Smt. T. Mahathi Vaishnavi

O.S.No.59 of 2023 1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHOUTUPPAL.

PRESENT: Smt. T.Mahathi Vaishnavi Junior Civil Judge Choutuppal.

Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025

O.S.No. 59 of 2023

Between:-

Tagaram Venkatesh, S/o.Late Tagaram Ramulu, Aged about 44 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.2-52, Khaithapuram Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District - 508252

...Plaintiff

AND

1.All Concerned

2.The Tahsildar, Choutuppal Mandal Yadadri-Bhongir District at Choutuppal … Defendants

This suit came before me on 06.05.2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri B.Bhaskar, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants set exparte, having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to declare him as absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

2. The brief averments of the plaint:

The Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of land bearing

Survey No.82/ఖ(New) & 82/ఓ(old). admeasuring Ac.0-19 gts situated at

Khaithapuram Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri Bhongiri District, hereinafter referred as the “Suit Schedule property”.

O.S.No.59 of 2023 2

3. One person by name late Tagaram Ramulu S/o.Late Tagaram

Durgaiah is the father of the plaintiff. One lady by name late Tagaram

Shivamma W/o.Tagaram Veeraiah adopted the plaintiff's father Tagaram

Ramulu S/o.Durgaiah as her adopted son, as she had no male issues and she blessed with six daughters namely Muthamma, Venkatamma,

Yellamma, Lakshmamma, Narsamma, Shilkamma, etc., and since the date of said adoption the said Tagaram Ramulu has became the adopted son of said Smt. Tagaram Shivamma. She was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and her name also entered in all revenue records. The plaintiff applied for pahani for the years 1996-97, for which the Naib Tahsildar of Choutuppal Mandal, issued a Memo on 23.02.2023 stating that, due to rains from 10.10.2020 to 14.10.2020 the rain water came in to Mandal Office due to which the records were lost, so they could not give pahani for the years 1996-97.

Later Smt. Tagaram Shivamma died on 02.08.1996. Since then the plaintiff's father Late Tagaram Ramulu S/o.Durgaiah has became the owner of the suit schedule property. The daughters of late Shivamma executed a declaration cum no objection on 13.08.1996 that Tagaram

Ramulu is adopted son of their mother late Shivamma and the said

Tagaram Ramulu is entitled for their mother's house property and land property, and they themselves and their legal heirs have no claims of whatsoever over the house and land property in future, which declaration scribed on the letter head of Gram panchayath Office of

Ellagiri Village and Grampanchayath, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-

Bhongiri District on 13.08.1996. Earlier said Ellagiri and Khaithapuram

O.S.No.59 of 2023 3

villages were under one village, later said villages were bifurcated as two villages as Ellagiri Village and Khaithapuram Village.

4. The revenue officials conducted a Panchanama on 22.02.2023 in the presence of three panchas namely Pakeer Narender Reddy

S/o.Krishna Reddy, Gopanagoni Srisailam S/o.Agaiah and Kolukulapaly

Anjaiah S/o.Pentaiah and in the said panchanama it is clearly mentioned that late Smt. Tagaram Shivamma was the absolute owner of suit schedule property and after her death Tagaram Ramulu (plaintiff's father) became the owner and possessor of the said house property and the said panchanama was scribed in the presence of witnesses namely

K.Kistaiah, G. Yadaiah and the same was attested by Naib Tahsildar,

Choutupal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District. The Certified copy of the said Panchanama was issued by Naib Tahsildar, Choutuppal Mandal,

Yadadri-Bhongiri District on 23-02-2023. Prior to that Panchanama,

Tagaram Ramulu died on 25.05.2019 leaving behind the plaintiff as his legal heir. Thus since 25.05.2019 the plaintiff succeeded to the suit schedule property being the legal heir of late Tagaram Ramulu. Hence, the plaintiff prayed to declare him as absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property. Hence the suit.

5.Upon registering the suit, summons were ordered to be served on the defendants. But there was no representation on their behalf. Hence,

Defendant No.1 was set exparte on 19.04.2023 and Defendant No.2 was set exparte on 31.12.2024.

O.S.No.59 of 2023 4

6. During the course of plaintiff’s evidence, the plaintiff got examined

PW1 and Exs.A-1 to Ex.A8 documents were marked through PW-1.

7. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

8. Now the issues for determination are :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of ownership over the suit schedule property as prayed for?

2. If so, to what relief?

Issue No.1 and 2 :

9.To substantiate his case, Plaintiff got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A6. Ex. A1 is the panchanama conducted by Assistant

Revenue Inspector in the presence of two panchas, wherein it is held that Ac.0-19 gts in Sy.No.82 belongs to Thagaram Shivamma, who died about 26 years ago. After her death, her grandson by name Thagaram

Ramulu acquired that land. Thereafter his death, his son Thagaram

Venkatesh i.e., plaintiff/PW1 is in it’s possession and it was thus concluded by Assistant Revenue Inspector that Ac.0-19 gts in Sy.No.82 belongs to Thagaram Ramulu. Ex.A2 is the memo issued by Tahsildar that the pahani records pertaining to the year 1996-97 are not available in their office as they got destructed due to rains. Ex.A3 to A5 are the pahanies reflecting the name of Thagaram Shivamma over the suit schedule property. Ex.A6 confirms the death of Thagaram Ramulu i.e., father of plaintiff. Perusal of Ex.A7 shows that Thagaram Narsamma is the mother of Thagaram Ramulu, whereas the plaintiff pleads that

