Mr. Uppadhyay Vijay Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHEVELLA

PRESENT: SRI U.VIJAY KUMAR

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHEVELLA

DATED, THIS THE 30 th DAY OF DECEMBER 2025

OS No. 690/2022

Between: Kandada Narsimha Reddy, S/o. late Hanumanth Reddy, Age: 62 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 1-62, Maharajpet, Mokila, Ranga Reddy District – 501 203.

.... PLAINTIFF

AND

1. Manchirevula Susheela, W/o. M.Yadi Reddy, Age: 57 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Donthanpally Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The Tahsildar cum Joint Sub-Registrar, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …. DEFENDANTS

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 01-12-2025 in the presence of Sri B.SRISAILAM, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendants were set exparte 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. The Plaintiff instituted this suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and further sought for rectification of revenue entries from the year 2000-2022 and deleting the name of the Defendant No.1 in respect of land bearing Sy.No. 94 admeasuring Ac. 0-05 gts situated at Donthanpally Village of Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. (Hereinafter called as the Suit Schedule Property).

2. The contents of the Plaint are that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the

Suit Schedule Property, acquired the same under the registered Sale Deed bearing document no.

2 1601/2000 dated 27-06-2000 from its lawful owners and since the date of purchase, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same without any interruption. However could not mutate his name in revenue records and taking advantage of the same, the Defendant No.1 changed the records and got his name recorded without any title documents. The Plaintiff never sold the suit land to Defendant No.1 at any point of time. Upon enquity, the Plaintiff got to know that the name of the Defendant No.1 is reflecting in revenue records. The Plaintiff purchased Ac.

0-05 gts of land in Sy.no. 94 situated at Donthanpally Village of Shankarpally Mandal under the registered Sale Deed bearing document no. 1601/2000 dated 27-06-2000. The Defendant No.1 purchased Ac. 0-05 gts of land in Sy.No. 94 under the registered Sale Deed bearing document no. 1600/2000 dated 27-06-2000 from its original pattedars. On 12-03-2022, the Plaintiff approached the Defendant No.1 to mutate his name in revenue records but no response was given. On 08-09-2022, the Plaintiff approached the Tahsildar, Shankarpally and filed an application but the same was returned. On 13-09-2022, he again made an application but in vain.

Hence the suit.

3. The Defendants were set and remained exparte.

4. During the course of evidence, the PW1 and PW2 were examined got marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A11 towards documentary evidence.

5. Heard and perused.

6. Now, the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get declaration of title w.r. to suit schedule property?

3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to get Recovery of Possession in respect of Suit Schedule Property as prayed for? 4 . To What relief ?

7. Points 1 to 3: In order to prove the case, the Plaintiff himself got examined as the PW1 and deposed in his chief-examination affidavit, by re-iterating the plaint pleadings once again. In 3 order to substantiate the oral evidence of the PW1, he relied upon the documentary evidence

Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. The Ex.A1 is the Mee Seva copy of Sale Deed bearing document no. 1601/2000, Ex.A2 is the Mee Seva copy of Sale Deed bearing document no. 1600/2000, Ex.A3 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2005-2006,

Ex.A4 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2010-2011, Ex.A5 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2016-2017, Ex.A6 is the Certified Copy of

Online Mee Seva Dharani records (4 sheets), Ex.A7 is the Original Application

dated 13-09-2022, Ex.A8 is the Original Postal receipt dated 13-09-2022,

Ex.A9 is the Online Track Report dated 14-09-2022, Ex.A10 is the Copy of

Encumbrance Certificate and Ex.A11 is the Copy of online Market Valuation Certificate.

Further relied on the oral evidence of PW2 i.e., one B.Panduranga was examined as PW2 who deposed in his chief affidavit by supporting the case of the PW1 It is the contention of the

Plaintiff that he filed the suit for declaration to declare him as absolute owner of suit land and also sought recovery of possession against the Defendant. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff and further placing reliance on the decision reported in (1995) 3 SCC 426 held in between Maran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs.

