Ms. V. Sravani Yadav

CC.NI.No.2221 of 2018Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM

VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT MEDCHAL

Present: Ms. V. Sravani Yadav,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Medchal.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 07th DAY OF MAY, 2026

CC.NI. No. 2221 OF 2018

Between :

Mrs. Yekabote Vimala W/o. Yekabote Nagraj Rao, Age : 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-3-49/50/6/1, Kadri Enclave, Opp: ZPHS School, Landmark Ambedkar Statue, Old Alwal, Secunderabad – 500 010. …. Complainant

AND

M/s. Srinivasa Constructions, Represented by its Managing Partner, Sri. K. Ramakrishna Raju S/o. KVSN Raju, Age : 59, Occ: Managing partner, Authorised Signatory of Srinivasa Constructions, Plot NO.179, Sy.No.338 & 343, Siri Valley, Nizampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Hyderabad 500 072, Telangana

K. Rama Krishna Raju, Managing partner of M/s. Srinivasa Constructions, Registered officer, Alluri Commerical Complex Bhagya Nagar Colony, Opp : KPHB Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

…… Accused

CC.NI.No.2221 of 2018Page No.2

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. Bandi Varaprasada Rao, learned Counsel for the Complainant and

Sri. B. Venkat Reddy learned Counsel for the Accused. Having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration, the Court now delivers the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a private complaint filed against the above named accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act).

2.After consideration the material available on record, the learned

XXI Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance was taken on file for the offence under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused. Subsequently, this case was transferred to this court as per the orders of the Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

District vide Order Dis.No.3174/2021 dtd. 20.12.2021, the case is transferred to the Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum XX Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, At Medchal.

The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:

3.The complainant submits that the accused entered into an

Agreement of Sale dated 12.08.2016 with the complainant and her husband for sale of a semi-finished triplex house bearing Plot No.179 admeasuring 205 square yards situated at Siri Valley, Nizampet

Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The accused received an advance sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/-from the complainant under the said agreement. It is further submitted that as per the terms of the agreement, the accused agreed to complete the construction within nine months with a grace period of one month, but failed to complete the same within the stipulated period.

The complainant and her husband approached the accused and

CC.NI.No.2221 of 2018Page No.3 demanded either completion of construction or return of the advance amount. The accused failed to give satisfactory explanation and agreed to return the amount. It is the case of the complainant that the accused repaid Rs.5,00,000/- and agreed to pay the balance amount of

Rs.10,00,000/-. Despite repeated demands the accused delayed the payment on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.003142 dated 30.03.2018 drawn on Karur Vysya

Bank, Kukatpally Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.10,00,000/-towards discharge of the said liability. The complainant presented the said cheque through her banker i.e., State Bank of India, Macha Bolarum

Branch, Hyderabad, and the same was returned unpaid on 27.06.2018 with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice dated 03.07.2018 to the accused demanding payment of cheque amount. The said notice was returned with endorsements “Insufficient Address” and “Unclaimed”. Despite deemed service of notice, the accused failed to pay the amount.

Hence, the present complaint.

4.Upon appearance of the accused, copies were furnished under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation was explained under

Section 251 Cr.P.C., for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the case, the complainant examined herself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.003142 dt.

30.03.2018 for Rs.10,00,000/-. Ex.P2 is the Cheque return memo dt.

27.06.2018. Ex.P3 is the Receipt dt.01.08.2016. Ex.P4 is the receipt dt.

08.08.2016. Ex.P5 is the Sale Agreement dt. 12.08.2016. Ex.P6 is the legal notice dtd. 03.07.2018. Ex.P7 is the Postal Receipt dt. 03.07.2018. Ex.P8 is the Return Registered Post with Acknowledgment due dt. 06.07.2018. Ex.P9 is the returned Registered post with acknowledged due dt. 07.07.2018.

Ex.P10 is the Statement of Bank of accused for the period from 04.08.2016 to 20.09.2016.

CC.NI.No.2221 of 2018Page No.4

6.PW1 was cross-examined by learned counsel for the accused. For brevity, the relevant admissions and contradictions are discussed in the findings.

7.After closure of complainant evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the incriminating evidence. Crl.M.P No.332 of 2024 was granted leave to lead defence evidence in person. The accused examined himself as

DW1 and another witness one Srikanth as DW2 in support of his defence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides the counsel for complainant has filed written arguments along with memo by submitting that the

Judgments which are in the favor of the complainant I.e I) Ms.

Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian (2021) 5 SCC 283

II). R. Vijayan v. Baby (2012) 1 SCC 260 III). Subhash Chand v.

M/s. Amba Shaki Ispat, Himachal pradesh High court and counsel for accused filed written argument relied upon the Judgment

I.e I) Supreme Court of India Crl.A.No.125/1998 Sridhar M.A

Vs. Metalloy N Steel Corporation G.B. Pattanaik, G.N. Ray JJ

II) ALD (CRI) -2005 2-449, High Court of Andhra Pradesh S.

Damodar Reddy Vs. S. Narsimhulu Coram : P.S Narayana J. and perused the record. After carefully hearing the arguments presented by both sides, the following points arise for determination.

Now the point for determination is that

I.Whether the complainant proves that the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability?

II.Whether the accused has rebutted the presumption under

Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act?

III.To what order?

CC.NI.No.2221 of 2018Page No.5

9.Before adjudicating the points for determination whether the cheque was issued in discharge of any existing debt or liability by the accused in favour of the complainant and whether the accused could rebut the presumption available to the complainant under the Act.

It would fit thing to draw attention on section 138,139 and 118 of

NI Act for better appreciation of the facts of the case.

Conditions precedent for constituting an offence under S.

138 of NI Act

10.There are five distinct conditions precedent, which must be satisfied before the dishonour of a cheque can constitute an offence and become punishable.

i.The cheque ought to have been presented to the bank within a period 6 months (3 months as per RBI vide Circular

RBI/2011-12/251 DBOD AML BC No. 47/14.01.001/2011-12,

dated 4-11-2011) from the date on which it is drawn or within the

period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

ii. That the cheque was drawn from the account of the accused bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which pre-supposes a legally enforceable debt and iii. The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank; iv. The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, ought to make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.

CC.NI.No.2221 of 2018Page No.6 v.The drawer of such a cheque should have failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.

The proviso appended of legal requirements before a complaint or a petition can be acted upon by a court of law.

11.It is only upon the satisfaction of all the five conditions mentioned above and enumerated under the proviso to Section 138 as clauses (a), (b) and (c) along with the conditions to be fulfilled as stipulated under Section 142 NI Act to take the cognizance against the offence under Section 138 of NI Act.

Presumptions

12.The Negotiable Instrument Act contains provisions raising presumptions as regards the negotiable instruments under section 118(a) of the Act as also under section 139 of Negotiable Instrument

Act. The said presumptions are rebuttal. Whether the presumption is rebutted or not would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case.

13.Under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the Negotiable

Instrument (including a cheque) had been made or drawn for consideration. Under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the

Court has to presume unless the contrary was proved that the cheque or holder of the cheque received the cheque for discharge in whole or in part of a debt or liability. Thus in complaints under section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability. This presumption is rebuttal. However, the burden of proving that a cheque had not been issued for a debt or liability is on the accused.

CC.NI.No.2221 of 2018Page No.7

The accused presented the following defenses during the trial.

14.The accused during the trial has taken the defence that he has already repaid the entire amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainant out of which Rs.5,00,000/- was paid through bank transaction and

Rs.10,00,000/- was paid in cash. The accused further contended that the cheque in question was issued only for security purpose and not towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt. The accused also stated that the complainant has misused the said cheque and filed a false case against him. He further contended that he did not receive any legal notice from the complainant and that no amount is due from him to the complainant. Another defence taken by the accused is that the complainant did not initiate any civil proceedings for speciftc performance of agreement and that the transaction was cancelled orally.

The accused further contended that the complainant has suppressed the true facts and ftled the present complaint only to harass him.

POINT NO I

15.The case of the complainant is that the accused issued cheque in discharge of his liability and when the cheque Ex.P1 was presented in bank, it was returned for the reason “Funds

Insufficient” on 27.06.2018 vide Ex.P2. Thereafter, the complainant got issued Ex.P6 statutory legal notice dated 03.07.2018 by RPAD to the address of the accused and that the same wasreturned with endorsements “Insufficient Address” and “Unclaimed” as per Ex.P8 and Ex.P9. Hence, it is contended that the complainant has complied with the requirement of issuing notice to the accused in terms of clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of N.I. Act.

16.PW1 in her cross-examination deposed that “ It is not true to suggest that I have not sent legal notice to the correct address of the

CC.NI.No.2221 of 2018Page No.8 accused. It is not true to suggest that the notice was not served on the accused and that I am deposing false.”

17.The learned counsel for the accused strongly argued that no legal notice was served on the accused and that the complainant failed to prove proper service of notice. It is further contended that the notices were returned and therefore the mandatory requirement under Section 138 of N.I. Act is not complied with. The counsel also argued that the accused did not receive any notice and hence the complaint is not maintainable.

18.On perusal of the record and evidence, it is evident that the complainant has sent the statutory notice to the correct address of the accused as mentioned in the agreement and other documents.

The returned covers clearly disclose the endorsement “Unclaimed”. It is a settled principle of law that when a notice is sent to the correct address and returned as “Unclaimed”, it amounts to deemed service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.

19.The accused has not placed any material to show that the address mentioned in the notice is incorrect. Further, the accused has admitted the said address in the documents. Mere denial of receipt of notice is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of service.

Therefore, the contention of the accused that no notice was served is not sustainable.

20.The complainant has presented the cheque within the validity period and after dishonour issued legal notice within the statutory period. The accused failed to make payment within 15 days from the date of deemed service of notice. The complaint is filed within the limitation period. With regard to territorial jurisdiction, the cheque was presented through the complainant’s bank which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the requirements under

Section 142 of the N.I. Act are complied with.

CC.NI.No.2221 of 2018Page No.9

Therefore, Point No.1 is decided in favour of the complainant.

POINT II and III :-

21.For convenience sake, this court feels it desirable to discuss these two points together to avoid repetition in discussing the evidence that has come on record before the court on behalf of both the parties.

22.During the course of trial, the complainant having invoked the provisions of Section 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed her affidavit with a prayer to treat the same as her examination-in- chief and the same was permitted. As seen from the facts incorporated in the said affidavit filed by the complainant who was examined as PW1, it is reiteration of the facts mentioned in the complaint.

23.A careful scrutiny of the documents relied upon by the complainant shows that the statutory requirements under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have been complied with and the complaint is filed within limitation. Thus, the complainant is entitled to rely on the statutory presumptions enshrined under Section 118 read with

Section 139 of the N.I. Act.

24.No doubt, the said presumptions are rebuttable in nature. The accused can take a probable defence on the scale of preponderance of probabilities to rebut the presumption available to the complainant. Let me examine whether the accused has successfully rebutted the said presumptions. The accused has denied his liability and contended that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt.

CC.NI.No.2221 of 2018Page No.10

25.It is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Kalamani Tex & Anr. v. P. Balasubramanian (2021) 5

SCC 283, wherein it was held that once the signature on the cheque is admitted, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act arises in favour of the complainant and the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut the same.

26.It is also useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441, wherein it was held that the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities and the accused can rely on the material brought on record by the complainant.

27.In the present case, the accused has not denied his signature on the cheque Ex.P1 and has also admitted the transaction under

Ex.P5 agreement of sale. Hence, the presumption under Section 118 read with Section 139 of the N.I. Act operates in favour of the complainant.

28.PW1 in her chief examination stated that the accused entered into an agreement of sale and received Rs.15,00,000/- as advance amount. She further stated that the accused failed to complete the construction and agreed to return the amount. It is further stated that the accused repaid Rs.5,00,000/- and issued cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- towards the balance amount.

29.PW1 in her cross-examination deposed that “It is true that I have not filed any civil suit for specific performance. It is true that accused repaid Rs.5,00,000/- through bank transaction. It is not true to suggest that accused has repaid Rs.10,00,000/- in cash and that I have received the same without issuing any receipt. It is not true to suggest that I have obtained the cheque forcibly or misused the same.”

CC.NI.No.2221 of 2018Page No.11

30.DW1 in his evidence stated that he has repaid Rs.10,00,000/- in cash to the complainant. However, he admitted in cross- examination that he has not obtained any receipt for the said payment and has not produced any document to show the source of such payment. He further admitted that he has not issued any notice to the complainant for return of cheque.

31.DW2, who is examined as a witness to support the accused, stated that the cash payment was made in his presence. However, he admitted that no document is available to prove the same and he does not remember the exact date of transaction. His evidence is not supported by any independent material and appears to be interested.

32. The defence of the accused that he repaid Rs.10,00,000/- in cash is not supported by any documentary evidence. No receipt is obtained, no proof of source is shown and no independent corroboration is available. Mere oral assertion is not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption. If really the accused had repaid the amount and the cheque was misused he would have taken steps such as issuing notice for return of cheque or lodging complaint.

However, no such steps are taken by the accused. This creates an adverse inference against the accused under Section 114 of the

Evidence Act.

33.In the absence of any cogent evidence, the defence taken by the accused cannot be accepted. The complainant has successfully proved that the cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. From the facts and evidence on record, it is clear that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The complainant has established her case by proving the transaction and issuance of cheque.

Therefore, Point No.II & III are decided in favour of the complainant.

CC.NI.No.2221 of 2018Page No.12

POINT IV

34.For the aforesaid reasons and findings in Points No.I to III, I proceed to pass the following:

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and consequently he is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C.

(Typed in my laptop directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 07 th day of May, 2026).

Sd/-

VII Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate At:Medchal

CC.NI.No.2221 of 2018Page No.13

Crl.M.P.No.203/2026 is allowed. Accused is present and Heard the

accused on Quantum of Sentence.

35. Though as per section 255 of Criminal Procedure Code, hearing of the accused on the quantum of sentence is not within the ambit of the said section. Though the section does not manifest on hearing of the accused on quantum of sentence, still this court is of an opinion that the accused must be given an opportunity for hearing him on the quantum of sentence while imposing punishment in the interest of Justice and to meet the ends of justice.

36. The accused was heard on the quantum of sentence and submitted that he is 69 years old and suffering from age-related ailments. The accused pleaded for mercy and requested the court to take a lenient view.

37.The cheque amount in this case is Rs.10,00,000/- and twice the amount of cheque would come to Rs.20,00,000/- and the court can impose fine on the accused up to Rs.20,00,000/-.

38.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and consequently he is convicted U/sec.255(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and sentenced to pay an amount of Rs. 1 5 ,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of s i x months. The amount of Rs.15,00,000/- shall be paid to the

CC.NI.No.2221 of 2018Page No.14 complainantascompensationU/Sec.357(3)Cr.P.Cwithinone month. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for the period of Six (6) months in terms of section 437-A of Code of

Criminal Procedure. Office is directed to furnish a free copy of this

Judgment to the accused under proper acknowledgment as per

Sec.363 Cr.P.C r/w Rule 72 of Criminal Rules of Practice and

Circular Orders, 1990. No order as to property.

(Typed in my laptop directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 08 th day of May, 2026).

Sd/-

VII Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate At:Medchal

CC.NI.No.2221 of 2018Page No.15

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:

PW1 : Y. Vimala

For Accused:

DW1: Ramakrishna Raju

DW2 : Srikanth

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant:

Ex.P1 is the cheque bearing No.003142 dt. 30.03.2018 for Rs.10,00,000/-.

Ex.P2 is the Cheque return memo dt. 27.06.2018.

Ex.P3 is the Receipt dt.01.08.2016.

Ex.P4 is the receipt dt. 08.08.2016.

Ex.P5 is the Sale Agreement dt. 12.08.2016.

Ex.P6 is the legal notice dtd. 03.07.2018.

Ex.P7 is the Postal Receipt dt. 03.07.2018.

Ex.P8 is the Return Registered Post with Acknowledgment due dt. 06.07.2018.

Ex.P9 is the returned Registered post with acknowledged due dt. 07.07.2018.

Ex.P10 is the Statement of Bank of accused for the period from 04.08.2016 to 20.09.2016.

For Accused: NIL

Sd/-

VII Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate At:Medchal

CC.No.876/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM

VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT MEDCHAL

Present: Ms.V. Sravani Yadav

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Medchal.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 29th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

C.C.NO.876 of 2017

Between :

The State represented through PS Shamirpet ….Complainant. // A n d //

A1- Mukkera Srinivas S/o. Sathaiah, Age : 26 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o. H.No.3-117, Jaganguda village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal District.

A2- Dacharlapally Mohan S/o. Kumar, Age : 25 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o. H.No.6-46, Jaganguda Colony, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal District.

....Accused Nos.1 & 2

This case came before me for final hearing on 10.04.2026 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri. N. Praveen Kumar, Counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police station, Shamirpet filed a charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence under section 354-D of Indian Penal

Code (for short IPC).

2.Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows:- 2(i)On 27.07.2017 at 0930 received a Telugu written Complaint from LW1/ Smt.

Baindla Lavanya in which she stated that the accused persons namely 1) Mukkera

Srinivas 2) Mohan Kumar have been torturing her mentally and physically with disgracing words since 2 years and the same matter was informed to her village sarpanch but they did not stopped their activities, again they had used bike

Page No.1

CC.No.876/2017

siren and also they were dancing in front of the house in drunken condition, on that when the complainant questioned them, they picked up quarrel with the complainant. Hence the Complainant requested for necessary action.

2(ii)Basing on the above said report, and the LW6/Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.288 of 2017 under section 354-D IPC and entrusted the investigation to LW7/SI of Police. During the course of investigation, the LW7 examined the complainant and visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW4 & LW5 and recorded their detailed statements. After collecting all relevant material and after completion of investigation LW7/SI of police filed charge sheet against the accused person.

3. After considering the material available on record, this court took cognizance for the offence under section.354-D IPC against the accused Nos.1 & 2.

4.On appearance of the accused person, the copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to the accused persons as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., Subsequently, accused persons were examined under section 239

Cr.PC., for which they denied the offence. A Charge under section 354-D IPC is framed, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The entire prosecution evidence closed on 03.03.2026.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence available against the accused persons, for which they denied the same. None were examined on behalf of the accused persons.

7.After hearing arguments of both sides.

8.The point that arose for determination in this case is: - “Whether the prosecution proved guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt”?

Page No.2

CC.No.876/2017

9. Point:-

To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P3. On perusal of evidence of PW1/ complainant, In chief examination of PW1, PW1 deposed that LW2 is her husband and she know A1 and A2 who resides in her neighborhood. She stated that two years prior to filing of the present case accused A1 and A2 used to roam around her house in their motorcycle. Accused Nos.1 & 2 used to honk by pulling over the vehicle infront of her house. Wherever she used to go be it for a shop or for any other place, A1 and A2 used to constantly follow her. PW1 further deposed that A1 jumped the compound wall of her house while A1 was in intoxicated condition and used to tell her that he wants her. She used to remand him and admonish him that was not proper conduct for him to behave like that and Accused knew that she was married women and despite of disinterest-ness, he kept on tormenting her by follow her and she stated that A2 is relative of A1 who used to support him.

10.Further PW1 deposed that her mother in law had also taken the conduct of

A1 with his mother. Despite which, A1 did not not change his conduct. A1 and A2 are present in the court. A1 started disseminating rumors by tarnishing her image

before the villagers for the reason she was not heeding to him. As the torture of

A1 was escalating by day by day and there was no change in his conduct, she had to file the report with police. Unbearable of the torture of A1 she also try to commit suicide by slitting her fore arm. She lodge the report with police. Ex.P1 is the report.

11.During cross examination of PW1, she was graduate and she scribed Ex.P1 and she stays in her in laws as a joint family. She admitted that they all reside in one house and there are houses surrounding in her house. She further admitted that the colony people used to put lord Ganesh Pandal beside her house. She was housewife at the inception of alleged incident. She further admitted that she have not specifically mentioned the date and time and place where accused were

Page No.3

CC.No.876/2017

honking horn to stalk her and she have not mentioned about the explaining the al-

leged stalking to her mother in law. She have not specifically mentioned the date and time when she had allegedly admonished accused. She further admitted that she had not specifically mentioned the date and time on which Accused A1 allegedly jumped the compound wall and accused expressed that he wanted her and that she have admonished accused.

12.She further admitted that she had not mentioned in Ex.P1 that her mother in law had complaint to A1’s mother and despite which there is no change of conduct and she had not mentioned before police the alleged particulars of accused disseminating rumors about her. She further admitted that she had not mentioned about the alleged suicide attempt before police and she had no ever mentioned about sharing her alleged precarious condition to her husband and there would be about 5 to 6 houses between her house and accused house. She denied all other suggestions put-forth by learned counsel for accused.

13.In chief examination of PW2 deposed that he know LW5. In the year 2017, one day while himself and LW5 were standing near Gandhi Statue of Jaganguda village, in the meanwhile SI of police approached them and inquired their credential and had asked them to be as panch witnesses and in their presence

Scene of offence panchanama was prepared by the SI and they have signed on it.

Ex.P2 is the CDF containing the panchanama.

14.In cross examination of PW2, he admitted that no notice was given to them asking them to be as panch witnesses. PW2 admitted that he had no knowledge what were the facts the preceding it which caused investigating officer to prepare such panchanama. He further admitted that he have no knowledge about the content of Ex.P2.

15.PW3 is the Investigating officer in chief examination of PW3 deposed that on 27.07.2017 at 9.30 hours LW6 received written complaint from LW1 and basing on which he registered case in Cr.No.288/2017 for the offence U/sec. 354-D of IPC and entrusted investigation to him. During the course of investigation he

Page No.4

CC.No.876/2017

have examined and recorded the statement of LW1 and LW2. Later, he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the CDF in the presence of LW4 and LW5. He have also examined and recorded the statement of

LW3. On 29.07.2017, he issued 41-A Cr.p.c notice to accused and directed to ap- pear before the court as and when they receive summons from the court. Ex.P3 is the FIR.

16.In cross-examination of PW3, he stated that on 27.07.2017, the case was entrusted to him for investigation. He visited the scene of offence at 10.30 Am. He admitted that he did not mentioned the time of the alleged offence but he mentioned the date of the offence. He further admitted that he did not submit details regarding the motor cycle which was used by A1 & A2 at the time of alleged offence. He further admitted LW1 lives along with her in laws but he did not examined LW1 in laws with regard to the alleged offence. He did not collect with regard to the details of the scene of house/ house of LW1. He further admitted that column No.13 of Ex.P2 does not disclose the presence of vehicle at the scene of offence and he did not examine Neighbours mentioned as per Col- umn No.13 of Ex.P2. He denied all other suggestions put forth by learned coun- sel for accused.

17.On perusal on entire evidence on record. It is observed that in the present case the allegations levelled against the accused persons is that where this case arises out of a charge sheet filed against Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation of the prosecution is that the accused persons had been stalking the complainant /PW1 a married woman by repeatedly following her, honking near her residence, at- tempting to contact her and thereby causing mental harassment.

18.The point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence of stalking as defined under Section 354-D IPC. In order to establish the said offence, the prosecution must prove that the accused followed a woman and contacted or

Page No.5

CC.No.876/2017

attempted to contact her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest or monitored her activities through electronic means.

19.On perusal of entire evidence available on records it shows that the case of the prosecution primarily rests upon the testimony of PW1. In her chief examination, PW1 alleged that the accused used to roam around her house, honk their motorcycle, follow her wherever she went and that A1 even jumped into her house compound in an intoxicated condition and expressed his desire towards her. She further alleged that A1 spread rumours about her and that due to continuous harassment she attempted suicide. However, her cross-examination reveals several material omissions and contradictions which significantly weaken her credibility. PW1 admitted that she did not mention specific dates, time or place of the alleged incidents in her complaint /Ex.P1.She further admitted that she had not stated before the police about several serious allegations such as dissemination of rumours, her alleged suicide attempt and even that she had not informed her husband or in-laws about the harassment. These are not minor discrepancies but material improvements made for the first time before the Court, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of her version.

20.It is also pertinent to note that PW1 admitted that there are several houses surrounding her residence, yet no independent witnesses from the neighbourhood have been examined by the prosecution to corroborate her version. Even her husband, who is cited as a material witness /LW2 was not examined before this

Court despite several opportunities and even after conditional orders. The non- examination of such a crucial witness creates an adverse inference against the prosecution case.

21.The evidence of PW2, who was examined as a panch witness, does not support the prosecution in any manner. He categorically deposed that no notice was served upon him to act as a panch witness that he does not know the facts leading to preparation of the panchanama and that he is unaware of the contents of Ex.P2. Thus, his evidence is of no assistance to the prosecution.

Page No.6

CC.No.876/2017

22.The testimony of PW3, the Investigating Officer further exposes serious lapses in the investigation. PW3 admitted in cross-examination that he did not mention the time of the alleged offence and did not collect or produce details of the motorcycle allegedly used by the accused and did not examine the in-laws of

PW1 though they were residing in the same house and did not examine any of the neighbours despite their presence being reflected in the panchanama. He also admitted that the panchanama does not disclose the presence of any vehicle at the scene. These omissions indicate that the investigation was not conducted in a fair and thorough manner, thereby creating doubt about the prosecution case.

23.Further, this Court finds that there are clear improvements made by PW1 when her evidence is compared with her complaint /Ex.P1 and her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The introduction of new facts during her deposition, which were not mentioned at the earliest point of time renders her testimony unsafe to rely upon without corroboration. Unfortunately, no such corroboration is forthcoming in the present case.

24.Another important aspect is that the prosecution has failed to establish the repeated acts of following or contacting the complainant with specific instances, dates, or circumstances, which is a necessary ingredient to constitute the offence of stalking under Section 354-D IPC. Mere vague and general allegations without particulars are not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. Upon careful consideration of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence.

25. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record is insufficient, unreliable and suffers from material contradictions, omissions and investigative lapses. The benefit of doubt must therefore go in favour of the accused persons.

Page No.7

CC.No.876/2017

26.In the result, accused Nos.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section.354-D of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of six Months as under section.437-A Cr.P.C.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist directly on the system, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29th day of April, 2026).

Sd/-

VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

Page No.8

CC.No.876/2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 Smt. B. Lavanya NIL

PW2 Sri. M. Anjireddy

PW3 Sri. A. Naveen Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

NIL Ex.P1 is the report.

Ex.P2 is the CDF containing the panchanama.

Ex.P3 is the FIR.

Sd/-

VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

Page No.9

OS.No. 25 of 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM

VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT MEDCHAL

Present: Ms. V. Sravani Yadav,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Medchal.

DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF MAY, 2026

OS. No. 25 OF 2026

Between :

1. Police Sunitha Reddy W/o. Late Police Niranjan Reddy, Aged 51 years, Occ: Housewife,

2. Police Vinay Reddy S/o. Late Police Niranjan Reddy, Aged 32 years, Occ: Private Employee,

Both are R/o. Villa No.7, Mysquare Mortion Villas, Laxmi nagar, Suraram, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District, TS – 500055.

3. Police Lokesh Reddy S/o. Late Police Niranjan Reddy, Aged 30 years, Occ: private employee, Presently residing in United States of America, Represented by his GPA holder Police Vinay Reddy, S/o. Late Police Niranjan Reddy, R/o. Villa No.7, Mysquare Mortion Villas, Laxmi Nagar, Suraram, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri Distric, TS – 500055.

… PLAINTIFFS

And

1. The Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District, Telangana State - 500055.

2.All Concerned.

...DEFENDANTS

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 09.04.2026 in the presence of Sri. V. Vijay Reddy learned Counsel for plaintiffs and defendants remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following :

Page No.1

OS.No. 25 of 2026

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying this court to declare them as legal heirs of deceased Late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy.

2.The Plaintiffs submit that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of the deceased Late Sri. Police

Niranjan Reddy and Plaintiffs No.2 &3 are the sons of deceased Late Sri. Police Niranjan

Reddy who had died intestate on 15.12.2025 leaving behind the Plaintiffs herein as his legal heirs and therefore, the plaintiffs are exclusive Legal heirs of the said deceased Late Sri.

Police Niranjan Reddy. Except the Plaintiffs, there are no other legal heirs or successors to the deceased Late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy.

3.It is submitted that during the lifetime of deceased Late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy had owned the land admeasuring Ac.0-27 guntas in Sy.No.440/AA and Ac.0-04 guntas in

Sy.No.441/AA and land admeasuring Ac.0.0150 guntas in Sy.No.29/B situated at Bowrampet village, Dundigal – Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District, TS-500043 and out of Ac.0-27 guntas in Sy.No.440/AA, Ac.0-05 guntas was given for development to construct apartment with 5 floors and all the said lands were acquired by way of succession from deceased father late Sri. Police Gopal Reddy and same was mutated on his name and also issued passbook under Patta No.1093 and passbook No. 427437 and title deed

NO.4263334 and deceased Late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy was also owned a motor cycle

Br.No. TS 08GE 5909, Honda Motor cycle.

4.It is further submitted that during the lifetime of deceased late Sri. Police Niranjan

Reddy along with his two brothers executed a registered development agreement cum GPA document number 5041 of 2016 registered at SRO Ranga Reddy with an extent of Ac.0-15 guntas I.e Ac.0.05 guntas each in Sy.No.440 situated at Bowrampet village, Dundigal

Gandimaisamma mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District TS – 500043 to construct an apartment with 5 floors and they have got the share of 40 % towards their share in the said apartment construction and the husband of Plaintiff No.1 executed rectification Deed br.No.740 of 2017 and supplementary deed Br.No.741/2017 both are registered at SRO

Balanagar.

Page No.2

OS.No. 25 of 2026

5. It is further submitted that the Plaintiffs have approached the Defendant No.1 for issuance of Legal heir certificate in the name of deceased person, but despite repeated visits to the Defendant No.1 refused to issue the Legal heir certificate to the Plaintiffs and the

Defendant No.1 orally advised the Plaintiffs to approach the competent Civil Court for

Declaration of Plaintiffs as legal heir of deceased Late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy.

6.Therefore, the Plaintiffs have no other alternative, except to file the present suit before this Hon'ble Court to get the relief of grant for declaring the Plaintiffs as the legal heirs of the deceased person.

7.After service of notice, the defendant No.1 failed to appear before the court and as such, he was set exparte. Plaintiff issued publication in daily newspaper but none appeared

before the court and filed any objections. Hence, the defendant No.2 is set exparte. The

proceedings against defendant No.1 & 2 were set exparte.

8.The plaintiff No.3 is examined as PW1. The documents are marked as under Exs.A1 to

A17 on behalf of Plaintiffs. The learned counsel for plaintiff submitted no further evidence.

Hence plaintiff evidence is closed.

9.The learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the plaintiffs are the only legal heir of the deceased and he further submitted that he has filed Ex.A15 & Ex.A16 I.e, Copy of Pan card of plaintiff No.2 and Copy of SSC Marks memo of the plaintiff No.3 which reflects the name of the deceased as father of the plaintiff No.2 & 3 as such Exs.A15 & Ex.A16 which are sufficient to establish the relationship between the deceased and Plaintiffs. Counsel further submitted that he has filed Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.1 which shows that Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of the deceased and further submitted that he has approached Defendant No.1 for issuance of legal heir certificate but Defendant No.1 refused and orally advised to approach the civil court and no written receipt was given by Defendant No.1 to that affect. The counsel has prayed this court to declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs of the deceased. Perused the record.

10. NOW THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION ARE:

1) Whether plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are entitled for decree declaring the legal status as legal heirs of deceased Late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy ?

2) To what findings?

Page No.3

OS.No. 25 of 2026

11. POINT NO.1:

The plaint pleadings are testified in the evidence of PW1. Ex.A1 is the Original Death

Certificate of Deceased of Late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy dt. 15.12.2025. Ex.A2 is the

Original Pattadar Passbook of the deceased late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy . Ex.A3 is the

Original title Deed of the deceased late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy. Ex.A4 is the Certified copy of Development agreement cum GPA Br.No. 5041/2016. Ex.A5 is the Certified Copy of

Rectification Deed Br.No.740/2017. Ex.A6 is the Certified Copy of Supplementary Deed

Br.No. 741/2017. Ex.A7 is the Original RC Br.NO.TS 08 GE 5909. Ex.A8 is the Original GPA of plaintiff No.2 & 3. Ex.A9 is the Aadhar card of Deceased late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy.

Ex.A10 is the Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.1. Ex.A11 is the Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A12 is the Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.3. Ex.A13 is the Copy of Pan Card of Plaintiff No.1. Ex.A14 is the Copy of Election ID of Plaintiff No.1. Ex.A15 is the Copy pan card of Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A16 is the Copy of SSC Marks memo of Plaintiff No.3. Ex.A17 is the Copy of Pan card of

Plaintiff No.3. It is to be noted that since the defendants were set exparte, the evidence of

PW1 remained unchallenged and unrebuttable and further no objections received from any corner to the publication issued by the plaintiffs.

12.Thus, the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with the documentary evidence vide Exs.A1 to

A17 proves that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy and as such, the plaintiffs are entitled to declare them as his legal heirs. This point is answered accordingly.

13.POINT NO.2:

In the result, suit is decreed in favor of plaintiffs No.1 to 3 declaring them to be legal heirs of the deceased late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy. There shall be no order as to the cost.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist directly on the system, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 06 th day of May, 2026).

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

Page No.4

OS.No. 25 of 2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants: PW1- Sri. Police Vinay Reddy -NIL-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 is the Original Death Certificate of Deceased of Late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy dt.

15.12.2025.

Ex.A2 is the Original Pattadar Passbook of the deceased late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy .

Ex.A3 is the Original title Deed of the deceased late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy.

Ex.A4 is the Certified copy of Development agreement cum GPA Br.No. 5041/2016.

Ex.A5 is the Certified Copy of Rectification Deed Br.No.740/2017.

Ex.A6 is the Certified Copy of Supplementary Deed Br.No. 741/2017.

Ex.A7 is the Original RC Br.NO.TS 08 GE 5909.

Ex.A8 is the Original GPA of plaintiff No.2 & 3.

Ex.A9 is the Aadhar card of Deceased late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy.

Ex.A10 is the Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A11 is the Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A12 is the Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.3.

Ex.A13 is the Copy of Pan Card of Plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A14 is the Copy of Election ID of Plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A15 is the Copy pan card of Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A16 is the Copy of SSC Marks memo of Plaintiff No.3.

Ex.A17 is the Copy of Pan card of Plaintiff No.3.

For Defendants:

-NIL-

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

Page No.5

OS.No. 25 of 2026

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM

VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT MEDCHAL

Present: Ms. V. Sravani Yadav,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Medchal.

DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF MAY, 2026

OS. No. 25 OF 2026

Between :

1. Police Sunitha Reddy W/o. Late Police Niranjan Reddy, Aged 51 years, Occ: Housewife,

2. Police Vinay Reddy S/o. Late Police Niranjan Reddy, Aged 32 years, Occ: Private Employee,

Both are R/o. Villa No.7, Mysquare Mortion Villas, Laxmi nagar, Suraram, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District, TS – 500055.

3. Police Lokesh Reddy S/o. Late Police Niranjan Reddy, Aged 30 years, Occ: private employee, Presently residing in United States of America, Represented by his GPA holder Police Vinay Reddy, S/o. Late Police Niranjan Reddy, R/o. Villa No.7, Mysquare Mortion Villas, Laxmi Nagar, Suraram, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri Distric, TS – 500055.

… PLAINTIFFS

And

1. The Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District, Telangana State - 500055.

2.All Concerned.

...DEFENDANTS

CLAIM: Suit filed by the plaintiffs to declare them as legal heir of the deceased person i.e, deceased late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy.

CAUSE OF ACTION: The cause of action the arose when the deceased Late Police Niranjan Reddy S/o. Late Police Gopal Reddy died on 15.12.2025 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs, and also when the defendant No.1 denied to issue the legal heir certificate in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 refused to issue the same and asked to ge the

Page No.6

OS.No. 25 of 2026

legal heir certificate from the competent court. The cause of action is subsisting and continuing.

VALUATION: The suit for the value for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and as such court fee paid Rs.1,786/- U/s. 24(d) of APCF and SV Act 1956.

Suit presented on:09.01.2026 Suit numbered on:09.01.2026

This suit came before me for final hearing on 09.04.2026 in the presence of Advocate Sri. V. Vijay Reddy for Plaintiffs and the defendants set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following :-

1. That the Suit of the plaintiffs be and the same is hereby decreed declaring the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 as Legal heir of the deceased late Sri. Police Niranjan Reddy.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of the court on this the 06th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

SCHEDULE A- PROPERTY

All that the land admeasuring Ac.0-27 guntas in Sy.No.440/AA & Ac.0-04 guntas 441/AA situated at Bowrampet village, Dundigal – Gandimaisamma mandal, medchal –

Malkajgiri District, T.S, the apartment within the land admeasuring Ac.0-05 guntas in

Sy.No.440/AA situated at Bowrampet Village, Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal, medchal –

Malkajgiri District, T.S with apartment with five floors and their entitled 40 % share in the said apartment and bounded by ;-

North:Part of Sy.No.440 & Neighbours land

South:Open plots

East:open plots

West : Neighbours land

SCHEDULE B- PROPERTY

All that the land admeasuring Ac.0-0150 guntas in Sy.No. 29/B Situated at

Bowrampet Village, Dundigal – Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri district, Telangana state and bounded by :-

North:Neighbour land

South:Neighbour land

East: Neighbour land

West : Neighbour land

Page No.7

OS.No. 25 of 2026

MEMO OF COSTS

PlaintiffsDefendants 1.Stamp on plaintRs. 1,786-00 --- 2.Stamp on VakalathRs. 2-00 exparte 3.Stamp on ProcessRs. 70-00 --- 4.Pleader feesRs. (FC not filed) --------------------------------------------------------------- Total Rs. 1,858-00 --- ---------------------------------------------------------------

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

Page No.8

OS.No. 962 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM

VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT MEDCHAL

Present: Ms. V. Sravani Yadav,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Medchal.

DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF APRIL, 2026

OS. No. 962 OF 2025

Between :

1. Smt. Nakka Jhansi W/o. Late Nakka Rajeswar Rao, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Household.

2. Nakka Hephzibah D/o. Late Nakka Rajeswar Rao, W/o. Kaki Thirumalesh, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.NO.4-3, Suraram Colony, Suraram Market Road, Quthbullapur, Medchal – Malkajgiri District.

3. Nakka Beulah D/o. Late Nakka Rajeswar Rao, Aged about 26 years, Occ: Household

4. Nakka Samuelraj Kumar S/o. Late Nakka Rajeswar Rao, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Private Work, No.1, 3 & 4 are R/o. H.NO.4-3, Suraram Colony, Jeedimetla, IDA Jeedimetla, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

… PLAINTIFFS

And

1. The Tahsildar/ M.R.O, Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District, Telangana State.

2.All Concerned.

...DEFENDANTS

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 02.04.2026 in the presence of Smt. Ch. Srilatha learned Counsel for plaintiffs and defendants remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying this court to declare them as legal heirs of deceased Late Sri. Nakka Rajeswar Rao.

Page No.1

OS.No. 962 of 2025

2.The Plaintiffs submit that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of the deceased Late Sri. Nakka

Rajeswar Rao and Plaintiffs No.2 &3 are the daughters of deceased Late Sri. Nakka

Rajeswar Rao and Plaintiff No.4 is the son of the deceased Late Sri. Nakka Rajeswar Rao who had died intestate on 09.05.2021 leaving behind the Plaintiffs herein as his legal heirs and therefore, the plaintiffs are exclusive Legal heirs of the said deceased Late Sri. Nakka

Rajeswar Rao. Except the Plaintiffs, there are no other legal heirs or successors to the deceased Late Sri. Nakka Rajeswar Rao.

3.It is submitted that during the lifetime of deceased Late Sri. Nakka Rajeswar Rao has purchased suit schedule A to C properties I.e house bearing No.7-122/2, on plot No.158, admeasuring 100.0 Sq yards or 83.67 Sq. mtrs with a plinth area of 425.0 Sq. Ft, RCC in

Sy.Nos. 299, 300 & 301 situate at Vinayaka Nagar, Quthbullapur Village and Mandal, Medchal

Malkajgiri District which is referred as Schedule -A property and the Schedule B property I.e

House Br.No. 04 – 004 on plot No.1115, admeasuring 142 Sq. yards or 118.71 Sq. mts. With plinth area of 180 Sq. Ft, in Sy.No.107 situated at Suraram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal,

Medchal Malkajgiri District and the Schedule C property I.e Plot No.130 admeasuring 275.0

Sq. yards or 229.9 Sq. meters in Sy.No.133/ / situated at Bahadurpally village and GP, dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

4. It is further submitted that after the demise of the deceased when the plaintiff No.1 intend to transfer the suit schedule of properties and approached concerned authority to mutate/ transfer the properties in the name of the plaintiff No.1 but concerned authority insisted the plaintiffs to obtain legal heirs declaration certificate from the court.

5. It is further submitted that the Plaintiffs have approached the Defendant No.1 for issuance of Legal heir certificate in the name of deceased person, but despite repeated visits to the Defendant No.1 refused to issue the Legal heir certificate to the Plaintiffs and the

Defendant No.1 orally advised the Plaintiffs to approach the competent Civil Court for

Declaration of Plaintiffs as legal heir of deceased Late Sri. Nakka Rajeswar Rao.

6.Therefore, the Plaintiffs have no other alternative, except to file the present suit before this Hon'ble Court to get the relief of grant for declaring the Plaintiffs as the legal heirs of the deceased person.

Page No.2

OS.No. 962 of 2025

7.After service of notice, the defendant No.1 failed to appear before the court and as such, he was set exparte. Plaintiff issued publication in daily newspaper but none appeared

before the court and filed any objections. Hence, the defendant No.2 is set exparte. The

proceedings against defendant No.1 & 2 were set exparte.

8.The plaintiff No.4 is examined as PW1. The documents are marked as under Exs.A1 to

A9 on behalf of Plaintiffs. The learned counsel for plaintiff submitted no further evidence.

Hence plaintiff evidence is closed.

9.The learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the plaintiffs are the only legal heir of the deceased and she further submitted that she has filed Exs.A7 to Ex.A9 I.e, Studies

Certificate of the plaintiff No.2 to 4 which reflects the name of the deceased as father of the plaintiff No.2 to 4 as such Exs.A7 to A9 which are sufficient to establish the relationship between the deceased and Plaintiffs. Counsel further submitted that he has filed Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.1 which shows that Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of the deceased and further submitted that he has approached Defendant No.1 for issuance of legal heir certificate but

Defendant No.1 refused and orally advised to approach the civil court and no written receipt was given by Defendant No.1 to that affect. The counsel has prayed this court to declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs of the deceased. Perused the record.

10. NOW THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION ARE:

1) Whether plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are entitled for decree declaring the legal status as legal heirs of deceased Late Sri. Nakka Rajeswar Rao ?

2) To what findings?

11. POINT NO.1:

The plaint pleadings are testified in the evidence of PW1. Ex.A1 is the Death Certificate of Deceased late Sri. N. Rajeshwar Rao. Ex.A2 is the Copy of Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.1

Ex.A3 is the copy of Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A4 is the Copy of Aadhar card of Plaintiff

No.3. Ex.A5 is the Copy of Aadhar care of Plaintiff No.4. Ex.A6 is the Copy of Ration card of

Plaintiffs. Ex.A7 is the Copy of SSC Certificate of Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A8 is the Copy of SSC

Certificate of Plaintiff No.3. Ex.A9 is the Copy of SSC Certificate of Plaintiff No.4. It is to be noted that since the defendants were set exparte, the evidence of PW1 remained

Page No.3

OS.No. 962 of 2025

unchallenged and unrebuttable and further no objections received from any corner to the publication issued by the plaintiffs.

12.Thus, the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with the documentary evidence vide Exs.A1 to

A9 proves that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Late Sri. Nakka Rajeswar Rao and as such, the plaintiffs are entitled to declare them as his legal heirs. This point is answered accordingly.

13.POINT NO.2:

In the result, suit is decreed in favor of plaintiffs No.1 to 4 declaring them to be legal heirs of the deceased Late Sri. Nakka Rajeswar Rao. There shall be no order as to the cost.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist directly on the system, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 22 nd day of April, 2026).

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants: PW1- Sri. N. Samuel Raj Kumar -NIL-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 is the Death Certificate of Deceased Late Sri. N. Rajeshwar Rao.

Ex.A2 is the Copy of Aadhar card of Plaintiff NO.1.

Ex.A3 is the Copy of Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A4 is the Copy of Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.3.

Ex.A5 is the Copy of Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.4.

Ex.A6 is the Copy of Ration card of Plaintiffs.

Ex.A7 is the Copy of SSC Certificate of Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A8 is the Copy of SSC Certificate of Plaintiff No.3.

Ex.A9 is the Copy of SSC Certificate of Plaintiff No.4.

For Defendants:

-NIL-

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

Page No.4

OS.No. 962 of 2025

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM

VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT MEDCHAL

Present: Ms. V. Sravani Yadav,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Medchal.

DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF APRIL, 2026

OS. No. 962 OF 2025

Between :

1. Smt. Nakka Jhansi W/o. Late Nakka Rajeswar Rao, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Household.

2. Nakka Hephzibah D/o. Late Nakka Rajeswar Rao, W/o. Kaki Thirumalesh, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.NO.4-3, Suraram Colony, Suraram Market Road, Quthbullapur, Medchal – Malkajgiri District.

3. Nakka Beulah D/o. Late Nakka Rajeswar Rao, Aged about 26 years, Occ: Household

4. Nakka Samuelraj Kumar S/o. Late Nakka Rajeswar Rao, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Private Work, No.1, 3 & 4 are R/o. H.NO.4-3, Suraram Colony, Jeedimetla, IDA Jeedimetla, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

… PLAINTIFFS

And

1. The Tahsildar/ M.R.O, Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District, Telangana State.

2.All Concerned.

...DEFENDANTS

CLAIM: Suit filed by the plaintiffs to declare them as legal heir of the deceased person i.e, deceased Late Sri. Nakka Rajeswar Rao.

CAUSE OF ACTION: The cause of action occurred to the plaintiff on 09.05.2021, when “ Nakka Rajeswar Rao” was expired and also when the plaintiffs tried to mutate Suit schedule properties in their names as well as to alienate the same to third parties and also when the third parties, are questioned the legal status of the plaintiffs and also on 25.11.2025. When the plaintiffs have personally approached the Defendant No.1 seeking obtain legal heirs / succession certificate for the purpose of mutation, and inturn the Defendant No.1 Orally suggested to plaintiffs that to approach competent civil court and to file a civil case seeking for declaration of legal heirs and succession certificate, and also the cause of action is stil susbsisting.

Page No.5

OS.No. 962 of 2025

VALUATION: The suit for the value for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and as such court fee paid Rs.1,786/- U/s. 24(d) of APCF and SV Act 1956.

Suit presented on:19.12.2025 Suit numbered on:19.12.2025

This suit came before me for final hearing on 02.04.2026 in the presence of Advocate Smt. Ch. Srilatha for Plaintiffs and the defendants set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following :-

1. That the Suit of the plaintiffs be and the same is hereby decreed declaring the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 as Legal heir of the deceased Late Sri. Nakka Rajeswar Rao.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of the court on this the 22nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

SUIT SCHEDULE A- PROPERTY

All that the House Bearing No.7-122/2, on plot No.158, admeasuring 100.0 Sq yards or 83.67 Sq. mtrs with a plinth area of 425.0 Sq. Ft, RCC in Sy.Nos. 299, 300 & 301 situate at Vinayaka Nagar, Quthbullapur Village and Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District., bounded by :

North:Neighbours Plot NO.159

South:Plot No.157

East:20’ Wide Road

West : Plot No.127

SUIT SCHEDULE B- PROPERTY

All that the House Bearing No.04-004 on plot No.1115, admeasuring 142 Sq.

yards oror 118.71 Sq. mts. With plinth area of 180 Sq. Ft, in Sy.No.107 situated at Suraram

Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District , bounded by :

North:House No.04-005, Plot No.1116

South:House NO.04-003, Plot No.1114

East: Road

West : House NO.3-367, Plot No.1128

Page No.6

OS.No. 962 of 2025

SUIT SCHEDULE C- PROPERTY

All that the Plot No.130 admeasuring 275.0 Sq. yards or 229.9 Sq. meters in

Sy.No.133/ / situated at Bahadurpally village and GP, dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal,

Medchal Malkajgiri District.

North:Plot No.131

South:Plot No.129

East:30’0 Wide Road

West : Plot No.151

MEMO OF COSTS

PlaintiffsDefendants 1.Stamp on plaintRs. 1,786-00 --- 2.Stamp on VakalathRs. 2-00 exparte 3.Stamp on ProcessRs. 70-00 --- 4.Pleader feesRs. (FC not filed) --------------------------------------------------------------- Total Rs. 1,858-00 --- ---------------------------------------------------------------

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

Page No.7

OS.No. 832 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM

VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT MEDCHAL

Present: Ms. V. Sravani Yadav,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Medchal.

DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

OS. No. 832 OF 2025

Between :

1. K. Ragini W/o. Late K. Nagesh, Aged about 32 years, Occ: household,

2. K. Sri Triman goud S/o. Late K. Nagesh, Aged about 8 years, Occ: Student, Rep. By his mother ( Plaintiff being a minor)

3. K. Smaran Goud S/o. Late Nagesh, Aged about 5 years, Rep. By his mother ( Plaintiff being a minor)

All the plaintiffs are R/o. H.No.13-54, New Lalbahadur Nagar, Shapur nagar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri district. … PLAINTIFFS

And

1. The Mandal Revenue Officer/ Tahsildar,

2.All Concerned.

...DEFENDANTS

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 09.04.2026 in the presence of Smt. T. Madhuri learned Counsel for plaintiffs and defendants remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying this court to declare them as legal heirs of deceased Late Sri. K. Nagesh.

2.The Plaintiffs submit that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of the deceased Late Sri. K. Nagesh and Plaintiffs No.2 &3 are the sons of deceased Late Sri. K. Nagesh who had died intestate on 23.06.2021 leaving behind the Plaintiffs herein as his legal heirs and therefore, the

Page No.1

OS.No. 832 of 2025

plaintiffs are exclusive Legal heirs of the said deceased Late Sri. K. Nagesh. Except the

Plaintiffs, there are no other legal heirs or successors to the deceased Late Sri. K. Nagesh.

3.It is submitted that the plaintiffs are the only surviving legal heirs of deceased to succeed to all the estate of deceased such as bank balance, death claim benefits and other properties.

4. It is further submitted that the Plaintiffs have approached the Defendant No.1 on 30.09.2024 for issuance of Legal heir certificate in the name of deceased person, but despite repeated visits to the Defendant No.1 refused to issue the Legal heir certificate to the

Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 orally advised the Plaintiffs to approach the competent Civil

Court for Declaration of Plaintiffs as legal heir of deceased Late Sri. K. Nagesh.

6.Therefore, the Plaintiffs have no other alternative, except to file the present suit before this Hon'ble Court to get the relief of grant for declaring the Plaintiffs as the legal heirs of the deceased person.

7.After service of notice, the defendant No.1 failed to appear before the court and as such, he was set exparte. Plaintiff issued publication in daily newspaper but none appeared

before the court and filed any objections. Hence, the defendant No.2 is set exparte. The

proceedings against defendant No.1 & 2 were set exparte.

8.The plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW1. The documents are marked as under Exs.A1 to

A8 on behalf of Plaintiffs. The learned counsel for plaintiff submitted no further evidence.

Hence plaintiff evidence is closed.

9.The learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the plaintiffs are the only legal heir of the deceased and she further submitted that she has filed Exs.A6 & Ex.A7 I.e, Birth

Certificate of the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 which reflects the name of the deceased as father of the plaintiff No.2 & 3 as such Exs.A6 & Ex.A7 which are sufficient to establish the relationship between the deceased and Plaintiffs. Counsel further submitted that he has filed Aadhar card of Plaintiff No.1 which shows that Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of the deceased and further submitted that he has approached Defendant No.1 for issuance of legal heir certificate but

Defendant No.1 refused and orally advised to approach the civil court and no written receipt was given by Defendant No.1 to that affect. The counsel has prayed this court to declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs of the deceased. Perused the record.

Page No.2

OS.No. 832 of 2025

10. NOW THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION ARE:

1) Whether plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are entitled for decree declaring the legal status as legal heirs of deceased Late Sri. K. Nagesh ?

2) To what findings?

11. POINT NO.1:

The plaint pleadings are testified in the evidence of PW1. Ex.A1 is the Original Death

Certificate of Deceased late Sri K. Nagesh. Ex.A2 is the Aadhar card of the deceased late K.

Nagesh. Ex.A3 is the Aadhar card of the Plaintiff No.1. Ex.A4 is the Aadhar card of the

Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A5 is the Aadhar card of the Plaintiff No.3. Ex.A6 is the Birth Certificate of the Plaintiff No.2. Ex.A7 is the Birth Certificate of the Plaintiff No.3. Ex.A8 is the Copy of

Marriage Certificate. It is to be noted that since the defendants were set exparte, the evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged and unrebuttable and further no objections received from any corner to the publication issued by the plaintiffs.

12.Thus, the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with the documentary evidence vide Exs.A1 to

A8 proves that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Late Sri. K. Nagesh and as such, the plaintiffs are entitled to declare them as his legal heirs. This point is answered accordingly.

13.POINT NO.2:

In the result, suit is decreed in favor of plaintiffs No.1 to 3 declaring them to be legal heirs of the deceased Late Sri. K. Nagesh. There shall be no order as to the cost.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist directly on the system, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 28 th day of April, 2026).

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

Page No.3

OS.No. 832 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants: PW1- Sri. K. Ragini -NIL-

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 is the Original Death Certificate of Deceased late Sri K. Nagesh.

Ex.A2 is the Aadhar card of the deceased late K. Nagesh.

Ex.A3 is the Aadhar card of the Plaintiff No.1.

Ex.A4 is the Aadhar card of the Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A5 is the Aadhar card of the Plaintiff No.3.

Ex.A6 is the Birth Certificate of the Plaintiff No.2.

Ex.A7 is the Birth Certificate of the Plaintiff No.3.

Ex.A8 is the Copy of Marriage Certificate.

For Defendants:

-NIL-

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

Page No.4

OS.No. 832 of 2025

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM

VII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT MEDCHAL

Present: Ms. V. Sravani Yadav,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Medchal.

DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

OS. No. 832 OF 2025

Between :

1. K. Ragini W/o. Late K. Nagesh, Aged about 32 years, Occ: household,

2. K. Sri Triman goud S/o. Late K. Nagesh, Aged about 8 years, Occ: Student, Rep. By his mother ( Plaintiff being a minor)

3. K. Smaran Goud S/o. Late Nagesh, Aged about 5 years, Rep. By his mother ( Plaintiff being a minor)

All the plaintiffs are R/o. H.No.13-54, New Lalbahadur Nagar, Shapur nagar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri district. … PLAINTIFFS

And

1. The Mandal Revenue Officer/ Tahsildar,

2. All Concerned.

...DEFENDANTS

CLAIM: Suit filed by the plaintiffs to declare them as legal heir of the deceased person i.e, deceased Late Sri. K. Nagesh.

CAUSE OF ACTION: The cause of action for the suit arose on 23.06.2021 when K. Nagesh died intestate, on the dates when late K. Nagesh on 30.09.2024 when the plaintiffs approached Mandal revenue Officer/ Tahsildar for issuance of legal heir certificate and on the dates when they refused to issue legal heir certificate and the cause of action is continuing.

VALUATION: The suit for the value for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and as such court fee paid Rs.1,786/- U/s. 24(d) of APCF and SV Act 1956.

Suit presented on:09.11.2025 Suit numbered on:09.11.2025

Page No.5

OS.No. 832 of 2025

This suit came before me for final hearing on 09.04.2026 in the presence of Advocate Smt. T. Madhuri for Plaintiffs and the defendants set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following :-

1. That the Suit of the plaintiffs be and the same is hereby decreed declaring the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 as Legal heir of the deceased Late Sri. K. Nagesh.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of the court on this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

MEMO OF COSTS

PlaintiffsDefendants 1.Stamp on plaintRs. 1,786-00 --- 2.Stamp on VakalathRs. 2-00 exparte 3.Stamp on ProcessRs. 70-00 --- 4.Pleader feesRs. (FC not filed) --------------------------------------------------------------- Total Rs. 1,858-00 --- ---------------------------------------------------------------

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

Page No.6