O.S.No.59 of 2023 5

Thagaram Shivamma is the mother of Thagaram Ramulu who adopted him as she had only six daughters as no son. Further Ex.A1 also reflects

Thagaram Ramulu is the grandson of Thagaram Shivamma, but not her son as pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaint. As such there is ambiguity in the relationship between Thagaram Ramulu and Thagaram Shivamma and is inconsistent with the pleas in the plaint. Although it is the case of plaintiff/PW1, after the death of Thagaram Shivamma the suit schedule property was passed on to Thagaram Ramulu by the consent of his sisters, no documentary evidence or no such agreement is produced by the plaintiff in support of his plea. Further no document or record is filed which reflects the name of Thagaram Ramulu over the suit schedule property. The only document which PW1 is relying upon is Ex.A1, which is the panchanama conducted by the Assistant Revenue Inspector.

10.The suit property is an agricultural land. The land revenue authorities are exclusively obligated to maintain the land records. It is orally testified that the suit property has been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s father since the death of Thagaram

Shivamma. Subsequently the suit property passed on in favour of the plaintiff. The document which he relying is Ex.A1/Panchanama which is not a title deed or any other authorized document which is conferring title on the plaintiff. To give credence to the version of plaintiff he ought to have filed permanent revenue records which have the effect of title of ownership and possession of either the plaintiff or his father. But no such record is filed. In this connection it is to be noted that Ex.A1 is not

O.S.No.59 of 2023 6

a permanent record and Assistant Revenue Inspector is not the competent person to conclude the ownership of plaintiff and solely based on Ex.A1, the plaintiff cannot seek devolution of title over him from his late father. There is no iota of evidence to show that the suit schedule property devolved on Thagaram Ramulu after the death of

Thagaram Shivamma. The document which is allegedly executed by sisters of Thagaram Ramulu consenting to relinquish the property of

Thagaram Shivamma in favor of Thagaram Ramulu is not filed. In that case when there is no proof of acquisition of title by father of the plaintiff, the devolution of title into plaintiff’s name cannot be assumed.

11.It is to be noted that title cannot pass by mere admission, estoppel or acquiescence. It is validly created only when it confirms to the requirement of the statute. Unless and until the conditions precedent for passing of title is satisfied one cannot derive title by reason of inaction on the part of the other. This proposition of law was reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Union of India and Others

Vs Vasavi Co-Operative Housing Society, Dt:07.01.2014” vide

Civil Appeal No.4702/2004. It was held as follows in para No.15 “

The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not.

We are of the view that even if the title set up by

O.S.No.59 of 2023 7

defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff’s own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.”

12.It may also be noted that in regard to right over an immovable property especially on agricultural land, the documentary evidence plays a vital role in deciding ownership and possession for the reason the facts relating to land, acquisition of land, acquisition of property shall necessarily be done by way of a document and no oral evidence shall be received in proof as per the provisions of Sec.91 of Indian

Evidence Act.

13.All in all the plaintiff failed to prove his ownership and possession either with the aid of proper deed of conveyance or permanent revenue records. Though he took the aid of Ex.A1/Panchanama, it has very little legal value and suffers with legal infirmities to give any credence. It does not show the plaintiff’s right to the suit schedule extent of land.

Further the suit suffers from lack of cause of action. Perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff failed to mention as to when the cause of action arose to him which led him to approach this court seeking declaration of his title. A suit for declaration is maintainable when the plaintiff’s right, title or status is denied by the opposite party. However, a close scrutiny of the plaint nowhere discloses any act of denial of plaintiff’s right either by defendant No.1 or defendant No.2. There is no such pleading of denial of his title over the suit schedule property. The cause of action paragraph merely mentions the date of death of T.Shivamma, T.Ramulu,

O.S.No.59 of 2023 8

but the cause of action to file this suit and approach this court for declaration of his title must be the date of denial of his title, which can nowhere be seen. It goes to show that there is no denial of his title nor there is any person who is interested to deny his title. But it appears that the plaintiff merely approached this court to confirm his title with the help of a decree based on Ex.A1 but nothing else. In light of the above observations made, this court holds that the plaint suffers from lack of merits and the plaintiff failed to prove his ownership over the suit schedule property. Accordingly the issue is answered against the plaintiff.

. 14 ISSUE NO.2:

IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno, and after corrections pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of July, 2025.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHOUTUPPAL.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1: T.Venkatesh

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Attested Copy of panchanama dt:23.02.2023

O.S.No.59 of 2023 9

Ex.A2: Memo of Naib Tahsildar confirming that the pahani for the year 1996-97 is not available as it is damaged due to rain water vide File

No.RK/67/2023, dt:23.02.2023

Ex.A3: Certified Copy of pahani for the year 1995-96

Ex.A4: Certified Copy of pahani for the year 1997-98

Ex.A5: Certified Copy of pahani for the year 2001-02

Ex.A6: Original daaaaaaaaaaaeath certificate of T.Shivamma

Ex.A7: Original death certificate of T.Ramulu

Ex.A8: Original Market Value Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Choutuppal,

dt:16.02.2023

For Defendants:

- NIL -

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHOUTUPPAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT CHOUTUPPAL.