Thukalan Paulo Avira, wherein it was held that “in a suit for declaration if the plaintiffs are to succeed, they must do so on the strength of their own title”. As per Section 34 of Specific Relief

Act, no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do. Further, in a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must stand on his own legs and cannot stand on the weakness of the defendant in establishing his title and possession thereof, as observed in a decision reported in 2017(4) ALT 523 held in 4 between G.Penchalaiah Vs. Rajapu Chennaiah. The same analogy and principle is also laid down in the decision of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana reported in

AIR 1977 (3) SCC 247, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “in a suit for declaration of title there is a heavy burden on the plaintiff to prove his own case and he cannot take advantage of weakness of defendant”. In the present case the plaintiff proved that he is the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of documentary evidence and also he is in possession as on the date of instituting this suit. It is also well settled principle of law that in a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must independently prove his title to the property without depending upon the weakness of the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff lead documentary evidence and proved his exclusive right, title and ownership over the suit schedule property. However, the oral evidence of the PW1 and PW2 is considered by this court. In view of the discussion made supra, the

Plaintiff has established his case by way of adducing cogent, proper and convincing oral and documentary evidence in support of his case and to seek the relief of declaration and recovery of possession and further declaration of the above mentioned document as null and void. The pleadings in the plaint are in consonance with the adduced evidence and the reliefs sought by the

Plaintiff in this suit against the Defendant. Accordingly, the points are decided against the

Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by declaring the Plaintiff as the absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of the Suit Schedule Property and further the Tahsildar,

Shankarpally is directed to delete the name of Defendant No.1 and her nominees from the

Revenue records from the year 2000-2022 and thereafter incorporate the name of the Plaintiff in respect of the Suit Schedule Property.

Dictated, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 30 th day of December, 2025.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHEVELLA

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1 – Kandada Narsimha Reddy - EXPARTE - PW2 - B.Panduranga

(EXHIBITS MARKED)

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the Mee Seva copy of Sale Deed bearing document no. 1601/2000.

Ex.A2 is the Mee Seva copy of Sale Deed bearing document no. 1600/2000.

Ex.A3 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2005-2006.

Ex.A4 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2010-2011.

Ex.A5 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2016-2017.

Ex.A6 is the Certified Copy of Online Mee Seva Dharani records (4 sheets).

Ex.A7 is the Original Application dated 13-09-2022.

Ex.A8 is the Original Postal receipt dated 13-09-2022.

Ex.A9 is the Online Track Report dated 14-09-2022.

Ex.A10 is the Copy of Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.A11 is the Copy of online Market Valuation Certificate.

FOR DEFENDANTS: - NIL -

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT CHEVELLA

PRESENT: SRI U.VIJAY KUMAR

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT CHEVELLA

DATED THIS THE 03rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025

CC No. 84/2025

Between:

The State through The Sub-Inspector of Police of PS Mokila. … COMPLAINANT

AND

K.Prashanth Kumar, S/o. K.Narsimha, Age: 28 years, Occ: Pvt. Job, R/o. H.No. 5-2, Donthanpally Village, Shankarpally Mandal, R.R. District. … ACCUSED

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 29-10-2025 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri E.SUDHARSHAN, Advocate

for the Accused and having heard and stood over for consideration, till this day the Court

delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mokila filed the charge sheet in Cr.No. 341/2024 for the offence punishable U/Sec 106(1) of BNS against the accused.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

That on 23-11-2024 at 1945 hours the defacto-complainant lodged a report in which he stated that on 23-11-2024 at about evening 1700 hours, the Complainant received a phone call from his villager that his grand mother met with an accident near IBS College, due to which his relatives and Villagers approached and saw his grand mother laid down with severe bleeding injuries and fracture to her right leg and other body parts, to which they have been shifting her to the hospital at Langer House, meanwhile, she died. Later, he got to know that her grand mother returning to her home after purchasing vegetables, while she reached near to Kakas 2

