls of defendant

No.1 company from 23.05.2021.

17.The deceased Reddimalla Narsaiah while in service executed nomination in favour of his wife Nirmala Rani with 100% share to receive all the terminal benefits. The fact that nominee and wife of deceased employee predeceased the employee in the year 2014 is not known to the defendant No.1 company , the deceased employee never intimated about the death of his wife Nirmala Rani while he was in service. The deceased employee during his life time or during his service never submitted any of his revised nominations in favour of any other member or dependents of his family members. The Reddimalla

Krishtaphar Jayraj submitted an application requesting the mine authorities to process all the terminal benefits and dependent employment in his favour as he is the legal heir of the deceased employee and enclosed all the supporting documents which are required to be examined before processing the claim. As such, at the time of scrutiny of the documents submitted by the plaintiff No.1, it is found that as per his SSC certificate (Issued on 30.04.2005) his name is

Manchala Raju S/o. Manchala Narsaiah with date of birth as 22.06.1990, in this regard it is submitted that as per the personal record of the employee, his son’s name is recorded as Reddimalla Krishtaphar Jayaraj 9 of 12 O.S.No.164 of 2022

Dated 25.04.2023

with date of birth as 01.08.1989. As per the SSC certificate (Issued on 15.05.2008) plaintiff No.2 name is Manchala Sony D/o. Manchala

Narsaiah with date of birth as 17.08.1993. In this regard as per the personal record of the employee, his daughter’s name is recorded in two different ways as Sony with date of birth as 01.03.1991 (As per old

EPR and SAP) and as Mery Plarence with date of birth as 01.03.1991. At mine level the plaintiffs submitted their respective Aadhar cards in which it is clearly mentioned as C/o. Reddimalla Narsaiah” instead of

F/o. Reddimalla Narsaiah. As such, The plaintiffs have no right to claim the terminal benefits of the deceased employee without being declared them as legal heirs of the deceased employee by producing oral and documentary evidence

18.Plaintiffs No.1 and 2/PW-1and PW-2 filed their affidavits in lieu of their examination-in-chief. The contents of their chief examination are nothing but reiteration of the plaint averments. Through PW-1, Exs.A1 to A14 documents are marked. The chief examination of PW-1 and PW-2 go to show that plaintiff No.1 is the son and plaintiffs No.2 is the daughter of deceased Reddimalla Narsaiah who worked as Haulage

Operator with employee code No.02833255 at SRP-3 Incline of the defendants company and died on 22.05.2021. Ex.A1 is death certificate of Reddimalla Narsaiah dated 29.06.2021 issued by the Registrar of

Births and Deaths, Karimnagar Municipality which shows that

Reddimalla Narsaiah died on 22.05.2021. Like-wise, Ex.A2 is the death certificate of Reddimalla Nirmala Rani who is wife of deceased employee which shows that she died on 29.12.2014. Ex.A3 is the family members certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Mancherial, wherein the plaintiffs are shown as family members of the deceased employee. Ex.A4 is pay slip 10 of 12 O.S.No.164 of 2022

Dated 25.04.2023

of Reddimalla Narsaiah issued by SCCo., Limited SRP-3 Incline. Ex.A5 is

Aadhar Card of Reddimalla Narsaiah, Ex.A6 is Aadhar card of Reddimalla

Nirmala Rani, Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 are Aadhar cards of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 respectively. Ex.A9 is Original Gazette notification of name which shows that the name of the Manchala Raju is henceforth known as Reddimalla

Krishtaphar Jaya Raj on 17.09.2021. Ex.A10 is the change of name from

Manchala Raju to Krishtaphar Jaya Raj published in the HansIndia

English Daily Newspaper, Ex.A11 is the change of name of Manchala

Raju in the Sakshi Telugu Daily Newspaper as Reddimalla Krishtaphar

Jaya Raj. Ex.A12 is SSC marks memo issued by Board of Secondary

Education in favour of Manchala Raju S/o. Manchala Narsaiah. Ex.A13 is

Intermediate pass certificate-cum-marks memo issued by Board of

Intermediate Education in favour of Manchala Raju S/o. Manchala

Narsaiah, Ex.A14 is Consolidated marks memo issued by JNTU,

Hyderabad in favour of Manchala Raju. Though the learned counsel for the defendants cross-examined PW-1 and PW-2, nothing is elicited to disbelieve their contention. The defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs and also to substantiate their claim. Moreover, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 coupled with the documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A14 proves that the plaintiff No.1 is the son and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of deceased Reddimalla

Narsaiah.