PRESENT: Smt. T.Mahathi Vaishnavi, Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal. Dated this the 16th Day of July, 2025

O.S.No.141 of 2024

BETWEEN:-

Kontham Buchi Reddy, S/o.Raji Reddy, Aged about 47 years, R/o.h.No.2-183, Aregudem village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District…Plaintiff

AND

1.The Tahsildar, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, Telangana State-508252

2.All Concerned…Defendants

This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Udugu Srinivas Goud, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 and 2 remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments and upon perusal of the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his status as the legal heir of Late Kontham Venkatamma with respect to the suit schedule property.

2.The plaintiff is the son of Kontham Raji Reddy who is the younger brother of Late Kontham Sathi Reddy(died on 20.05.2012), who is the husband of Late Kontham Venkatamma. She died intestate on 14.12.2023 and her husband Kontham Sathi Reddy, S/o.Narsi Reddy pre-deceased her on 20.05.2012, they both were not blessed with children and issueless. The father of the plaintiff by name Late Kontham Raji Reddy who died on 2 08.11.2023 leaving him as his legal heir. As such, the plaintiff is the sole legal heir of the deceased Kontham Venkatamma.

3.During the life time of Late Kontham Venkatamma, she was the owner and possessor of the house bearing Sy.No.399/16, extent Ac.0-2100 gts, situated at Panthangi Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir

District, which is hereinafter referred as “Suit Schedule Property”. Late

Kontham Venkatamma died on 14.12.2023 by leaving the plaintiff as her legal heir and successor of the suit schedule property. Subsequent to her death, the plaintiff has been in physical possession of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is the ancestral property of deceased

Kontham Venkatamma. The plaintiff looked after the welfare of Late

Kontham Venkatamma during her last days, he is entitled to claim the property left by Late Kontham Venkatamma as per Sec.8 of Hindu

Succession Act. By virtue of Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff succeeded the suit schedule property and became the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. Except the plaintiff there is no other legal heir to the said deceased Kontham Venkatamma.

4.After the death of Late Kontham Venkatamma, the plaintiff intended to apply for crop loan for Raithu Bandhu Barosa scheme for his agricultural necessities and also for eking his livelihood. The concerned authorities intimated that for sanctioning crop loan and issuing Raithu Bandhu

Assistance, the plaintiff should have to mutate his name in the revenue records with respect to the suit schedule property . As such, the plaintiff approached the defendant no.1 for issuance of Legal Heir Certificate. But 3 the defendant No.1 refused for the same and informed the plaintiff that he has no power to issue such certificate and advised the Plaintiff to approach the Civil Court for getting such Legal Heir Certificate. Hence, the suit.

5.Upon registering the suit, summons were ordered to be served on the defendants. Despite service of summons, Defendant No.1 and 2 did not appear before the court, hence they were set exparte on 13.06.2024.

6.In support of plaintiffs case, plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and one Annepally Ravinder Reddy, who is the third party to the suit examined as PW2. The documents under Ex.A1 to A6 were marked through

PW1.

7.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff.

8.Now the issues for determination are :

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the Declaration of his legal status as prayed for?

2) If so, to what relief?

Issue No.1 :-

9.Plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and his chief affidavit is nothing but reiteration of plaint averments. The oral evidence and pleadings of the plaintiff shows that one Kontham Raji Reddy and Sathi

Reddy are brothers. Late Kontham Venkatamma is the wife of Late

Kontham Sathi Reddy. The plaintiff is the son of Late Kontham Raji Reddy. It is the contention of the plaintiff that his paternal uncle i.e., Late Kontham

Sathi Reddy died on 20.05.2012 and his wife Late Kontham Venkatamma died on 14.12.2023, they did not have children and were issueless. The 4 plaintiff is the only son of Kontham Raji Reddy, who is the brother of

Kontham Sathi Reddy. Late Kontham Venkatamma was the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, who died leaving behind the plaintiff, who is the only son of brother of Late Kontham Sathi Reddy. In support of his oral evidence, PW1 exhibited Ex.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is the

Original Aadhar card of deceased Late Kontham Venkatamma, Ex.A2 is the

Original Death certificate of Late Kontham Venkatamma, Ex.A3 is the

Original E digital pattedar pass book reflecting the name of Late Kontham

Venkatamma across the suit schedule property, Ex.A4 is the Original

Aadhar card of plaintiff, Ex.A5 is the Original Aadhar card of husband of

Late Kontham Venkatamma i.e., Kontham Sathi Reddy, Ex.A6 is the Original death certificate of husband of Late Kontham Venkatamma i.e., Kontham

Sathi Reddy.

10.PW2 who is a third party to the suit deposed before the court that

Late Kontham Venkatamma died intestate and her husband predeceased her on 25.05.2012 and they were not blessed with any children. As such it is testified that the plaintiff looked after the welfare of Kontham

Venkatamma in her last days as her legal heir, after the death of Late

Kontham Venkatamma the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property belonging to Late Kontham Venkatamma.

11.Perusal of the record shows that the plaintiff is claiming his legal heirship from the wife of his paternal uncle i.e., property which belongs to female Hindu who died intestate. A scrutiny of Ex.A1 to A3 shows that the nature of acquisition of the suit schedule property by Late Kontham 5

Venkatamma was through a Lavoni patta. By virtue of Sec.14 of Hindu

Succession Act, any female Hindu who acquired the property may be by various means, holds it as an absolute owner. Under the said provision, further by virtue of Sec.15 of Hindu Succession Act, as Late Venkatamma died issueless and her husband predeceased her, property acquired by her under Ex.A3 is devolve upon the heirs of husband as per Sec.15(1)(b) of

Hindu Succession Act. Defendants No.1 and 2 did not challenge the legal heirship of the plaintiff and there is no rebuttal evidence questioning the plaintiff’s relation with Late Venkatamma. The claim of plaintiff/PW1 supported by the oral evidence of third party/PW2 shows that he is the sole legal heir of the Late Kontham Venkatamma under Sec.15 of Hindu

Succession Act. The plaintiff successfully established that he is the sole legal heir of Late Kontham Venkatamma in respect of the suit schedule property devolved under the statutory provision of Sec.15 of Hindu

Succession Act and as such the issue stands answered in favour of the plaintiff.

12.Hence, this Court opines that the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration of his legal status as legal heir of Late Kontham Venkatamma with respect to the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the point is answered.

Issue No.2 :- 13 .In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed by declaring the

Plaintiff as the legal heir of Late Kontham Venkatamma, by virtue of Sec.15 6 of Hindu Succession Act in respect of the suit schedule property. There is no order as to costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on this the 16 th day of July, 2025.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHOUTUPPAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

PW-1 : K.Buchi Reddy - NONE- PW-2: A.Ravinder Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A1 is the Original Aadhar card of deceased Late Kontham Venkatamma

Ex.A2 is the Original Death certificate of Late Kontham Venkatamma vide no.TSGGBH82056737 issued by GHMC Hyderabad on 25.01.2024

Ex.A3 is the Original E digital pattedar pass book of Late Kontham

Venkatamma vide no.T300870112663

Ex.A4 is the Original Aadhar card of plaintiff

Ex.A5 is the Original Aadhar card of husband of Late Kontham Venkatamma i.e., Kontham Sathi Reddy

Ex.A6 is the Original death certificate of husband of Late Kontham

Venkatamma i.e., Kontham Sathi Reddy.

FOR DEFENDANTS

-NIL-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHOUTUPPAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT CHOUTUPPAL.

PRESENT: Smt. T.Mahathi Vaishnavi, Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal. Dated this the 11th Day of July, 2025

O.S.No.13 of 2025

BETWEEN:-

1.Bharata Padma, W/o.Late B.Satyanarayana, Aged about 57 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No.2-3-778/3, Flat No.301, Netha Nivas, Road No.2, Ganesh Nagar Colony, Nagole, GSI Bandlaguda, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

2.Bharata Anish Babu, S/o.Late B. Satyanarayana, Aged about 35 years, Occ:Private Empoyee, R/o.H.No.2-3-778/3, Flat No.301, Netha Nivas, Road No.2, Ganesh Nagar Colony, Nagole, GSI Bandlaguda, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Presently residing at 4, Colton Circle, Kitchener, Ontario, N2A4J8

3.Bharata Abhinav, S/o.Late B.Satyanarayana, Aged about 28 years, Occ:Private Service, R/o.H.No.2-3-778/3, Flat No.301, Netha Nivas, Road No.2, Ganesh Nagar Colony, Nagole, GSI Bandlaguda, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Presently residing at 120, Stone Crost RD, Baltimore, Maryland 21229 The Plaintiff Nos.2 & 3 are rep by their G.P.A. Holder Plaintiff No.1 …Plaintiffs

AND

1.The Tahsildar, Bhoodan Pochampally Revenue Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, At Bhoodan Pochampally

2.All Concerned…Defendants

This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Srikanth, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 and 2 remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments and upon perusal of the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their status as the legal heirs of Late Bharata Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Bharata Janardhan with respect to the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties.

2

2.The Plaintiff No.1 is legally wedded wife, Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of Bharata Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Bharata Janardhan, who died intestate on 22-08-2014 by leaving behind the Plaintiffs as his legal heirs and successors to succeed his estate and prior to his death his father and mother also died as such except the Plaintiffs there are no other legal heirs of deceased Bharata Satyanarayana.

3.During the life time of Late Bharata Satyanarayana, he was the absolute owner and possessor of open Plot bearing No.18 (Residential

Zone) in Sy.No.465 admeasuring an extent of 208 sq. yards or equivalent to 173.9 sq. meters, situated at Sainagar Colony, Bhoodan Pochampally village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir (Previously Nalgonda) District, which is hereinafter called as Schedule 'A' Property, having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.4024/2012

dt:30.06.2012 registered before SRO Bibinagar from its original owners Sri

Seetha Chandraiah and others for valuable sale consideration. Late Bharata

Satyanarayana was also absolute owner and possessor of Open Plot bearing No.34, (residential Zone) in Sy.No.516, covered by an area of 200 sq. yards or equivalent to 167.226 sq. meters, situated at Pochampally village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir (Previously Nalgonda) District, which is hereinafter called as Schedule 'B' Property, having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.484/1994

dated:28.01.1994 registered before SRO Bhongir from its original owner Sri

Punna Laxmi Narayana for valuable sale consideration.

3

4.Late Bharata Satyanarayana was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule 'A' and 'B' Properties till his death and after his death the Plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit

Schedule 'A' and 'B' Properties.

5.After the death of Late Bharata Satyanarayana, sue to some financial problems the plaintiffs are intending to sell Schedule Properties, but the intending purchasers demanded the Legal Heir Certificate of Late Bharata

Satyanarayana which is essential document for alienation of the Schedule

Properties. As such, the plaintiffs approached the defendant no.1 for issuance of Legal Heirs Certificate on 10.10.2024. But the defendant No.1 refused for the same and informed the plaintiffs that he has no power to issue such certificate and advised the Plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court for getting such Legal Heir Certificate. Hence, the suit.

6.Upon registering the suit, summons were ordered to be served on the defendants. Despite service of summons, Defendant No.1 and 2 did not appear before the court, hence Defendant No.1 was set exparte on 10.03.2025 and Defendant No.2 was set exparte on 11.04.2025.

7.In support of plaintiffs case, plaintiff No.1 got examined as PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to A13.

8.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff.

9.Now the issues for determination are :

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the Declaration of their legal status as prayed for?

4

2) If so, to what relief?

Issue No.1 :-

10.PW1 deposed that her husband by nameLate Bharata

Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Bharata Janardhan died on 22.08.2014 by leaving the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 as his legal heirs. Her chief affidavit is nothing but reiteration of plaint averments. PW1 exhibited Ex.A1 to A13. Ex.A1 is the

Certified Copy of Sale Deed no.4024 of 2012, dt:30.06.2012, which shows the suit schedule ‘A’ property is standing in the name of Late Bharata

Satyanarayana, Ex.A2 is the Original Encumbrance Certificate of suit schedule “A” property, dt:02.07.2024, Ex.A3 is the Original Market Value

Certificate of suit schedule “A” property, dt:02.07.2024, Ex.A4 is the

Certified Copy of Sale Deed no.494 of 1994, dt:28.01.1994, which shows the suit schedule ‘B’ property is standing in the name of Late Bharata

Satyanarayana, Ex.A5 is the Original Encumbrance Certificate of suit schedule “B” property, dt:02.07.2024, Ex.A6 is the Original Market Value

Certificate of suit schedule “B” property, dt:02.07.2024, Ex.A7 is the

Original Death Certificate of B.Satyanarayana, dt:29.09.2014, Ex.A8 is the

Original Aadhar Card of deceased B.Satyanarayana, Ex.A9 to A11 are the

Original Aadhar Cards of plaintiffs No.1 to 3, Ex.A12 is the Original GPA executed by plaintiff No.2 in favour of plaintiff no.1, Ex.A13 is the Original

GPA executed by plaintiff No.3 is favour of plaintiff No.1.

11.On perusal of the documentary evidence filed, it can be seen that the plaintiff No.1 is related to Late Bharata Satyanarayana, S/o.Late

Bharata Janardhan being his wife, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are related to Late

Bharata Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Bharata Janardhan, being his sons.

5

Further, to negate this claim of the plaintiffs as legal-heirs of Late Bharata

Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Bharata Janardhan none has appeared before this court and also Defendant No.1 and 2 remained exparte. As such the claim of plaintiffs brought forward through their oral and documentary evidence remains unchallenged and unrebutted.

12.Hence, this Court opines that the plaintiffs are entitled for the declaration of their legal status as legal heirs of Late Bharata

Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Bharata Janardhanwith respect to the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the point is answered.

Issue No.2 :- 13 .In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed by declaring the

Plaintiffs as the legal heirs of Late Bharata Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Bharata

Janardhan with respect to suit schedule property. If any miscellaneous petitions are pending, they shall stand closed. There is no order as to costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on this the 11 th day of July, 2025.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHOUTUPPAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

PW-1 : B.Padma - NONE- 6

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A1 is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed no.4024 of 2012, dt:30.06.2012,

Ex.A2 is the Original Encumbrance Certificate of suit schedule “A” property,

dt:02.07.2024,

Ex.A3 is the Original Market Value Certificate of suit schedule “A” property,

dt:02.07.2024,

Ex.A4 is the Certified Copy of Sale Deed no.494 of 1994, dt:28.01.1994,

Ex.A5 is the Original Encumbrance Certificate of suit schedule “B” property,

dt:02.07.2024,

Ex.A6 is the Original Market Value Certificate of suit schedule “B” property,

dt:02.07.2024,

Ex.A7 is the Original Death Certificate of B.Satyanarayana, dt:29.09.2014,

Ex.A8 is the Original Aadhar Card of deceased B.Satyanarayana,

Ex.A9 is the Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.1,

Ex.A10 is the Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.2

Ex.A11 is the Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.3

Ex.A12 is the Original GPA executed by plaintiff No.2 in favour of plaintiff no.1,

Ex.A13 is the Original GPA executed by plaintiff No.3 is favour of plaintiff

No.1.

FOR DEFENDANTS

-NIL-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHOUTUPPAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT CHOUTUPPAL.

PRESENT: Smt.S.Shirisha, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal.

Dated this the 9th day of March, 2026

O.S.No.136 of 2025

BETWEEN:-

1.Udavath Dvali(D/o.Late Vadty Aahasli) W/o.Udavath Soma Age 60 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.5-36, Porlagaddathanda, Vailapalle Village, Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District

2.Vadtya Dudya, S/o.Late Vadty Ahasli, Age 65 years, Occ:Driver, R/o.H.No.5-205/1, Porlagaddathanda, Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

3.Vadtya Shanker, S/o.Late Vadty Ahasli, Age 45 years, Occ:Driver, R/o.5-205/1, Porlagadda Thanda, Vayilapelly, Narayanpur Mondal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri district.

4.Vadtya Ravinder, S/o.Late Vadtyahasli, Age 40 years, Occ:Driver, R/o.5-205/1, Porlagadda Thanda, Vayilapelly, Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

5.Vadtya Bujji, W/o.Late Vadtya Govinder, D/o.Late vadtya haslil, Age 39 years, Occ:Labour, R/o.5-198, Porlagadda Thanda, Vayilapelly, Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

6.Vadtya Ashok, S/o.(Late Vadty Govinder S/o.Late Vadtya haslil) Age 23 years, Occ:pvt job, R/o.5-198, Porlagadda Thanda, Vayilapelly, Narayanpur mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri district.

7.Vadtya Sai, S/o.(late Vadtya Govinder S/o.late Vadtya hasli), Age 20 years, Occ:Pvt job, R/o.5-198, Porlagadda Thanda, Vayilapelly, Narayanpur mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri district.

8.Vadtya Ramcharan, S/o.(Late Vadtya Govinder, S/o.Late Vadtyahasli), Age 20 years, Occ:Pvt job, R/o.5-198, Porlagadda Thanda, Vayilapelly, Narayanpur mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri district. …Plaintiffs

AND

1.The Tahsildar, Narayanapur Mandal, Town and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District

2.To whomsoever it may concern…Defendants

This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Srisailam, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants set exparte and upon 2 hearing the arguments and upon perusal of the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their status as the legal heirs of Late Vadtya Hasli, W/o.Pulya with respect to the suit schedule property.

2.The plaintiff no.1 is the daughter of the deceased late Vadtya hasli

W/o.Late Pulya, and plaintiff no.2 to 4 are the sons of late Vadtya hasli

W/o.Late Pulya and plaintiff no.5 is wife of deceased Govinder and daughter-in-law of Vadtya hasli and plaintiff no.6 to 8 are the sons of deceased Govinder and grand sons of deceased Vadtya hasli. Vadtya hasli died on 22-01-2016 at Porlagadda Thanda, H/o.Vayillapalli Village,

Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District by leaving the plaintiffs as her legal heirs and successors to succeed her properties and liabilities.

3.During the lifetime of said late Vadtya hasli, W/o.Late Vadtya Pulya she was the owner, possessor of the agricultural land Sy.No.263/ఆ 2 admg

Ac.01-1200 gts situated at Porlagadda Thanda, Vayillapally Revenue

Village, Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, which is hereafter referred as “Suit Schedule Property”.

4.After the death of late Vadtya hasli, W/o.Late Vadtya pulya, the

Plaintiffs intended to get transfer the suit schedule property on their names and approached the defendant No.1 in the third week of November, 2024 for issuance of Legal Heir Certificate. The defendant no.1 refused for the 3 same and advised the Plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court for getting such

Legal Heir Certificate. Hence, the suit.

5.Upon registering the suit, summons were ordered to be served on the defendants. Despite service of summons, Defendant No.2 did not appear

before the court, hence Defendant No.2 was set exparte on 17.09.2025.

Defendant No.1 was set exparte on 04.11.2025.

6.In support of plaintiffs case, plaintiff No.2 got examined as PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to A10.

7.Heard arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

8.Now the issues for determination are :

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the Declaration of their legal status as prayed for?

2) If so, to what relief?

Issue No.1 :-

9. PW1 deposed that he is the son of Late Vadtya Hasil, W/o.Late Pulya, she died on 22.01.2016 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. His chief affidavit is nothing but reiteration of plaint averments. PW1 exhibited

Ex.A1 to A10. Ex.A1 is the Original Death Certificate of deceased Late

Vadtya Hasil, W/o.Late Vadtya Pulma, Ex.A2 to A9 are the Original Aadhar

Cards of plaintiffs no.1 to 8 respectively, which reflects the relationship between Late Vadtya Hasil, W/o.Late Vadtya Pulya and the plaintiffs No.1 to

8. Ex.A10 is the Bhubharathi along with market value certificate, which 4 shows Late Vadtya Hasil, W/o.Late Vadtya Pulma as the pattadar and possessor of the suit schedule property.

10.On perusal of the documentary evidence filed, it can be seen that the plaintiff No.1 to 4 are related to Late Vadtya Hasil, W/o.Late Vadtya

Pulya being her children, plaintiffs No.5 is related to Late Vadtya Hasil,

W/o.Late Vadtya Pulma being her daughter-in-law, who is the wife of predeceased son(Govinder) of Late Vadtya Hasil W/o.Late Vadtya Pulya, plaintiffs No.6 to 8 are related to Late Vadtya Hasil, W/o.Late Vadtya Pulya being her grandchildren i.e., they are children of plaintiff no.5 and Late

Govinder. Further, to negate this claim of the plaintiffs as legal-heirs of

Late Vadtya Hasil, W/o.Late Vadtya Pulya, none has appeared before this court and also Defendant No.1 and 2 remained exparte. As such the claim of plaintiffs brought forward through his oral and documentary evidence remains unchallenged and unrebutted.

11.Though the plaintiffs sought the relief of declaration that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. They have failed to demonstrate any denial of their title by the defendants. It is a well- settled proposition of law that the relief of declaration of title can be granted only when there exists a cloud on the plaintiffs’ title or when the same is specifically denied or disputed.

12.In the present case, the plaintiffs neither pleaded nor proved any specific denial of their title nor any material to show existence of a cloud over their ownership. Mere assertion of ownership, without showing threat 5 or denial by the defendants, does not constitute a cause of action for seeking a declaratory decree.

13. Therefore, in the absence of any denial of title or cloud over the plaintiffs ownership and in view of the settled principle that declaratory relief cannot be granted in vacuum, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of declaration of title.

14. In view of the above circumstances and basing on the oral and documentary evidence, coupled with exhibits, it is clear that the plaintiffs are Class-I heirs of Late Vadtya Hasil, W/o.Pulya. Accordingly, the point is answered.

Issue No.2 :- 15.In the result, the suit is hereby decreed. It is declared that plaintiffs are the Class-I legal heirs of Late Vadtya Hasil, W/o.Vadtya Pulya. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending I.A’s stands closed.

Dictated to Stenographer, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on this the 9 th day of March, 2026.

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHOUTUPPAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

PW-1 : V.Dudya - NONE- 6

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A1 is the Original Death Certificate of deceased Late Vadtya Hasli,

W/o.Late Vadtya Pulya

Ex.A2 is the Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No. 1

Ex.A3 is the Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No. 2

Ex.A4 is the Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No. 3

Ex.A5 is the Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No. 4

Ex.A6 is the Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No. 5

Ex.A7 is the Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No. 6

Ex.A8 is the Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No. 7

Ex.A9 is the Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No. 8

Ex.A10 is the Bhubharathi pahani(No.1) along with Market Value Certificate

FOR DEFENDANTS

-NIL-

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHOUTUPPAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT CHOUTUPPAL.

PRESENT: Smt.S.Shirisha, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal.

Dated this the 9th day of March, 2026

O.S.No.164 of 2025

BETWEEN:-

Harigopal Vanguri, S/o.Late Prem Prasad, Aged about 57 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Flat No.501, Sapphire Homes,Near Boddu Kamalamma Function Hall, Yapral, Tirumalagiri, Hyderabad – 500 087…Plaintiff

AND

1.The Mandal Revenue Officer, Choutuppal Mandal Yadadri-Bhongir District

2.All Concerned…Defendants

This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Hari Krishna Dornala, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants set exparte and upon hearing the arguments and upon perusal of the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his status as the legal heir of his parents i.e., Late Sri Vanguri Prem Prasad, S/o.Venkata

Ramana Rao and late Smt.Vanguri Bhanumathi, W/o.V.Prem Prasad with respect to the suit schedule property.

2.The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the land bearing plot No.

30 admeasuring 200 sq yards equivalent to 167.20 Sq meters in Sy.No.97/అ and 97/E situated at Nelapatla Village, Choutuppal Revenue mandal, the then R.R. District which is hereinafter referred as “Suit Schedule Property’.

2

3.The parents of plaintiff i.e., Late Sri Vanguri Prem Prasad,

S/o.Venkata Ramana Rao and late Smt.Vanguri Bhanumathi, W/o.V.Prem

Prasad purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed bearing document No.5335/2015, dt:04.09.2015 on the file of Sub-

Registrar, Choutuppal, Yadadri-Bhongir district from one Sri Uppala Basava

Punnaiah, S/o.Siva Rama Krishnaiah and since purchase they are in possession of the suit schedule property till their death.

4.The father of the plaintiff i.e., Late Sri Vanguri Prem Prasad,

S/o.Venkata Ramana Rao died on 05.12.2023 due to ill health and mother of the plaintiff i.e., late Smt.Vanguri Bhanumathi, W/o.V.Prem Prasad died on 28.04.2025 leaving behind the plaintiff as their sole legal heir.

5.After the death of his parents the plaintiff approached the defendant

No.1 on 04.07.2025 for issuance of Legal Heir Certificate. The defendant no.1 refused for the same and advised the Plaintiff to approach the Civil

Court for getting such Legal Heir Certificate. Hence, the suit.

6.Upon registering the suit, summons were ordered to be served on the defendants. Despite service of summons, Defendants No.1 and 2 did not appear before the court, hence they were set exparte on 08.10.2025.

7.In support of plaintiffs case, plaintiff got examined as PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to A6.

3

8.Heard arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff.

9.Now the issues for determination are :

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the Declaration of their legal status as prayed for?

2) If so, to what relief?

Issue No.1 :-

10. PW1 deposed that he is the son of Late Sri Vanguri Prem Prasad,

S/o.Venkata Ramana Rao and late Smt.Vanguri Bhanumathi, W/o.V.Prem

Prasad. His father I.e,., Late Sri Vanguri Prem Prasad, S/o.Venkata Ramana

Rao died on 05.12.2023 and his mother i.e., Late Smt.Vanguri Bhanumathi,

W/o.V.Prem Prasad died on 24.08.2025 leaving behind him as their legal heir. His chief affidavit is nothing but reiteration of plaint averments. PW1 exhibited Ex.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is the Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed

No.5335/2015 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Choutuppal, Yadadri-Bhongir

District, which shows the parents of plaintiff i.e., Late Sri Vanguri Prem

Prasad, S/o.Venkata Ramana Rao and late Smt.Vanguri Bhanumathi,

W/o.V.Prem Prasad purchased the suit schedule property from one Sri

Uppala Basava Punnaiah, S/o.Siva Rama Krishnaiah. Ex.A2 is the Certified

Copy of Death Certificate issued by Mee Seva, dt:07.12.2023 which reflects the father of the plaintiff i.e., Late Sri Vanguri Prem Prasad, S/o.Venkata

Ramana Rao died on 05.12.2023, Ex.A3 is the Certified Copy of Death

Certificate issued by Mee Seva, dt:03.06.2025 which reflects the mother of the plaintiff i.e., Late Smt.Vanguri Bhanumathi, W/o.V.Prem Prasad died on 28.04.2025, Ex.A4 is the Certified Copy of Market Value Certificate issued by Sub-Registrar, Choutuppal, dt:05.07.2025 in respect of the suit schedule 4 property, Ex.A5 is the Certified Copy of Encumbrance Certificate,

dt:05.07.2025 in respect of the suit schedule property, Ex.A6 is the Aadhar

Card of plaintiff, which reflects the relationship between the plaintiff and

Late Sri Vanguri Prem Prasad, S/o.Venkata Ramana Rao and Late

Smt.Vanguri Bhanumathi, W/o.V.Prem Prasad.

11.On perusal of the documentary evidence filed, it can be seen that the plaintiff is related to Late Sri Vanguri Prem Prasad, S/o.Venkata

Ramana Rao and late Smt.Vanguri Bhanumathi, W/o.V.Prem Prasad being their son. Further, to negate this claim of the plaintiff as legal-heir of Late

Sri Vanguri Prem Prasad, S/o.Venkata Ramana Rao and late Smt.Vanguri

Bhanumathi, W/o.V.Prem Prasad, none has appeared before this court and also Defendant No.1 and 2 remained exparte. As such the claim of plaintiffs brought forward through his oral and documentary evidence remains unchallenged and unrebutted.

12.Though the plaintiff sought the relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner and possessors of the suit schedule property. He has failed to demonstrate any denial of his title by the defendants. It is a well-settled proposition of law that the relief of declaration of title can be granted only when there exists a cloud on the plaintiff’s title or when the same is specifically denied or disputed.

13.In the present case, the plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved any specific denial of his title nor any material to show existence of a cloud over 5 his ownership. Mere assertion of ownership, without showing threat or denial by the defendants, does not constitute a cause of action for seeking a declaratory decree.

14. Therefore, in the absence of any denial of title or cloud over the plaintiff’s ownership, and in view of the settled principle that declaratory relief cannot be granted in vacuum, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration of title.

15. In view of the above circumstances and basing on the oral and documentary evidence, coupled with exhibits, it is clear that the plaintiff is

Class-I heir of Late Sri Vanguri Prem Prasad, S/o.Venkata Ramana Rao and late Smt.Vanguri Bhanumathi, W/o.V.Prem Prasad. Accordingly, the point is answered.

Issue No.2 :- 16.In the result, the suit is hereby decreed. It is declared that plaintiff is the Class-I legal heir of Late Sri Vanguri Prem Prasad, S/o.Venkata Ramana

Rao and late Smt.Vanguri Bhanumathi, W/o.V.Prem Prasad. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending I.A’s stands closed.

Dictated to Stenographer, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on this the 9 th day of March, 2026.

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHOUTUPPAL.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

PW-1 : V.Harigopal - NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

Ex.A1 is the Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed No.5335/2015 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Choutuppal, Yadadri-Bhongir District

Ex.A2 is the Certified Copy of Death Certificate issued by Mee Seva,

dt:07.12.2023

Ex.A3 is the Certified Copy of Death Certificate issued by Mee Seva,

dt:03.06.2025

Ex.A4 is the Certified Copy of Market Value Certificate issued by Sub-

Registrar, Choutuppal, dt:05.07.2025

Ex.A5 is the Certified Copy of Encumbrance Certificate, dt:05.07.2025

Ex.A6 is the Aadhar Card of plaintiff

FOR DEFENDANTS

-NIL-

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHOUTUPPAL.