1. Rekala Andalu v. A. fiampoorna Rani

...RESPONOENT'RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF IA NO: 5(JF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated intheaffidavitfiledinSupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepieasedto grant stay against Judgment and Decree dated 2l-10-2024 in AS No '101 of 20.lgonthefileofthellAddl.DistrictJudge,RangaReddyDistrictatLB'Nagar in confirnring the Decree and Judgment dated'21-06-2019 passed in O S' No' 1438 of 2012 on the file of Vll Addl senior Civil Judge' Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar including execution proceedings' Counsel for the Appellants: Sri S' Jagadish Counsel for the ResPondents: The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT d HON'BLE SRI JTISTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.321 of2025 JUDGMENT: The Second Ap1_rcal is filed aggrievecl by the judgment and decrce, dalcd 21.ro.2024, perssed by the It Additional Dir;tricr JrLdge, Ranga Redd1. at L.B.Nagar in A.S.No. 1Oi of 2O19, by r,r,hich lhe judgrnent and decree, dated 27.06.2019, passed by the VII Additional Se,ior Civi) Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in O.S.No.i4iJ8 of 20 12 was confirmed. 2 'l'he appellants herein are defencrants and responclent herein is plaintifl in t-he sui.it. For convenience , hereinafter the parties zLre relerred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief lacts of the case as averred in the plaint are that plarntiff filed suit o.S.No. L43B ol 2012 seeking delivery of house property bearing Nc,.4-2-83/4, aclmeasuring 123 Sq.yds, situatecl at Anumagal Nagar, Hayathnagar trnder Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporatitr,r, L.B.Nagar circle, R.R.District (hereinarter callecl 'suit sched,i.: property') a,d for cancellation of r,vill cieed bearing doc. llo.4 of 2oo2, clated os.o2.2oo2. In trre plaint it is zrverred that late chernd.amrrra. is; orvner of suit schedule proirerty ancl she is llrc rrothe.' of plaintiff'r; l'Lusband. It is 1ur1.l-Ler averied 2

5.A.No.321 of 2025 that irusban<l of plaintiff namely Sri A.Nagdr-der illhcrited the suit schcclule propert) h'onr his mothel' late Ciri'.ndram nra being the onl-v son; that defendant Nos.1 to 5 are daughters of Chandramtna's sistct' and dcfenciant No.6 is husband of del-endant No. 1; that cluring the lifetime of Chandra.nma, the defendants were in occupation of the suit schedule prol)3rty as tenants, as the hust>and of the plaintiff rvas worl<ing at Vishakhapatuam; that r.r,hcn the plaintiff's husbancl requested tho dcfcndalts to vacate the l;uit schedule property, they informed hirn that he has no right over the suit schedule property. Aggrieved lry the same, plaintiff's husband fliecl suit in O.S.No.1018 of 2C03 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar to declare him as lega1 heir of late Chaldramma and the said suit was decreecl on 21.12.2OO9 on merits; that the plaintiff's husband expi red on 27 .Ol .2O 1 O leaving bchind the plaintiff as his sole succ:essor

3. 1. It is further averred that the defendants created a will deed in rr:spect of suit schedule property as if the said Chandrarnma executed the same in favour of dcfendant Nos.l to 5 and the original u.il1 deed was filed and marked as Ex.B2 in O.S.No.1018 of 2t)03 u,hrch does not contain signature oI Chandramma except thurnb impression; that Chandramma worked in Social Welfare LNl. J S.A.No.32 I of 202J Department and she is literate and expired on OZ.O2.2OO2 and the will deed was executed on 05.02.2002 which is two days prior to her death, which is fabricated and hence, the suit.

3.2. Defendants filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint arrd averred that Chandrarnma executed registered will deed vide Doc.No.O4 of 2OO2, d.ated OS.O2.2OO2 bequeathing her propert.ies inch_rding the suit schedule property rn favour of defendalts and the same was marked as Ex.B2 in O.S.No.l018 of 20O3 and the respondent/ptaintiff has knowledge about execution of registerecl wilt deed in the year 2003 itsetf, hence, the suit is barred by limitation; that defendants preferred appeal against decree dated 21.12.2OO9 passed in O.S.No.1O1B of 2003 in A.S.No. l2l of 20 lO on the file of I Additionat District .-ludge, Ranga Reddl' District and same is reserved for jlrclgment; that deferrdants have become orvners of ,.ir_rit schedule property by virtue of will deed dated 05.02.2002 and, their names have been mutated in the records and are paying municipal taxes, \ /ater bil1s, electricity bills rL'r t1 that thcre is no cause of o.ction a,cl thus, pra]/ed to dismiss the suit.

4. C)n the basis of the above pleadings of both tl-re parties, the trial Court framecl the lbllowing iss;ues fcr trial:, t S.A.No.32lof 2025 4 1) V4t<:ttrcr one Ccld Cnand.ranruna utfe of A Muchualu purcl Lase suit schedule propertg by l:r; eanr,ings and on her death the same wcts utheited by h.er son A.ltagender the l^tusband of tlrc plainttff herei.n? 2) Whether the ttusbantl of the plainttfi bg ncone A. Nagender Jiled O.S.No. 1018 of 2003 o;t the file of II Adcll. Sr. Ciuil Judge, R.R.distnct and got a .judgnent ond decree in ltis fauour cLt. 21.12-.2009 tn u,hich he tuos deciared as the legal lrcir and owner of the sLLit scheduLe propertA? 3) Ll,4trther the plaintiff on the cieath of A-Nactender ort 27.01.2010 is the outner and the tttle holder of tlrc suit sclrcdt e propertlJ and erttitled for declctration as prayed in the plair"t? 4) Wh.ether the plaintiff is entitled for tLrc relief oJ possession of the- suit schedule propetll1 as prayed in the ploint? 5) Whetlrcr there is a ualid tttill deed doc. No.4 of 2002 dated.02.2002 of tlrc offtce of Sub-Registrar. Hyderabad Dast executed bg Goli Chundramrtta in fauour of defendants No.1 to 5? 6) Whetlrcr the defendants occupied the suit schedule propefta duing the life time of Goli Chctndrclmmu as per tenants? 7) Wlrcther the ptaintiff is entitlecl for the cancellation of the registered uill deed doc. no.0'1 of 2002, dt. A5.02.2002 of the Office of Sub-Registrc;r. llydetobad East exea)ted bg Goli Chandramma tn Jauour of defendants no. 1 to 5 as praged in the plaint? 8) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is borred by time as plainl:iff had krtowledge about the utill in the year '* -. 2003 itself? / LNA, J S.A.No.32l of 2025 5 9) Whether the defendants no. j to S are the ou)ners of the suit schedule property bg uirtue of ualid_ legat bequeath in their fauour by wag of registerecl u_till deed doc.no.O4 of 2002 dt.05.02.2002 of the Ofilce of Sub-Registrar, Hyderobad Ec.st exeajtecl by Goli Chandrammain fauour of defendants no. 1 to 5? 10) To uhat reliel?

5. During the course ol trial on behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff herself was examined as PWl and Exs.Al to A7 were marked- On behalf of defendants, DWl and 2 ,"vere examinecl and got marl(ed Ex. B1 to Ex.B6.

6. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentar5r evidence and the contentions of both the parties, the trial court decree the suit partly uid-e Judgment and decree dated 2I .06 .2019, cleclaring the plaintiff as owner of suit sctreduie property and defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are directecl to deliver the vaca.nt possession of the sr_rit schedule property to the plaintiff within three months from the date of the judgment. The trial Court while decreeing the suit.made following observations:

13. Plaintiff relied upon Dx. At to AZ. Ex. A7;s deposition of DWl who is the defend_ant in OS. no. 1018 of 2003. He- admitted that as per Ex.Al4 tuh.ich is desciptiue rolls contains siqnature of Chandramma. Ex.A14 also contain plntograph of ,l 6 S.A.No.32l of 202 Cltondramrna L'Jtd arLotlter persorL is shotttittg. He also admitted that the list of J amily tnenrbers attached to Ex.A1 conta ts the name of Nogendet as a -sorl. In arLnexllre II nonination ttttoched to lix A 1 it is slultuittg the rta nte of Nagender and the adclress a.n.d notninee being son, in the opplication fonn het seruice pension attached to Ex.Ai the address after reliretilent is mentioned as Flat rrc. 3 l, Sunita Apctrtrruents, Tirumala nagar, Bagh Amberpet.

14. Irrom these lines it clearlg sltottts that A. Nagerider uas the legal heir of G. Chandramtna on that pretext, PW1 got ou-tnership and tille ouer the sr]j,.t sched.ule property. The suit schedule prope'rty is not disputed as the property is o self auluired propertA and tle finat ites uere attended bg Nagender and he hos lcnoutledge that there is a propertg in the nome of ltis trtother. Tlrcrefore, tlrc ptaintiff is ettitled for declarotion as prayed in the plaint. 20, Though the defendan.ts are relying upon Ex A1 that the Chctndramrna executed uill deed in their fauour all the tuitnesses on Ex.Al ore same familg rnernbers and Dx.Al also scibe by DW'1 all the am.enities of Chandramma before her death she is utos bed ridden ond tcLking aduantoge of that theg prepared o forged and fabicated uill deed to grab the propertg from plaintiff herein. On perusol of Ex-A1 there is a thumb impression of G.Chandrantma, there is a signature in seruice book also, she put her signature and she alu.tag s put her signature and neuer put thumb impression. Though tlrcy obtained thumb impression on Dx.A1 they did not utite any 1 LNA, J S.A.No.32 t of 2025 recital that she uas suffeing from paralysis and. she was unable to put her signature. Therefore, theg obtained the thumb impress[on.

7. Aggrieved by the jtrdgment and decree dated 21.06.2019, the defendants preferred appeal vide A.S.No. 101 of 2019 on the file of II Additional District Judge, ltanga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. f'he first Appellate court, being the 1inal fact_finding court, re_ appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record and dismissed the Appear, vide Jucrgment and decree, dated 21..10.2024 by confirming the Jucigment and decree passed by the trial Court.

8. The first Appellate Court in its judgment observed S hereunder:- Furth.er, the plaintiffs are aiso disputing genuineness of the u_till by contending that testator bg name ,'Chantd_ramma,, tuas sick and is not. in a sourLd ancl d.isposing state of rnincl as on the d_ate of execution of Lhe said. u.tilt i.c., Ex.ltl. Irurlher, the said uill is said to be exeanterj only tulo d.ags prior to her death. tn lhis regarcl, u_thile cross exarnining DW1 it is sttggested to DV./1 th.Ltt thell Jiaud.ttlenttg obtained tlumb impression of ,,Goli Chonclramma,, on Dx.Al bg takinq adlantage oJ lrcr slckness uhictt. is denied bg DW1. l 8 1_A S.A.No.32l of 202 On pentsal of Dx.A1 tuill and the recitals th.ere und.er there is a clear mention thereh that the lestator u)as sufferhq front ill hectlth uthicit lends support to the cort.tentiort of the plahtrff tltat soid ChantdrcLmtna" zuo.s .sick and suffeing .frotn ill health as on the d.ate of Dx.A1. Further, in the enttre recitals of the uill, thete is no mention (or) reJerence abortt Lrcr sorz '4. I{agender" and no r?asons are mentioned tlrcrein as to tplt.u he utas excluded rultich roises suspicion about the g<zrtuineness of the said uill. Duen otheru.ttse, the defendartts failed to exomine any onl: o.f the attestors of will so as to proue Lhe due e-xecttLion of the uill in compltance of Sec 68 Indian Euldence Act, 1872 and failed to proue that it is trute and uctlid one and on that ground alorrc the plea of the defendonts on the basis of tlze soid uill does not susfairl Consequentlg the pleo of the plaintiff su.stain.s ancl the husband of the plainttff ba name "A. N arlentler" being the otly son of "Chandramtna" succe.eds the plaint schedule propeflA by inheitance as per Sec. 15 of lTindu Successioru Act, 1956 ofter the hfe time of "Chandramma" In proof o-f death of "Chandramma" and in proof of death of her husband, tlte plaintiff ctot marked tlrcir Death CertiJicates as Ex. A3 and Dx.A4. Furtlter in proof of dectth of "A. Nagender" the plointiff relied upon tlte Ex. A3 / Death CertiJlcate of "A.Nagender". Hence the pLaintiff tuho is oclmittedly the uife of "t\.Nagender" tulzo ls lssueless succeeds his property i.e., plaint schedule propertA as his sole legol heir as per Sec. 8 of Hindu .S-uccession Ac| 1956. I-Ience, the ptaintiff is entitled for the relieJ' 9 LAIA, J 5.,1.No.321 of 2025 of declaration of titLe as the defendants faited. to proue that the registered wiil d.eed. dt. 05.02.2003 is ct true and ualid document.

9. Aggrie'ed by the abo'e judgment and decree dated 21 .10.2024, present second appeal is filed.

10. Heard Sri S.Jagadish, learned counsel Perused the entire material on record. for the appellants. 1 1 . Learned counsel for the appellants lvould submit that respondent/ plaintiff '"r,as impleaded as respondent after death of A. Nagender being his legal heir in the appeal filcd bv the appellants challerrging the judgment and decree dated 21. 12.2OOg in O.S.No.lOlB of 2003. t{e further. submitted that in O.S.No. 1438 of 2012, in the cross examin:ition, the responclent admitted that she rrras aware that her husbalcl filed suit in O.S.No.1018 of 2OO3 to declare him as iegal l-reir of G.Chandramma and thus the respondent has kno.rvLedge abor,r t execntion o{' registered rvill deecr rlated 05.02.2002 a,d rvherea:;, she filed suit for cancellation of u,i[] deed in ,;he year ,2012. I{e would furtlier sub*lt that a suit for canceilatior-r of document has to be filed within thrce years tiom the date of knowledge, thr.rs, st1?q filed by responclent is clcrLrl1, trarreci by limitettion trncler Section 2[) and 3 rcaC rvith Sche,:lule part (iii)(S6) o I l.imitation 'r. LN'A, ,] S.;|.|t'o.321 of 2025 t0 Act. I{,lr,l,ever, thrs aspect was tlot propcrly appreciated -by both the Cor,trts a1ld have come to erroneolts fiirdings' despite speciflc objcr:ticn raiscd by the appeliants' Iie wonkl furthel subrnit that both tlle Courrts have committcd error in dccreeing the suit on per\rerse finclings and thlrs, praycd to allou' tire Second appeal' In support of his contentions learneci counsel relicd upon 12 tl-re fcliorving judgme nts: t Lt. tlftd.. Noor-ul lloda Vs'Bibi Raifunnisal Mc-Ilc;uua V s. Ko,lsantrclno;t'rr'rct Y'al;ii''trta2 tii. Raipat Singh I/s' Saro.l (Deceased)3 iu. Metapalli Lorsurr- Bo:i qnd others 'is' MetapalTi Muttniah (D) bg Lr{'

13. .A perusal ot record r'vou1d disciosc that the both thc Courts have ,:oncurrently held that appellants/ defendants failed to prove thc v,il1 decd ciated O5'O2'2OO2' Both the Courts specifically observed that as on the date of execution of will' ti-re testatrix was sick ald onl1' thumb impression .'vas taken otl rt'ill deed dcspite the fact that the testatrix can sign as she is lii'erat-c and rvorked in Social Welfare Department and morcover' r'ritttcsses of the lvill i ' 1996 (7) scc 767 '7Q24 SCC Ont-ine sc 3846 ' rnws 1sc1-zo2z-s-oz o 2025 scc onLinc sc 1488 LNA, J 5.,1.No.321 of 2025 were not examined. The first Appellate court has also observed that husbald of respondent/plaintiff i.e, A.Nagender is the only son of Chandrarnma, however, there is no vr/hisper in the will deed as to excltrsion of her only son, therefore, it raises suspicion as to the gcnuinity of the will. 14 It is relevant to refer to the judgment dated IZ .07.2025 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.35O9-3510 of 201O in "Gurdial Singh (Deed) through LR v. Jagir Kaur (Dead) and Anr. Etc,,"s the Hon'ltle Supreme Court held that: "Ontrs l.ies on the propounder not only to prove due exe cution but dispel from thc mind of the Court, all suspicious circumstances which cast doubt on the free disposing mind of the testatrix. Onl1,,'.vhen the propouncler dispcls the suspicious circumstances and satished the conscience of the Court that the testatrix had duly cxecutcd the \\,iI out of her lree voUtion wiLhout coercion cr. unduc influence, rvould will be acceptccl as genuine."

16. We are conscious that deprivation of a natnral hejr, bv itsell, nray not amtlint to a suspiclous circltmstance because tl.rc whole iciea behir:ci (he execution of the Will is to intcrierc vvith the norrnal linc of succession r.equires reason for clenying the bcneht of inhetitance to natural heir.s and an absence o[ it, tholrgh not invaliciatjng tl-re Will in arll cases, shrouds the disposition with s'.rspicion as it does not givc inl<ling to the mind of the testator to crable the Court to judge tl-rat tl-rc disposition rvas a vcluntary act. ' 'zozhrusc soo e.

5.,'1.No.32 I of 2 12

15. F-tLrther, there is no evidcnce o11 iJCCrd to sholr' that respcnc.ent/ plaintiff \^ras awarc of execut;':--r of wl11 clced Cated 05.O2.2OO2, much ptior to '2010' The respcadent zrdmitted that her hur;band liled O.S No lO13 of 2003' trr-r'"icvcr' tircre is nr:ither eviclenc,e nor admission by rcsponcient tl-rtr'l' 'shc was awan'e of marl(ing of r.vill clecd dated O5'02 2OO2 in the suit'

16. lt-r considered oPinion of i.e., O.S.No.1Oi8 of 2003 bY riean that, shc r'r'as awarc of this Court ;.r.t:l-tission of filing sutt l-rusband ot i-esPondent does not cxcctrtion of '-';11 ciatcd 05 02 '2002 the suit. Fu;:tircr, admittedlY, the and rrrarl<ing ol thc same in resporLdent 'A/as not examincd in O'S'No' 1C I B of 2003 and she rvas impleaclcd as respondetrt in the api:cal pieferred by the appcllants aftcr death of her hr'rsband in thc yea- 20 10 and suit for cancellation of will deed w'as filed in 2012 It. has to be held that responclcnt/ plaintiff was not aware of c::ecution of will deecl prior to her impleadment as party in the appeal in 2010' therefore' the srrit filed b5' respondent/plaintiff in the Ytar 2Ol2 is rvithin the perio 1 of limitation.

1.7. kt M.D.Noorul Hada (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is true that Article 59 of the Limil ation Act would be -/ E t3 LN,1, J S.A.No.32 I of 202 5 applicable if a person affected is a party to a decree or an instrument or a contrait which was questioned by initiation of a suit Article 59 would appry to set aside the decrees, instruments or contracts between the parties inter se. However, in the case of a person claiming title through a party to the decree or instrument or contract who seeks to avoid the instrument, contract or decree by a specific declaration, the starting point of limitation under Article 59 would be the date of knowledge of the fraud and/ or illegality rvhich renders the decree and/or instrument ancl/or other document voicl. 1B In Mqllauua (supra) the Honble Supreme Court held that

38. ....Ordinarily when, a suit is filed for cancellation of Sale Decd ancl recove:ty of possession, thc same rvould suggest that the title of the plaintiff has already been lost. By seeking to get the Sale Deed set aside on the grounds as may have been urged in the plaint, the plaintifl could be saiC to be trying to regain his title over the suit proper-ty ancl recover the possession. In such circumstances, the period of limitation wourld be threc years and not trrvelve vears.

19. Rajpal Singh (supra) the Ilon,ble Suprerne Courrt observed as under: " 14. The submission on behalf of l-he original plaintiff (now representecl l.hrough her hcirs) that the \ :l 14 S.A.*"o.321 of 2 praycr in the suit was also for recoverl' of the possession and therefore the said suit was filed q.ithin thc period of twelve years and therefore thc suit has been fi1ed within the period of limitation, cannot be accepted. Relief for possession is a consequential prayer and thc substantivc prayer was of cat-rccllalion of the sale deed dated 19-4- I996 and therelore , the limitation pcriod is required to be considercd with respect [o the substantrve reiief claimcd and not the consequcntial relief When a composite suit is hled for canccllation of thc sale cleed as well as for rccovery of the possession, the limitation period is required to be con siderred r'r'ith respect to the substantive rclief of cancellation of the sale deed, which would be three years frotn the date of the knowledge of the sale deed sought to be cancellcd. Therefore, the suit, which was filed by the original plaintiff tbr cancellation of the sale deed, cal-r be said to bc substantive tl-rcrefore the same was clearh' barrccl by iimitalion. Flence, the lcarned trial court ought to have dismissed [hc suit on the ground that the suit rvas barred by limitation- As such the learncd hrst appellate court was justificd and right in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and consequently dismissing the suit. The High Court has committed a grave error in quashing and sctting asidc a well- reasoned and a detaiied judgment and order passed by the first appellate court dismissing the suit and conscquently restoring the judgment and decree passed by the trial court." \ I l5 LNA, J S.A.No.32l oJ 2025

20. Metapalli Lasum Bai died, and. ors (supra) the Hon,ble Supreme Court held that:

10. The genuineness of the Will is also beyond doubt because it not only confers the right and title over a part of the land owned by the Testator. M_ Rajanna to the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, but it also grants a lion,s share of the property to the defendant- Muthaiah. FIad it been the intention of M. Rajanna to deprive the defendant-Muthaiah of the land or if the Will had been manipulated, then the defenrlant- Muthaiah could have been left out completely from gaining any benefits under the Will.

11. In wake o[ the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm vieu, that the trial Cour[ was fully justified in decreeing the slrit for cleclaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff_Lasr_rm Bai and granting her absolute rights over the suit scl-redule ltroperties including t.hc disputed property admeasuring 4 acres and 16 guntas which was sold to Janardhan Reddy vide registered sale cleed dated 22nd Novernber, 1.994. Tine view taken by the trial Court being based on aLrropos appreciation of the evidence and Lhe prevailing legal principles is unassailable in facts as well as in law. 2I Absolutely, there is no quarrel r.rdth the ratio laid dowr in the above Jr.rdgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for \ appellabt. I{o'"vever, izrcts ancl circumstances of above case and l(r

5.,4.h'o. j2l of 2 the presett case arc col1lpletely diffcrent and as sL1c1-I the sarne have no appllcation to the presenL facts of the cas;e.

22. ln coi-rsiclcrecl opinion o{ this Court, learned counscl for thc appellarrts failcd to t aisc any sr.rbstmlizrl ciuestions of larv to be deciiled by this Court in this Seconcl Appeal. In fact, al1 thc grounds raised in this appeal are factual in nature alrd do not qualify eLs lhe substantial cluestiotts of law in tcrms o1 Section 100 C.P.C.

23. It is r,vell settled principle by a catena of declsions of the I{on'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 1OO C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere rvith thc findir.rgs on facts arrived at by the first Appellate Court, u'ttich are bascd on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record.

24. Further, in Gurdcu Kaur a. Kakia, the Apex Court held that the Hlgh Court sitting in Second Appcal cannot examine the evidr:nce once again as a third trial Court and the povrer under Section iOO C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only whe.re a substantiai question of 1aw is raised and fal1s for consideration. -\\_- 6 (2OCi:J 1 Supreme Court Cases 546 aXl:' :i* e t7 LNA, J 5.A.No.321 of 2025

25. Having considered the entire material avaiiable on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as first Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said findings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by tire appellants a-re factual in nature ald no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises, for consideration in ttris Second Appeal.

26. Hence, the Second Appeal fails and the same is accorclingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. 27 . Pending miscellaneouLs applications, il any, sha11 stand closed. SD,-N.c ANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR IITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, I The Vll Additional Senior Civil Judge' Ranga Reddy at L B Nagar The ll Additional District Judge' Ranga Reddy District at L B' One CC to Sri S. Jagadish' Advocate iOPUCI 2 J 4. Two CD CoPies vH/gh \q, HIGH COURT DATED: 0710812025 JUDGMENT SA.No.321 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION e> (r'{ W-a-.,t {$* . _,. ,:::1-ti::.-_ .,1 ' . ., .":- ;, ; .-;; '.- ,:-': . /'- | \\ :. '., ,,,.,.\. I r- l': ,r i, .:': i,;. , : lil ?1L5 i:,:i - 'r',1 ',', li' \. . .r,. i. -^ - .\