19.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A14 and in view of the reasons stated supra, it can be said that the plaintiffs have proved their case that they are the son daughter of deceased Reddimalla Narsaiah @ Manchala Narsaiah who 11 of 12 O.S.No.164 of 2022

Dated 25.04.2023

worked in the defendants company with EC.No.2833255, died on 22.05.2021 while in service. Accordingly the issue No.1 is answered.

ISSUE No.2:

20. In respect of this issue, it is stated in the written statement filed by defendant No.1 company that if the employee is expired then all his terminal benefits will be settled in favour of nominee as per the nominations executed by the employee during his life time. Further stated that as per their rules, the defendant No.1 company is under legal obligation to disburse the terminal benefits payable in respect of the said deceased employee to his nominee who was nominated by the employee while in service and if the nominee is also not available, all the terminal benefits shall be paid to the correct person as declared by the competent court. Now that the issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiffs No.1 and 2, it is for the defendants company to make the said terminal benefits as per the rules prescribed by their company and hence it is outside the purview of this court. Hence issue No.2 answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.3

21.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed by declaring that the plaintiff

No.1 is the son and Plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of deceased

Reddimalla Narsaiah, who worked as Haulage Operator with EC.No.

2833255 at SRP-3 Incline, Srirampur area, Singareni Collieries Company

Limited under the defendants company. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25 th day of April, 2023.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

12 of 12 O.S.No.164 of 2022

Dated 25.04.2023

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For plaintiffs:- PW-1: Reddimalla Krishtaphar Jayaraj @ Manchala Raju (Plaintiff No.1)

PW-2: Reddimalla @ Merugu Sony @ Mery Plarence (Plaintiff No.2)

For defendants:- -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiffs:- Ex.A1: Death certificate of Reddimalla Narsaiah issued by Karimnagar Municipal Corporation.

Ex.A2: Death certificate of R.Nirmala Rani issued by GHMC at Khairathabad, Hyderabad.

Ex.A3: Family members certificate obtained from Mee-Seva

Ex.A4: Pay Slip of Reddimalla Narsaiah issued by SCCo., Limited, SRP-3 Incline.

Ex.A5: Original Aadhar card of Reddimalla Narsaiah

Ex.A6: Original Aadhar card of Reddimalla Nirmala Rani

Ex.A7: Original Aadhard card of Krishtaphar Jayaraj @ Manchala Raju

Ex.A8: Original Aadhar card of Reddimalla @ Merugu Soni @ Mery Plarence

Ex.A9: Original copy of Gazette Notification of name published as Manchala Raju

Ex.A10: Name published in Hans India English Daily Newspaper

Ex.A11: Name published in Sakshi Telugu Daily Newspaper

Ex.A12: SSC Marks memo issued by Board of Secondary Education

Ex.A13: Intermediate pass certificate-cum-marks memo issued by Board of Intermediate Education

Ex.A14: Consolidated marks memo issued by JNTU, Hyderabad

For defendants:- NIL

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

1 of 10 O.S.No.305 of 2022

Dated 26.04.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: Smt. T. Mahathi Vaishnavi

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Mancherial

Wednesday, this the 26th day of April, 2023

O.S.No.305 of 2022

Between:-

1. Talluri Swathi W/o. Late Narasimha Rao Age: 32 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. H.No.15-5-112/4B, Chaitanya Nagar, Indira Nagar, Khammam Town and District.

2. Talluri Likhitha D/o. Late Narasimha Rao, Age: 12 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.15-5-112/4B, Chaitanya Nagar, Indira Nagar, Khammam Town and District.

3. Talluri Nikhitha D/o. Late Narasimha Rao, Age: 10 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.15-5-112/4B, Chaitanya Nagar, Indira Nagar, Khammam Town and District.

4. Talluri Venkata Ramana @ Ramanamma W/o. Late Jagadeeshwar Rao, Age: 55 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. Kakatiya Nagar, Yellandu Town, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 being minors, are represented by their mother T.Swathi as natural guardian, i.e., plaintiff No.1). …Plaintiff //AND//

1. The Manager, RK-6 Incline, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Srirampur Area, Srirampur, Mancherial District.

2. To whomsoever it may concern.

...Defendants

This suit came before me on 28.03.2023 for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri A.Shyam Kumar, Advocate for the defendant No. 1. Defendant No.2 remained exparte. Having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the plaintiffs are Class-I legal heirs of deceased Talluri Narasimha Rao, who worked as

Electrical Foreman in RK-6 Incline, Singareni Collieries Company Limited and entitled to receive the terminal benefits of deceased payable by 2 of 10 O.S.No.305 of 2022

Dated 26.04.2023

defendants No.1 and to treat the plaintiff No.1 as nominee of the deceased.

Case of the plaintiffs:-

2.Plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the daughters and plaintiff No.4 is the mother of deceased Talluri Narasimha Rao, who worked as Electrical Foreman at RK-6 Incline, Singareni Collieries

Company Limited in the defendant No.1 company. Talluri Narasimha

Rao died on 22.10.2017 leaving the plaintiffs as his successors to succeed his estate. The marriage of plaintiff No.1 was performed with late Talluri Narasimha Rao on 22.06.2003 at Ganugapadu village of

Chandrugonda mandal, Khammam District and out their wedlock, they are blessed with plaintiffs No.2 and 3. The Talluri Narasimha Rao died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs, except them, there are no other legal heirs. After death of the deceased Talluri Narasimha Rao, the plaintiff No.1 made an application before the garnishee of the deceased

Talluri Narasimha Rao for receiving the pension on account of death of her husband and also for releasing the entire death benefits But the defendant company informed that the name of the plaintiff No.1 was not mentioned as nominee of the Talluri Narasimha Rao as he got job

before their marriage.

3.The plaintiffs are legal heirs of the deceased Talluri Narasimha Rao and they are fully depending on the earnings of the deceased, and the plaintiffs are entitled to the death benefits of Taluri Narasimha Rao and the plaintiff No.1 is alone entitled to receive the pension as wife and also to get job on compensatory ground. On 12.01.2018 the plaintiff

No.1 approached the Garnishee of the deceased Talluri Narasimha Rao 3 of 10 O.S.No.305 of 2022

Dated 26.04.2023

and requested for sanction of pension in her favour and release the death benefits in her favour and also to give the job on compensatory ground but they advised to get declaration decree from the competent court as declaring the status of the plaintiffs as legal heirs of the deceased Talluri Narasimha Rao. As such, the plaintiffs filed this suit.

Case of the defendant No.1:-

4.Defendants No.1 denied the material averments made in the plaint. It is admitted that Talluri Narasimha Rao was appointed on 30.01.2002 as charge hand (Electrical) at RK-6 Incline in the defendant company and he expired on 22.10.2017 as per death certificate dated 13.11.2017 issued by Panchayath Secretary, Grampanchayath

Venkatraopalli, Government of Telangana. As such, the name of the employee was removed from the rolls of defendant company vide name removal letter dated 08.01.2018. As per the defendant company records

Talluri Venkata Ramana, mother of the deceased employee is the nominee. As per rules of defendant company every employee has to declare his family members at the time of his appointment. Accordingly, the ex-employee while in service, had declared the following persons as his dependent family members.

Sl.No. Name Relationship 1SwathiWife 2Jagdishwar RaoFather 3VenkatramanaMother (Nominee) 4Sunitha Sister (Married) 5Likhitha Daughter 6Nikhitha Daughter

5.The defendant company is under obligation to settle the terminal benefits in favour of the nominee and in the absence of nominees in 4 of 10 O.S.No.305 of 2022

Dated 26.04.2023

accordance to the Succession Certificate or Declaration Decree issued by the competent court of law The details of the death benefits payable are as follows ;

Sl.NoRetirementAmount Remarks benefits 1Not paid- Regional CMPFRs.10,76,567Commissioner, CMPF is the /-Competent Authority for disbursement 2FBISRs.8,000/-Not paid (Accumulations) 3PensionRs.5,000/-Not paid p.m. 4GratuityRs.10,00,000Not paid /- 5FBIS (Death)Rs.10,000/-Not paid 6GISRs.1,12,000/-Not paid

6.The death benefits are pending with the defendant company as the wife of the deceased employee Swathi approached the defendant company and requested to release the death benefits and to provide her compassionate employment vide application dated 27.11.2017.

Accordingly, the defendant company advised her to obtain Succession

Certificate or Declaration Decree from Competent court of law as per the circulars and rules. As such, the defendant No.1 sought dismissal of the suit.

7.On application of the plaintiffs, this Court issued a paper publication for defendant No.2. But, no objections are received from any person. Hence, defendant No.2 was set-exparte on 30.11.2022.

8.On the basis of the above rival pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of

their status that the Plaintiffs No.1 is wife, Plaintiffs No.2

5 of 10 O.S.No.305 of 2022

Dated 26.04.2023

and 3 are daughters and Plaintiff No.4 is mother of

deceased Talluri Narasimha Rao who worked as Electrical

Foreman in RK-6 Incline Mine under the defendant No.1

company as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the death

benefits of the deceased Talluri Narasimha Rao ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a direction to defendant

No.1 to treat plaintiff No.1 as nominee of the deceased ?

4. If so, to what relief?

9. During the course of plaintiffs’ evidence, Plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW-1 and Exs.A1 to A6 documents are marked through PW-1. One

Talluri Venkateshwar Rao who is paternal uncle of deceased was examined as PW-2 and Ex.A7 document marked through PW-2.

10. On the other hand, the contesting defendants did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf. Hence, the defendants evidence was closed.

11. Heard both sides.

ISSUE No.1:-

12. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the daughters and plaintiff No.4 is the mother of deceased Talluri Narasimha Rao, who worked as Electrical Foreman at RK-6 Incline, Singareni Collieries

Company Limited in the defendant No.1 company. Talluri Narasimha

Rao died on 22.10.2017 leaving the plaintiffs as his successors to succeed his estate. The marriage of plaintiff No.1 was performed with late Talluri Narasimha Rao on 22.06.2003 at Ganugapadu village of

Chandrugonda mandal, Khammam District and out of their wedlock, they are blessed with plaintiffs No.2 and 3. Talluri Narasimha Rao died 6 of 10 O.S.No.305 of 2022

Dated 26.04.2023

leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs, except them, there are no other legal heirs. After death of the deceased Talluri Narasimha Rao, the plaintiff No.1 made an application before the garnishee of the deceased

Talluri Narasimha Rao for receiving the pension on account of death of her husband and also for releasing the entire death benefits. But the defendant company informed that the name of the plaintiff No.1 was not mentioned as nominee of the Talluri Narasimha Rao as he got job

before their marriage. The plaintiffs are legal heirs of the deceased

Talluri Narasimha Rao and they are fully depending on the earnings of the deceased, and the plaintiffs are entitled to the death benefits of

Taluri Narasimha Rao and the plaintiff No.1 is alone entitled to receive the pension as wife and also get job on compensatory ground. On 12.01.2018 the plaintiff No.1 approached the Garnishee of the deceased

Talluri Narasimha Rao and requested for sanction of pension in her favour and release the death benefits in her favour and also to give her job on compensatory ground but they advised to get declaration decree from the competent court declaring the status of the plaintiffs as legal heirs of the deceased Talluri Narasimha Rao.

13.It is admitted by the defendant No.1 company that Talluri

Narasimha Rao was appointed on 30.01.2002 as charge hand (Electrical) at RK-6 Incline in the defendant company and he expired on 22.10.2017 as per death certificate dated 13.11.2017 issued by

Panchayath Secretary, Grampanchayath Venkatraopalli, Government of

Telangana. As such, the name of the employee was removed from the rolls of defendant company vide name removal letter dated 08.01.2018.

As per the defendant company records Talluri Venkata Ramana, mother of the deceased employee is the nominee. As per rules of defendant 7 of 10 O.S.No.305 of 2022

Dated 26.04.2023

company every employee has to declare his family members at the time of his appointment. Accordingly, the ex-employee while in service, had declared the following persons as his dependent family members.

Sl.No. Name Relationship 1SwathiWife 2Jagdishwar RaoFather 3VenkatramanaMother (Nominee) 4Sunitha Sister (Married) 5Likhitha Daughter 6Nikhitha Daughter

14.The defendant company is under obligation to settle the terminal benefits in favour of the nominee and in the absence of nominees in accordance to the Succession Certificate or Declaration Decree issued by the competent court of law The details of the death benefits payable are as follows ;

Sl.NoRetirementAmount Remarks benefits 1Not paid- Regional CMPFRs.10,76,567/-Commissioner, CMPF is the Competent Authority for disbursement 2FBISRs.8,000/-Not paid (Accumulations) 3PensionRs.5,000/- p.m.Not paid 4GratuityRs.10,00,000/-Not paid 5FBIS (Death)Rs.10,000/-Not paid 6GISRs.1,12,000/-Not paid

15.The death benefits are pending with the defendant company as the wife of the deceased employee Swathi approached the defendant company and requested to release the death benefits and to provide her compassionate employment vide application dated 27.11.2017.

Accordingly, the defendant company advised her to obtain Succession 8 of 10 O.S.No.305 of 2022

Dated 26.04.2023

Certificate or Declaration Decree from Competent court of law as per the circulars and rules.

16.Plaintiff No.1/PW-1 and PW-2 filed their affidavits in lieu of their examination-in-chief. The contents of their chief examinations are nothing but reiteration of the plaint averments. Through PW-1, Exs.A1 to

A6 documents are marked. The chief examinations of PW-1 and PW-2 show that plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the daughters and plaintiff No.4 is the mother of deceased Talluri Narasimha

Rao who worked as Electrical Foreman at RK-6 Incline of the defendant company and died on 22.10.2017. Ex.A1 is death certificate of Talluri

Narasimha Rao dated 13.11.2017 issued by Panchayaht Secretary, G.P..

Venkatraopally village, Ramagiri mandal and Peddapalli District which shows that Talluri Narasimha Rao died on 22.10.2017, Exs.A2 to A4 are

Original Aadhar Cards of plaintiffs No.1 to 3 respectively. Ex.A6 is the family members certificate issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Khammam

Urban, wherein the plaintiffs are shown as family members of the deceased employee. Through PW-2, Ex.A7 document is marked. Ex.A7 is two photos along with CD. The learned counsel for the defendants

No.1 cross-examined PW-1 and she admitted that the name of the plaintiff No.4 is entered as nominee of deceased Talluri Narasismha Rao in the SCCo., Limited records, except this nothing is elicited to disbelive her contention. The defendant did not adduce any evidence to rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs and also to substantiate their claim. Moreover, the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence

Exs.A1 to A7 proves that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the daughters and plaintiff No.4 is the mother of deceased Talluri

Narasimha Rao.

9 of 10 O.S.No.305 of 2022

Dated 26.04.2023

17.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A7 and in view of the reasons stated supra, it can be said that the plaintiffs have proved their case that plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the daughters and plaintiff No.4 is the mother of deceased Talluri Narasimha Rao, who worked in the defendant company, died on 22.10.2017 while in service. Accordingly the issue

No.1 is answered.

ISSUE Nos.2 and 3:

18. In respect of this issue, it is stated in the written statement filed by defendant No.1 company that they only process the claims of terminal benefits which are submitted by the employee or his/her nominee and forward it to the concerned authorities. The defendant company stated that to release the terminal benefits in favour of plaintiffs, they shall obtain Succession Certificate or Declaration decree issued by competent court. Now that the issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiffs No.1 to 4, it is for the defendant company to make the said terminal benefits as per the rules prescribed by their company and hence it is outside the purview of this court. Hence issue No.2 and 3 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.3

19.IN THE RESULT, the suit is partly decreed and the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of their status that plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the daughters and plaintiff No.4 is the mother of deceased Talluri Narasimha Rao, who worked in the defendant No.1 company at RK-6 incline. There is no order as to costs.

10 of 10 O.S.No.305 of 2022

Dated 26.04.2023

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26 th day of April, 2023.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For plaintiffs:- For defendants:- PW-1: Talluri Swathi (Plaintiff No.1) -None- PW2: Talluri Venkateshwar Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiffs:- Ex.A1: Original death certificate of Talluri Narasimha Rao

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

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

Ex.A4: Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.3

Ex.A5: Original Aadhar Card of deceased Talluri Narasimha Rao

Ex.A6: CC of family members certificate

Ex.A7: (2) Photographs along with CD

For defendants:- NIL

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANCHERIAL

CC.No. 8 of 2021Page 1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT MANCHERIAL

Present: Smt. Taduru Mahathi Vaishnavi, I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial.

Friday, this the 13th day of August, 2021

CC No.8 of 2021

Between:

The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, PS CCC Naspur . . .Complainant //And//

A2) Bukya Prabhu @ Prabhu Nagesh Chinthal, S/o Nagesh, Age: 24yrs, Occ: Coolie, R/o Armoor Cannal Katta of Nizamabad District

... Accused No.2

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP for the State and in the presence of Sri A.Satyanarayana, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused no.2 and having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The then Sub-Inspector of Police, C.C.C. Naspur Police Station filed charge-sheet against the accused no.2 (the case against A1 is split up vide CC.No.

590 of 2021) in Cr.No.163 of 2019 for the offences punishable under sections 457 and 380 of I.P.C.

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

On 15-08-2019 at 2145 hours, the complainant/Lw1/Bonagiri Kishan went to

Police Station and lodged a report alleging that he is resident of Qr.No. SD-116,

Naspur Colony. On 10-08-2019 he left to his native village Gollapalli along with his family members by locking their house. On 15-08-2019 at 1800 hours when they returned from their native village and opened the lock of their house, they found that the rear side door lock was broke open. The almirah doors in the

CC.No. 8 of 2021Page 2 of 5

bedroom were found open and gold, silver ornaments, net cash were missing. The details of the stolen property were 1) Gold Necklace weighing about 14 grams,

2) Gold Ring weighing about 3 grams, 3) Gold ear flowers weighing about 3 grams, 4) Gold small ear flowers weighing 2 grams, 5) Gold mateelu weighing about 3 grams, 6) Silver leg chains weighing about about 100 grams, 7) Silver panchapala and manikyalu weighing about 80 grams, 8) Silver bracelet weighing about 20 grams, 9) Net Cash of Rs. 2,000/-, total worth of Rs. 44,500/- were committed theft by the unknown offenders. Hence he lodged report.

Basing on the report given by the complainant, LW9/S.Pramod Reddy,

Sub Inspector of Police CCC Naspur registered a case in Crime No.163/2019 for the offences punishable U/Sec.457, 380 of IPC and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of

LW1/Bonagiri Kishan, visited the scene of offence, prepared CDF and drew rough sketch in the presence of Lw4/Theegala Thirupathireddy and Lw5/Lakkadi

Surender reddy, examined and recorded the statements of Lw2/Bonagiri Rama and Lw3/Gumpula Hanmanthu and he flashed a Radio message to all SHOs in

Telangana State through APPMS with a request to inform if any clues come to their notice and moved in Mancherial, Naspur, Srirampur areas to check the complicity of HB by night theft offenders and contacted with the concerned

SHOs, informed the case particulars and requested them to inform if any clues come to their notices. While efforts were in progress to detect the case, Lw9 received information that on 18.12.2019, while the Lw8/ML Muthi Lingaiah,

Inspector of Police, Mancherial was performing the patrolling at Railway Station

Area in PS Mancherial Town along with staff, the Lw8 apprehended the accused no.1 and 2 at 1400 hours in Cr.No. 234/2019 U/Sec 457, 380 of IPC Mancherial

Town and interrogated them. During the interrogation A1 and A2 confessed that

CC.No. 8 of 2021Page 3 of 5

they have committed this offence along with A3 and confessed other offences also within the other jurisdictions. The Lw8 produced the accused no.1 and 2 in their case vide Cr.No. 234/2019 with a request to remand the accused no.1 and 2 to judicial custody after recovery of the stolen property in the above cases.

Immediately the Lw9 filed a requisition before this court with a request to issue

PT warrant against the accused no.1 and 2 and this court issued PT Warrant against the accused no 1 and 2 with instructions to produce the accused. Upon which accused no 1 and 2 were produced before this court and remanded to judicial custody on 07-01-2020. During the investigation the Lw9 tried to apprehend the accused no.3, but he was absconding and whereabouts were not known. After completion of investigation Lw9/Pramod Reddy SI of Police CCC

Naspur has filed a charge sheet against the accused no. 1 and 2.

3. On perusal of the charge sheet and other documents filed by the Police, the cognizance is taken for the offences under sections 457 and 380 of IPC against the accused no.1 and 2. Since NBW is pending against A1 from long time the case against A1 is split up vide CC No.590 of 2021.

4.Accused no.2 is produced from District-Jail, Adilabad. Copies of this case were furnished to the accused no.2 as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused no.2 is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges under sections 457 and 380 of IPC are framed against accused no.2. The substance of accusation is read over and explained to the accused no.2 in Telugu. Accused no.2 pleaded guilty stating that he has committed the offences. The accused

CC.No. 8 of 2021Page 4 of 5

no.2 is warned as to the proposed punishment which he is going to receive from this Court. Accused no.2 voluntarily admitted the guilt. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the admission of the accused no.2 is voluntary and without any coercion or pressure.

6.Therefore, the Accused no.2 is found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 457 and 380 of IPC and he is convicted for the same under section 241 Cr.P.C.

I Addl.Judicial Magistrate First Class Mancherial.

7.The accused no.2 is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence for which he stated that he is the sole bread winner of his family which is survived by his wife and children and prayed the court to take a lenient view. Having regard to the nature of the offences proved against the accused no.2 and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the accused no.2.

However, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to take some lenient view while awarding punishment.

8.IN THE RESULT, the accused no.2 is found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 457 and 380 of IPC and he is convicted for the same under section 241 of Cr.P.C. The accused no.2 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Twenty (20) months for the offence punishable under section 457 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees hundred only). In default of payment of fine the accused no.2 shall undergo simple imprisonment

CC.No. 8 of 2021Page 5 of 5

for (7) days. Further, the accused no.2 is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Twenty (20) months for the offence punishable under section 380 of I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees hundred only). In default of payment of fine, the accused no.2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (7) days. Both sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period already undergone by the accused no.2 in this case from 07.01.2020 till today i.e., 13.08.2021 shall be set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.PC. The sentence imposed in this case and also in the other cases i.e. CC No.265 of 2020, CC No. 150 of 2020 and

CC No. 151 of 2020 against the accused no.2 on the file of this court shall run

concurrently. The copy of the judgment is supplied to the accused no.2 and he is informed about the right of appeal with regard to the quantum of sentence. Total fine is Rs.200/-. Since the Split up case against A1 vide CC No. 590 of 2021 is pending before this court, no order as to case properties.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, after correction pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of August, 2021.

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class Mancherial.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

- None - - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

-Nil- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class Mancherial