Hotel, one Pulsar bike bearing no. TS07HW0744 drove his motor cycle with rash and negligent manner and dashed to his grand mother from back side. Due to which, the Complainant’s grand mother received blood injuries. Hence, the report. Basing on the above complaint, the LW11 (B.Veerababu) registered a case in Cr.No. 341/2024 U/sec. 106(1) of BNS and entrusted the investigation to LW12 (Rathod Dharmiya). During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW1 (Varthya Shiva Kumar). He further visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch in the presence of LW5 and LW6 (Alsari Ramulu and Saanganolla

Chandrashekar) and conducted scene of offence panchanama. On 13-07-2023, he visited the

Community health center, examined and recorded the statements of LW2 to LW4 (Pathloth Meni,

Devosoth Swapna and Guguloth Shankar), conducted inquest on the deceased in the presence of

LW7 and LW8 (Degarath Devendar and Degavath Ganesh). Later the body was subjected for

PME. Subsequently on 30-11-2024, the crime staff apprehended the Accused and produced

before LW12 and on interrogating, he voluntarily admitted his guilt. The LW10 (Dr.Srinivasulu)

conducted PME over the deceased and issued report in which he opined that the cause of death of deceased was due to “poly trauma and hemorrhagic shock”. Further, the LW9 (K.Kiran Kumar) inspected the crime vehicle and issued report in which he opined that “The accident is not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle”. After the completion of the investigation, the LW12 (Rathod Dharmiya) filed the charge sheet.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec 106(1) of BNS against the Accused.

After appearance of the Accused, the case copies were furnished to him as required U/Sec 230

BNSS and was examined U/sec. 274 of BNSS and the substance of the accusation leveled against him were explained to him in his vernacular language to which he denied the same and claimed to tried for the said offence.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution examined the PW1 to

PW8 and got marked the Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. This court has closed the evidence of other witnesses as there was no incriminating material available on record against the Accused. Accordingly, this 3

Court closed the evidence of prosecution. On behalf of the Accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were got marked.

5. The examination of the Accused U/Sec 351 of BNSS was also dispensed as there was no incriminating evidence available against the Accused.

6. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

7. Now, the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence U/Sec 106(1) of BNS against the Accused?”

8. POINT:

(i) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined and relied upon the oral evidence of PW1 to PW8. The PW1 is the defacto complainant. The PW2 and PW3 are the daughters of the deceased. The PW4 is the circumstantial witness. The PW5 and PW6 are the panch witnesses for the CDF. The PW7 and PW8 are the panch witnesses for the inquest of the deceased. The evidence of other witnesses was closed by this court. The evidence of PW1 to

PW8 are available on record for appreciation.

(ii) In the present case, as seen from the evidence of PW1 to PW8, they have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW1 being the defacto complainant deposed in his evidence contrary to the case of the prosecution. He also deposed that he never lodged the report. He further deposed that police never examined him nor recorded his statement but obtained his signature/Ex.P1 on report and Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement. The PW2 and PW3 are the daughters of the deceased deposed that they do not know anything about the case. They also deposed that police never examined them nor recorded their statement and got marked Ex.P3 and

Ex.P4. The PW4 deposed that he did not witnessed the incident and do not know anything about the case and also deposed that Police did not examined nor recorded his statement. The Ex.P5 is his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. The PW5 and PW6 who are the panch witnesses for the CDF deposed that they do not know anything about the case. They also deposed that Police obtained their signatures on some blank papers without disclosing it’s contents. Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. The PW7 and 4

PW8 are the panch witnesses for the inquest panchanama deposed that Police obtained their signatures on some blank papers without disclosing it’s contents. The Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are their signatures. During the cross-examination of the PW1 to PW7, the prosecution could not elicit anything favorable to their case, i.e., to say that the PW1 to PW8 denied all the suggestions which were put forth to them by the learned APPO.

(iii) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and upon careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is evident that PW1 deposed contradictory to the prosecution case and also the remaining witnesses have turned hostile. The essential ingredients required for the offence U/Sec 106(1) of BNS is not brought on the record by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the Accused. Therefore, the Accused is entitled for acquittal.

9. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 106(1) of

BNS. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec. 278 of BNSS and set at liberty. The bail bonds of the

Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/Sec 481 of BNSS.

Dictated, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this 03 rd day of November 2025 .

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CHEVELLA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW1: Varthya Shiva Kumar NIL PW2: Pathloth Meni PW3 : Smt. Devosoth Swapna PW4 : Guguloth Shankar PW5 : Alsari Ramulu PW6 : Saanganolla Chandrashekar PW7 : Degarath Devendar PW8 : Degavath Ganesh 5

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW1 on Report. Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1. Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2. Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3. Ex.P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4. Ex.P6 is theSignature of PW5 on CDF. Ex.P7 is the Signature of PW6 on CDF. Ex.P8 is the Signature of PW7 on the inquest. Ex.P9 is the Signature of PW8 on the inquest.

FOR ACCUSED: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CHEVELLA

Page 1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHEVELLA

PRESENT: SRI U.VIJAY KUMAR

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHEVELLA

DATED, THIS THE 25 th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025

OS No. 307/2023

BETWEEN:

M.Venkata Suneel, S/o. Subba Rao, Age: 40 years, Occ Business, R/o. Plot No. H-1, Gayatri Nilayam, Panchavati Colony, Manikonda, Hyderabad. …. PLAINTIFF

AND

Gattupally Chandraiah, S/o. Bheemaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 10-89, Lingareddy Guda, Dhamarlapally Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …. DEFENDANT

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 04-11-2025 in the presence of Sri C.MAHESH GOUD, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendant was set exparte 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 suit is instituted by the Plaintiff for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated

dated 12-11-2018 in respect of land in Sy.No. 454/parts to an extent of Ac. 1-00 gts. situated at

Damarlapally Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. (Hereinafter referred as Suit Schedule

Property).

2. The contents of the plaint are that the Defendant stated that he is the owner of the lands in

Sy.No. 454/parts to an extent of Ac. 4-00 gts. situated at Damarlapally Village and offered to sell one acre of land out of it i.e., Suit Schedule Property for a consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/- and the same was accepted by the Plaintiff and pursuant to the same, on 12-11-2018 an amount of Rs.

3,50,000/- was advanced as part sale consideration. Subsequently, on 19-03-2019, 28-03-2019 and

Page 2 of 5 23-01-2020 defendant received an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- as part sale consideration respectively. Accordingly, the Defendant executed receipts regarding receiving of part sale consideration i.e., in total Rs. 11,00,000/- was received by the Defendant.

Further, the Defendant assured that he will execute registered Sale Deed in favor of the Plaintiff, however dodged the same. In the month of January, the Plaintiff again requested to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- and to execute registered Sale Deed but in vain. On 01- 12-2022, Plaintiff issued legal notice to the Defendant demanding him to execute registered Sale

Deed, on 10-12-2022, the Defendant received legal notice but postponed the registration. Later, the

Plaintiff got to know that the Defendant is trying to alienate the suit property to third parties. Hence the Suit.

3. The Defendant was set and remained exparte.

4. In order to prove his case, the Plaintiff was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A7. Further relied on oral evidence of PW2.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. Now, the point for consideration is:

1) Whether the agreement of sale dated 12-11-2018 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the Plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?

3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance of contract as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

7. POINTS 1 TO 3: In order to prove his pleadings, the Plaintiff relied upon the oral evidence of the PW1 and PW2. The Plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and filed his chief- examination affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint and further relied on documentary

Page 3 of 5 evidence i.e. Exs.A1 to A7. The Ex.A1 is the Original Cash receipt dated 12-11-2018,

Ex.A2 is the Original Cash receipt dated 19-03-2019, Ex.A3 is the Original Cash receipt dated 28-03-2019, Ex.A4 is the Original cash receipt dated 23-01-2020, Ex.A5 is the Office copy of legal notice dated 01-12-2022, Ex.A6 is the Online tracking result and

Ex.A7 is the Bank statement for the period from 01-01-2025 to 03-11-2025 of Sri Venkata Suneel

Medisetty.

8. The recitals of Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 goes on to disclose that on following dates as mentioned in the said exhibits, the Defendant has received part sale consideration. The Ex.A7 which is the Bank

Statement goes on to disclose that there lies sufficient amount in the account of PW1. The other important aspect to be dealt is whether the Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract throughout the proceedings i.e., prior and post to filing of the Suit. The Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 also discloses that major portion of the agreement has been complied with except the receiving of balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- which was to be paid at the time of execution and registration by Defendant. The first communication was addressed by the PW1 to the Defendant by way of legal notice dated 01-12-2022, the recitals of which discloses that PW1 has called upon the

Defendant to execute and register the Sale Deed. The conduct of the PW1 approaching the defendant to receive the balance amount and refusal thereon by them establishes the readiness and willingness of the PW1 and not to lose sight of the fact the dates on which they happened. While readiness means the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the plaintiff. Under section 16 (c) of the

Specific Relief act, the plaintiff must prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The above discussion makes it amply clear that he was always ready and willing perform his part of contract. The Defendant did not turned up before this Court and he was set and remained exparte. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the Plaintiff. Since, the

Page 4 of 5 defendant was set and remained exparte, the evidence produced by the Plaintiff remained unchallenged and un-rebutted. On the scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, this court opines that the Plaintiff could establish his case by virtue of Ex.A1 to Ex.A7.

Accordingly the points are answered in favor of the Plaintiff.

9. In the result, the Suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to execute a sale deed with regard to suit schedule property in favor of the Plaintiff within 2 months from the date of this judgment, failing which the Plaintiff is at liberty to take appropriate steps for execution of

Registered sale deed through process of law and further the Plaintiff is directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- before this Court within one month from the date of this judgment.

Dictated, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25 th day of November 2025.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHEVELLA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1 – M.Venkata Suneel- NIL - PW2 – Shabber Shaik

(EXHIBITS MARKED)

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the Original Cash receipt dated 12.11.2018. Ex.A2 is the Original Cash receipt dated 19.03.2019. Ex.A3 is the Original Cash receipt dated 28.03.2019. Ex.A4 is the Original cash receipt dated 23.01.2020. Ex.A5 is the Office copy of legal notice dated 01.12.2022. Ex.A6 is the Online tracking result. Ex.A7 is the Bank statement for the period from 01-01-2025 to 03-11-2025 of Sri Venkata Suneel Medisetty.

Page 5 of 5

FOR DEFENDANT: - NIL-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHEVELLA

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHEVELLA

PRESENT:­ SRI U.VIJAY KUMAR

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHEVELLA

DATED, THIS THE 10 th DAY OF July, 2025

O.S.No.570 OF 2021

BETWEEN:­

Smt. Mangali Yadamma, W/o. Yadaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 3­44/1, Shridhruppa Village, Kandi Mandal, Sanga Reddy District – 502 285. …PLAINTIFF

AND

1. Smt. Mangali Ananthamma, W/o. late Ramulu, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 1­29, Singapoor Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District – 501 203.

2. Smt. Mangali Narsamma, W/o. Yadaiah, D/o. late Ramulu, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 1­29, Singapoor Village, Shankarpally Mandal, R556anga Reddy District – 501 203.

3. Smt. Laxmi, S/o. Suresh, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 1­112/10, Kondakal Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District – 501 203. … DEFENDANTS

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 30­06­2025 in the presence of Sri MD. TAJUDDIN, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendants are set exparte 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 suit is instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants to grant preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the land adm.

Ac.1­23 gts., in Sy.No.184, Ac.1­30 gts., in Sy.No.202 and Ac.0­36 gts., in

Sy.No.209 situated at Fatherpur Village of Shankerpally Mandal, R.R.District.

(Hereinafter called as suit schedule property).

2.The contents of the Plaint are that originally the suit schedule property was in the name of Late Mangali Narayana and after his death the same was succeeded by his son Late Mangali Ramulu and further after his death the same was succeeded by the Defendant No.2 and his name is reflecting in

Revenue records as Pattedar and possessor. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 are the children of Late Ramulu, Defendant No.1 is the wife of late Ramulu and mother of plaintiff and Defendant No.2 and they are governed by Hindu

Law and that they are jointly cultivating the suit property and the same has not been partitioned. The Defendant No.2 by virtue of his names in the revenue records, is trying to alienate the suit property to third parties. She demanded for partition but the same was refused and she further got to know that the Defendant No.2 has executed a Registered Gift Deed bearing document No.6753/2007 dt.14.06.2007 in favor of Defendant No.1 without knowledge and consent of plaintiff. She further got to know that the Defendant

No.2 has executed Registered Sale Deeds vide document No.5496/2021 dt.22.07.2021 and 2364/2021, dt.15­12­2021 in favor of Defendant No.4 and 5 and accordingly the Defendants No.4 and 5 were impleaded vide

I.A.o.518/2023.She is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit land and again demanded for partition on 10­07­2021, but the same was refused.

3.The Defendants were set and remained exparte.

4.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, she herself examined as the

PW­1 and got marked the Exs.A1 to A15.

5. Now the points for consideration are:

1) Whether the plaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property with defendants ?

2) If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share of partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule property as prayed for against the defendants ?

3) To what relief?

6. POINTS No.1 and 2:­ In order to prove the pleadings of the plaintiffs, they relied upon oral evidence of the PW.1 and the plaintiff No.1 herself examined as PW.1 deposed in her chief­examination affidavit, by re­iterating the plaint pleadings once again and on documentary evidence i.e. the Exs.A1 to A22 i.e., the Ex.A1 is the Valuation Certificate issued by Dharani Portal, Chevella

R.R.District, Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 1964­65,

Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 1971­72, Ex.A4 is the

Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 1975­76, Ex.A5 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 1981­82, Ex.A6 is the Certified copy of

Phani patrika for the year 1985­86, Ex.A7 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 1990­91, Ex.A8 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 1995­96, Ex.A9 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 1999­2000, Ex.A10 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 2004­05,

Ex.A11 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 2015­16, Ex.A12 is the CC copy of Gift Deed No.6753/2007, Ex.A13 is the CC copy of Sale Deed

No.5496/2021, Ex.A14 is the CC copy of Sale Dee No. 2364/2021 and Ex.A15 is the Computerized Encumbrance Certificate..

7. On careful perusal of the Exs.A1 to A15 and as per the pleadings in the plaint, the suit schedule property is the ancestral property. Thereby, the plaintiff and defendants being the joint family members are having equal rights over the suit schedule property. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share each by metes and bounds as per the law. Therefore, by virtue of the unchallenged oral evidence of the PW­1 and the

Exs.A1 to A15, this court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for her legal share in the joint family property. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the preliminary decree of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the points are answered in favor of the plaintiff.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed preliminarily with costs in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants for partition and separate possession of suit schedule property into equal shares and allot 1/4th share to the plaintiff with metes and bounds. The plaintiff is at liberty to move application for passing final decree subsequently. 

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 10 th day of July, 2025.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHEVELLA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW­1 Smt. M. Yadamma ­EXPARTE­

(EXHIBITS MARKED)

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the Valuation Certificate issued by Dharani Portal, Chevella R.R.District. Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 1964­65. Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 1971­72. Ex.A4 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 1975­76. Ex.A5 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 1981­82. Ex.A6 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 1985­86. Ex.A7 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 1990­91. Ex.A8 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 1995­96. Ex.A9 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 1999­2000. Ex.A10 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 2004­05. Ex.A11 is the Certified copy of Phani patrika for the year 2015­16.

Ex.A12 is the CC copy of Gift Deed No.6753/2007. Ex.A13 is the CC copy of Sale Deed No.5496/2021. Ex.A14 is the CC copy of Sale Dee No. 2364/2021. Ex.A15 is the Computerized Encumbrance Certificate.

FOR DEFENDANTS: ­ Nil ­

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHEVELLA