The High Court · 2025

tne anioaviiiirel ;;":ff:,fi.i:1 cPC prayins rhat in rhe cjrcumstances stated in p1,-",r:[:;'l',i:5".i,1!:'";:rijil:'ti,.l!t{i.^lii:Hfl y.*# tor trial of cases under SCi Ranga Reddy Distric, ar ,-;itr'"1t,'.^1ffi: '"J*i-:'Hi;t"i:ffi:::iS',.',i"#.i,:i,T Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. N Mukund Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Sri A Alavender Goud ctvt L REVIS roN PETITI ON NO :42 32 0F 2017 'igs;;# 9j lnola, prayins that in the H"'i:.?:t!8ii53,ili:;::"1*,']t"lvffi "ir"rr"tin?tltlo:,j[t";iil:: -?27 ?r :?e constiturion flift i1;ill?"ff speciar sessions Judoe ror tponii.t, s*k"1"?:?ry,!tu?:f :,jl#!?;ffi ,#::;t;1,,;,[t;;i"?;u;ii1t or the tt Additionai s"r,il?rrli Judse, R R. oi.,i.t?,I'e" i,r|r"J il:i$"court n a Between: SMT. AIluri Vidvatatha. Household, R/o H.No.1 Road, Kukatpally,Hydera - W/o late ARK Raju, Aged about 51 vears. Occ 'Nizamapet :2-481311. Hydernagar, Near Seven hills, AND ...Petitioner/RespondenVplai ntiff '1. D. Ramachandra Raiu. S/o late Sri Rama Raju, Aged about 54 years, Occ i"Io, business, R/o. H.No.2-43lr ano z_+s)1, Hy.iE,iigXri,iihd", kukatpally, Hyderabad. 'i.lrp"i 2. Smt. D. Sujatha, W/o D. Ramachandra Raju, Aged about 49 years, Occ Housewife, Rio H.No.2-4913, Hydernagar riiil'"g6, Ni.";np"t r6ad, Xutiipaily, Hyderabad. 3 Y.t. P Vijayashanrhi, D/o D Ramachandra Raju, Aged 2t years, Occ Student, R/o H.No 2-4913, Hydernagar riilage,'Niz;;r-pet rolO, Xltai[a,y, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Appel lants/Defendants Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. N Mukund Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri A Alavender Goud The Court delivered the following: ORDER 7 n Fl THE HONOTIRABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA SECOND APPEALNo.101 0f2017 I\PPEAL SUIT No.87 1O4 and 7O7 of 2Ot7 CTVIL REVISION PETITI ONNo.4232 of2OL7 COMMON JUDGMENT: A.S.Nos.S7, 1O4 and IOZ of 2Ol7 are hled against ttre Judgment a-rrd decree dated 23.11.2O16 in O.S.No .439 oI 2OO9, O.S.No.199 of 2Ol4 and O.S.No.759 of 2OO8 respectively, passed by t1.e learned Specia-l Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 cum Vll-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. S.A.No. 101 of 2Ol7 is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 23.11.2016 in A.S.No.166 of 2O1O, passed by ttre learned Specia-l Judge for tria-l of cases under SCs & STs (pOA) Act, 1989 cum Vll-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

3. C.R.P.No.4232 of 2Ol7 is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 23.1L.2016 in C.M.A.No.49 of 2OlO, passed by the learned Sper;ial Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (pOA) Act, 1989 cum Vll-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy' District at L.B.Nagar. z

4. Since all tJ:e matters are a-rising out of the common judgment ald decree dated 23'11'2016, the second appeal and the C.R.P are posted along with A'S'Nos'87' 104 and 1O7 of 2Ol7 , wittrthe permission of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice'

5. Since the suit property is one and tJ:te same in al1 the cases, they were clubbed along with o'S'No'439 of 2ol9 and the evidence was adduced in the said Suit' A common judement dated. 23.11.2016 was passed in O'S'No'439 of 2019 and a preliminary decree was granted for partition of suit schedule property. In the said common judgment' O'S'No'759 of 2OO8 and O.S.No.19 9 of 2Ol4 were dismissed and C'M-A'No'49 of 2O10 and A.S'No.166 of 2O1O were allowed' As the present appeals are arising out of the common judgment passed in O.S.No.439 of 2OO9, tJle parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the said suit for t.l.e sake of convenlence

6. One D. Ramachandra Raju is the Plaintiff' Saraswathi is defendant No. 1, Vijay Mohan Raju is defendant No' 2 and one Vidyalatha is defendant No' 3, who are sons and daughters of late D.Srirama Raju and Da'ndu Venkamma' l 7 . It is the case of the plaintiff t1lat his father purchased the agricultural land measuring ar extent of Ac.O.1O gts., in Sy.No.123, situated at Nizampet Road, Hydernagar, Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District, from the farmers under an agreement and a receipt marked under Exs.A2 ald A3. The father of the plaintiff got constructed a residential portion bearing H.No.2- 49/3loldNo.2-2a/C/Bl with AC Sheets and made it a dwelling house witl. the help of Plaintiff. Fatier of the plaintiff died in the year 1993 in a road accident and after his death, the plaintiffs mother being the family head paid tax and got regularized f00 Sq. Yds. Subsequently, plaintiff also got constructed tJle house bearing No. 2-43/3, in the suit schedule property with his oqm funds. It is further contended by the plaintiff that he along with his mother gave several representations to tfre State Governmenl to regularize the propertlr in her name ald the sarne was regularized in the name of plaintiff s mother viz., D.Venkamma, as she was the female hbad of t.I.e joint family in terms of G.O.Ms.No.5O8 dated 28.1O. 1995 read with G.O.M.S.No.972 dated 04.12.1998. As per the policy of the then Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Pattas in all. cases of regr-rlarization of encroachments shall be in the name of surviving female head of the joint family and accordingly deed of regularization was executed by the then Government of Andhra 4 t- Pradesh in the name of Dandu Venkamma uide document dated

18.O1.2O0i bearing document No.301 of 2001

8. Taking advantage of old age and illiteracy of his mother, the defendants No. 1 and 3 being the daughters, by using undue influence got executed two Sale Deeds in their favour for 23O Sq. Yds., each, uide Document Nos.575 and 574 of 2OO1 dated 31 .O l.2OO 1 . That apart, the defendant No.3 again induced her mother and thereby obtained another sale deed for the remaining extent of 240 Sq.Yds., uide Document No' 258. of 2OO4 dated 72-O].2OO4. Thus in all, the Plaintiff s mother sold the entire extent of 7O0 Sq. yds., in favour of defendant Nos' 1 and 3. The defendant No. 1, in turn, executed a Gift Settlement Deed in favour of defendant No-3 uide document No- 7616 of 2OO2 dated. 22.11.2OO2. Thus the entire suit schedule property was conveyed in favour of Defendant No.3. Subsequently, the defendant No.l unilaterally revoked and cancelled the Gift Deed by way of deed of cancellation dated 19.O8.2003. g. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is a joint family property, and his mother has no exclusive rights over the same and the State Government regularized tlle same in the name of his mother, being the 6 5 woman head of the family in terms of G.O.Ms.No.5O8 and 972. She is only a nominal owner. The defendant No.3 by playing fraud on his mother, got executed two registered sale deeds and one Gift Deed from defendant No.l. Plaintiff also contended that he had paid the sale consideration to the Government Treasury amounting to Rs.2,1O,O00/-. He states that his mother has no absolute right to alienate the entire coparcenary property in favour of tl-re defendant Nos.l and 3. The plaintiff stated that he did not choose to challenge the Sale Deeds executed by his mother in favour of defendarrts No. 1 and 3, as they are void gnd not binding on him.

10. The defendalt No. 1 frled a Written Statement supporting the claim of the plaintiff stating that it was a joint family property a;rd her motlter has no exclusive rights over the suit schedule property and the G.O.Ms.No.972 cleafly states that Pattas in a]l cases of regularization of 't]le encroachments shall be issued in the name of the woman i.e., the spouse of the head of the family or in the name of the woman who heads the family. The defendant No.l revoked the Gift Deed executed in favour of defendant No. 3. The defendant No.l claims that since it is a joint family property she is entitled for 1/4fr share. .l 6

11. The defendant No.2 remained absent and did not choose to file any written statement. The defendant No. 3, who is the appellant herein filed a written statement stating that t]le suit schedule property is the self- acquired property of Dandu Venkamma and during her lifetime she was residing alone in the suit schedule property and plaintiff was not residing with her as there were disputes between the plaintiff and his mother. The suit schedule property was regularDed in favour of Dandu Venkamma pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.5O8 and 972 and a Deed of Regularization- uide document No. 3O 1 of 2O0 1 dated

18.01.2001 was executed in favour of Dandu V".tk"--, L, " consideration of Rs.2,1O,OOO/-. By virtue of deed of regularization, she has become the absolute owner. Therefore, the question of joint family property or coparcenary does not arise. Dandu Venkamma has obtained the regularization deed on pa1rment of market va1ue, hence a registered conveyance deed was executed in her favour, as such it is the self-acquired property of Dandu Venkamma. Therefore, the suit claiming partilion is not maintainable.

12. The Defendart No. 3 further contended that she has filed a suit for Eviction and mesne profits against the plaintiff in O.S.No.759 of 2OO8. The mother of the plaintiff died on (rl 7

09.07.2006- Defendant No. 1 executed a Gift Setflement Deed ol 22.11.2002 uide document No. 7617 of 2002. Since defendant No. 1 unilaterally cancelled the gift deed, questioning the same defendant No.3 frled a suit for declaration in O.S.No.1314 of 2OO3 and the said suit was decreed on O1.O4-2OO9. The mutation was also effected in favour of the Defendant No. 3 by the Municipal Corporation. The Defendant No. 3 further contended that the plaintiff herein frled the suit for partition as a counter blast to the decree in O.S.No.1314 of 2OO3 and she filed the suit for eviction against the piaintiff in O.S.No.759 of 2OO8.

13. Basing on the pleadings, the tria-l Court framed tJe following issues in O.S,No.439 of 2OO9: a) Whether the plaint sclrcdule propertA is joint familg propertlt of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2? b) Whether the plaintiff is entitted for partition of tlrc plaint schedule propertg as praged for? c) To tuhat relieJ? In O.S.No.7ii9 of 2O08 the following issues have been framed a) Whether tLrc suit schedule propertg tuas oiginallg purchased by tLte father of the Plaintiff and Defendant uiz., D. Srirama Raju? b) Whet-her the propertg conferred in fauour of their mother being the lead of tte familg? 8 c) Whether tle sale deeds obtatned bg plaintiff from her motler are true and binding on defendants? d) Whetlrcr tLrc plaintiff has got title suit schedule propertg? e) Wletter the plaintiff is entitled for recouery of possession as praged for? fl Whether tle plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits? g) To wl.nt relieJ? In O.S.No.199 of 2014, the following issues were framed: a) Whetter the plaintiff is entitled for perpefital injunction i' as pragedfor? b) To wlwt relieJ?

74. The tria-l Court clubbed the issue No.1 in O.S.No.439 of 2OO9 and issue No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.759 of 2OO8 and held that plaintiffs father purchased Ac.O-10 gts in Sy.No.123 situated at Nizampet Road, Hydernagar, Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District, from the then farmers under an agreement and receipt which are marked under Exs.A2 and A3 and thereafter he got constructed a residential portion with AC Sheets and made it a dwelling unit bearing H.No.2-49/3 (old No. 2-24/C/B). Subsequent to the deattr of D.Srirama Raju, his wife being the head of the family, paid taxes and got regularized from the t1len Government of Andhra Pradesh. P.W. 1 gave a letter to tJle W 9 Revenue Divisiona_l Officer dated 2Z.Ol.lggg stating tJ-at he has no objection to register the Sale Deed in favour of his mother, uide Ex.Bl which was witnessed by tJle defendant No. 1. Ex.B 14 is tlre Regulaization Deed dated 1g.O 1-2OO I which was also marked as Flx.AlS. Defendant No. 3/Vidyalatha was doing tJ e real estate business and she frled W,p.No.SgOO of 2O1O before this Court against the regularization. Ex.A23 is the Memo dated 05. 10.2013 issued by the principal Secretary to the Govemment, rejecting her application for regularization of plot admeasuring 1253 Sq.yds. In Ex. E}l letter dated 27.Ol.lg9g, P.W. 1 categorically stated that he has withdrawn all his previous applications filed before the Government requesting for regularization and further he has no objection to regularize in his mother's name. As per tJ:e Ex.A15 i.e., the Deed of Venkamma has paid a sum of Regularization, full consideration of market value in uide Challad No.OO1928, dated Rs.2,1O,O0O/- Government Treasury towards Dandu Both the

07.06.2000 plaintiff and defendant No.3 failed to prove that they have paid tJ:e said amount as contended by them. After the demise of tlle father of the plaintiff, the property became the coparcenaqr property of all the parties and opened to partition. The trial Court held issue No.l in O.S.No.439 of 2OO9, tn favour of the plaintiff arrd and with regard to issue 10 No. 1 in O.S.No. 759 of 2OO8, it was held that the suit schedule property was regularized in the name of Dandu Venkamma, being the head of the family, who does not have exclusive right.

15. With regard to issue Nos. 3 and 4 in O.S.No.759 of 2O08 and issue No.1 in O.S.No.199 of 2014, t]:e trial Court held that according to plaintiff, the defendant No.3 /Vidyalatha induced her mother by using undue influence and obtained a Sale Deed dated 72.O1.2OO4 uide Ex.Alg as if she paid Rs.4,49,0OO/- towards sale consideration and in fact no such sale consideration was paid and further contended by plaintiff that he iooked after ttre welfare of his old aged mother. The defendant No. 3 has obtained two registered Sale Deeds from her mother for an extent of 23O Sq.yds and 24O Sq.yds under Exs.A17 ald A18 and also under a Gift Settlement deed marked as Ex.B13, as such the defendant No. 3 is ctaiming as owner of the property of the entire extent of 7OO Sq.yds. Therefore, the burden of proof lies upon the defendant No.3 under Section 1O1 to 1O3 ofthe Indian Evidence Act, to establish that she has paid valid sale consideration under the said sale deeds. The defendant no. 1 executed a registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 22.11.2002, for extent of 230 Sq.yds in favour of defendant no. 3 and thereafter Defendant No.1 revoked the said Gift Deed urde J6'\ l1 a Deed of Cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed dated

19.08.2003, unilaterally under Ex.B17. The reason explained by defendant No. 1 for executing E,x.Bl7 /Cancellation Deed is due to family problems. P.W.l stated that he did not challenge Ex.A16 to A18 Sale Deeds executed bv his mother in favour of defendants No. 1 and 3 ald further, t . "o.rt".ra"d that no sale consideration was paid under the said documents and tJley are not binding on him.

16. The learned trial Court held that Ex. 816- Sale Deed does not disclose the relationship between the Vendor and the Vendee as Mother and Daughter and similarly the version of the defendant No.3 that she paid Rs.4,49,O00/- towards sale consideration to her mother is also far from truth, as she did not mention the date of pay.rnent. It was further held that stamp papers for Ex.B12 and 816 sale deeds were purchased by D.W-2 only, which clinchingly establishes that she prevailed and played fraud to bring into existence of tJle sale deeds, which are nominal and without passing of any consideration.

17. The trial Court held that injunction is an equitable form of relief ald cannot be gralted automatically by mere asking by the parties and the case records shows that plaintiff in t2 O.S.No.199 of 2014 i.e., Vidyalatha is not in juridical possession of the suit schedule property and the sale deeds obtained by her were nominally without pa)ment of consideration, that too, suit schedule property is a coparcenary property without partition. Therefore, held that the suit schedule property is not open for alienation.

18. The trial Court also held that mere decree in O.S.No.1314 of 2OO3 granting declaration in favour of Vidyalatha, does not entitle her to claim the suit schedule property, as the decree is assailed in A.S.No.166 of 2O10. With regard to the decree in O.S.No.1314 of 2O03 dated 01.O4.2OO8, it was held by the tria-i Court that the sale deeds executed in her favour and gift deed executed by defendalt No.1 in her favour are nominal. More so, since the gift deed was cancelled subsequently the entire suit schedule property becomes coparcenary property. As such, tJle judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1314 of 2OO3 dated O1.O4.2OO8, is not sustainable. In view of these frndings, the trial Court held that Vidyalatha/plaintiff in O.S.No.759 of 2OO8 is not entitied for eviction of P.W.1 and she is not entitled for mesne profits @ Rs.10,OO0/- per month. The trial Court further held t1lat granting of injunction in I.A.No.927 of 20O9 in OS.No.1517 of 2OO9 cannot stand to scrutiny and accordingly '15 13 I i I l C.M.A.No.49 of 2O1O was allowed. Consequentially, the trial Court allowed A.S.No.166 of 2O1O by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 1314 of 2O03.

19. The trial Court held that the suit hled bv Dandu Venkamma against her two sons i.e., the plaintiff and defendant No.2 is not maintainable because the suit schedule property is the coparcenary property. Therefore, it is held that the decree passed in O.S.No. 1314 of 2OO3 dated O1.04.20O8 is erroneous. The trial Court accordingly held that issues No.3 and 4..in O.S.No.759 of 2OO8 go against Dandu Venkamma. It is also held that issue No.l in O.S.No.199 of 2014 was held against tl.e plaintiff therein i.e., Vidyalatha. With regard to issues No.S and 6 in O.S.No.759 of 2O08, it is held that the plaintiff therein is not entitled for recovery of possession of mesne profits. While decreeing the suit with costs in O.S.No.439 of 2OO9 t1:e trial Court held that the plaintiff had proved his case and therefore he is entitled for partition of the suit schedule property dividing it into four equal shares and one such strare shall be allotted to plaintifi (P.W.1) and three other shares shall be a-liotted to defendants No.1 to 3 respectively and accordingly ttre preliminary decree was passed. Aggrieved by the judgment in t4 OS No. 439 of 2OO9 Smt. Vidyalatha/ Defendant No. 3, filed AS No. 87 of 2O 17. 20 Now the point for consideration is: i. Whether the common judgment rendered bg the tial court in O.5.No.439 of 2OO9 is uolid or not? ii. Whether the judgment rendered bg th-e tial court in OS.No.439 of 2OO9 is contrary to the oral and doatmentary euidence ond against the settled principles of latu? iii. Wh.ether the plaintiff in OS.No.439 of 2OO9 discharged his burden to establish that tlle suit schedule propertA belongs to the joint family propertg but not the self- ocquired propertg of Dandu Venkamma as contended bg tLrc Appellont

27. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was regularized in the name of Da-ndu Venkamma, who being the female head of the family in terms of Exs.A21 and A22 i.e., G.o.Ms.No.5o8, dated 20.1o.1995 read with G.o.Ms.No.972 dated O4.12.1998. A deed of regularization was executed in her favour under Ex.A15 dated 18.O1.2001. The plaintiff claims that his mother is only nominal owner, as the same was purchased by his father under Exs.A2 and A3. There is no dispute with p 15 regzrrd to the relationship between the parLies who are the sons and daughters of late D.Srirama Raju and Dandu Venkamma. Srirama Raju died in the year 1993 and whereas Dandu Venkamma died in the year 2006.

22. In ttre light of deed of regularization Dandu Venkamma became the absolute owner of suit schedule property. As absolute owrrer she executed two registered sale deeds in favour of defendant No.1/Saraswathi and defendant No.3 / Vidyalatha for 23O Sq.lds each, out of the total extent of 7OO Sq.yds un{er Exs.Al6 and Al7 dated 3l.O1.2OOl. Similarly, Dandu Venkamma executed a Sale Deed dated L2.OI.2OO4 uide document No.258 of 2OO4 in favour of defendant No.3 for remaining extent of 24O Sq.yds. Subsequently, defendant No.1 executed a registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 22.11.2OO2 in favour of defendant No.3 for arr extent of 23O Sq.yds under Ex.

813. Thus, the entire extent of 7OO Sq. yds of ttre suit schedule property was tralsferred in the name of defendant No. 3 /D.W.2.

23. The defendalt No.l unilaterally executed a cancellation of Gift Deed dated 19.O8.20O3 under Ex.B17 by cancelling the Gift Setflement Deed dated 22.11.2OO2 under Ex.B13. It is a setfled law t]lat unilrteral cancellation of gift deed is contrary to section l6 t26 of th.e Transfer of Property Act. There is no valid reason assigned for unilateral cancellation. Therefore, the calcellation of tJle gift deed is unsustainable in the eye of law. During the cross examination of defendant No. 1 she categorically stated that she is not disputing about execution of tl.e gift deed. However, cancelling the gift deed due to family problems is an unsustainable contention. A bald statement about the famiiy problems is not sufficient. Defendant No.1 should have pleaded in her written statement and she should have stated elaborately in her statement before tJle Court about the family problems which compelled her to execute the cancellation deed. Without assigning proper reasons the executant has no right to cancel tl e registered gift deed (Ex-A3) unilaterally. The conditions mentioned in tl'e gift deed do not empower defendant No.1 to go for cancellation at her whims and fancies.

24. Except the oral statement of D.W.l, there is no iota of documentar5r evidence frled by her to prove that the suit schedule property is the joint family property. On the other hand, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 coupled with Exs.Al to A6 would' clearly show tJlat the entire extent of 7OO Sq.yds of land is the absolute property of Dandu Venkamma. Because of the said reason O.S.No.1314 of 2OO3 Iiled by Vidyalatha was t7 decreed granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein from alienating the suit schedule property.

25. The claim of the plaintiff in O.S.No.439 of 2OO9 that his father purchased the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale dated 13.04.19a4 and receipt dated 20 -04.1944 is an unsustainable contention. The suit schedule land in Sy.No.123 is a Government land. The farmers who have allegedly executed Exs.A2 and A3 have no legai and alienable right to sel1 the property to the father of plaintiff. More so, t1.e agreement of sale if any will not confer title to the purchaser. Added to that to prove the genuinit5r of Exs.A2 and A3, plaintill did not choose to examine tJle executants of the agreement of sale and the receipt thereon. Mere submission of document is not enoqgh, the plaintiff is supposed to prove the contents of the document by examining any of the parties to the document. In the present case the plaintiff failed to adduce convincing evidence to prove Exs.A2 and A,3. Therefore, the claim of tl.e plaintiff that his father acquired title over the propert5r is baseless ald not proved in accordance to law. That apart the plaintiff failed to challenge t-he sale deeds executed by Dandu Venkamma in favour of defendant No. 1 and defendant No.3 under Exs.A 17 and Al8. A bald statement is made by the l ,J l8 ; plaintiff stating that he did not challenge those sale deeds because they are not binding on him. This contention has no legs to stand. When Dandu Venkamma became absolute owner by virtue of deed of regularization executed by the Government, obviously it becomes self 66qui1si[ property of Dandu Venkamma. So, the sale deeds executed by her would equally be binding on the plaintiff and defendants. As such, not challenging t.I e sale deeds is an incurable irregularity committed by the plaintiff. 26- The very claim of the plaintiff is that a deed of regularization was executed under Ex.Al5 dated 1g.01.2OO1 in the name of Dandu Venkamma, who being a female head of the family. He further, relied on G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20.10.1995 and G.O.Ms.No.972 dated, 04.12.199A contending that as per the said G.Os Pattas were granted in the name of tJ.e woman i.e., the spouse of the head of the family only or in the name of the woman who heads a family. The said G.Os were marked as Exs.A21 arld, A22. As can be seen from Ex.A22, G.O.Ms No.9Z2 dated: 04.12.1988 the clauses (vii) and (viii) reads as under: "In the coses uthere regalarization is done on ttLe poAment of market ualue, conuegance deed shalt be executed afier full pagment. The registration fee and stamp dutA shall be exempted in such cases, In cases of t9 rerylaization of encroachment on free of market ualue, patta certificate sl:r:Jl be issued,'. "Pattas tn all cases of regularization of encroachments shall be issued in the name oJ tlrc uoman [.e., the spouse of tLE head of the familg onlA or in the name of tLe tDoman. u.tho heads the familg."

27. On perusal of the contents of deed of regularization dated

18.O1.200f marked under Ex.A15, it is clear that Dandu Venkamma paid a sum of Rs.2,1O,O0O/- towards total considerati<rn to the Government on 07.06.2000 uid.e challatt No.OO1928 dated O7.06.20O8. Thereby as per Go.Ms.No.972 deed of regularization was executed in favour of Dahdu Venkamma and 7O0 Sq.yds of lald in Sy.No.123 became the absolute property of Dandu Venkamma. Except making a bald contention that the plaintiff made paSrment of Rs.2,1O,000/_ to the Government there is no piece of evidence to substantiate his contention. Therefore, once the deed of regularization is executed in favour of Dandu Venkamma, she becomes tJle absolute owner of tie suit schedule property and by any stretch of imagination it cannot be called as joint family property. The trial Court failed to look into the contents of G.Os under which deed of re6Srlarization was executed in favour df Dandu Venkamma. On the other hand, though the plaintiff failed to prove Exs.A2 and A3 it is wrongly held that by virtue of those unproved documents tlle suit schedule property is a joint family I 20 property arrd as such plaintiff is entitled to seek partition. Such observation by the trial Court is unsupported by either oral or documentar5z evidence.

28. The contention of tJle plaintiff is self contradictory. On

27.01.1999 under Ex.Bl the plaintiff addressed a letter to the R.D.O, Chevella Division, in which he specificaily stated as under: "I submit that my fatLer Dandu Siramaraju expired in a road acci.dent. I am one among ttte Jour children of mg porents. Mg motler Smt Dondu Venkamma is the sole and absolute ouLner of the propertA i.e., 70O Sq.gds and the Lause constructed tlerein in Sg.No.123 Nizompet Road, Hgdemagar, Rangareddy Distict. There is no dispute betueen mg mother Smt Dandu Venkamma and mgself. I hnue no objection in her possession and enjogment of aforesaid propertg. I withdraut all mA preuious applications and request to regulari.ze the same in the name of Smt Dandu Venkamma".

29. In the cross examination of P.W. 1, he categorically admitted about execution of Ex.Bl and stated that he has no objection for the deed of regularization executed in favour of his mother Dandu Venkamma. In this manner a categorical admission was made by P.W. 1 stating that Dandu Venkamma is ttre absolute owner of the property in one breadth. In another breadth contradicting plea he stated that the suit schedule property is a joint family properQr. Therefore, the self- 21 contradictory statements ought not to have been believed by the trial Court. but somehow the trial court did not appreciate tJee admissions made by plaintiff and lost sight of the crucial documents and gave a wrong conclusion that tl-e suit property is a joint family property. Therefore, tJ.e conclusion arrlved at by the trial court is contrary to the oral and documentar5r evidence.

30. The plaintiff contended that defendant No.3 induced Dandu Venkamma to execute sale deeds in her favour without paying the consideration. As a matter of fact, plaintiff did .qot challenge the sale deeds executed by Daldu Venkamma under Exs.A17 and A18. During the life time of Dandu Venkamma, plaintiff did not raise any objection towards those transactions. He had set Lrp a false claim ofjoint family property only after the decreetal ol the suit in O.S.No.l314 of 2OO3, without challenging the sale deeds executed by Daldu Venkamma. Plaintiff cannot contend that she did not receive the sale consideration, either tJle executant or the beneliciary under the sale deeds have to dispute about receipt of sale consideration but the plaintiff has no right to contend that Dandu Venkamma has not recr.'ived the sale consideration. At this point, it is relevant to mention that Dandu Venkamma frled a suit urde OS.No.4Ol ol 1996 (Ex.B7) against the plaintiff herein and ')) I another son seeking perpetual injunction. In the said suit also, she contended that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Eventua-lly, the suit zZe OS.No.4Ol of 1996 was decreed on 1O.O2.1999 under Ex.B19 added to that having obtained two registered sale deeds, the defendant No.3 submitted an application before the Deputy Commissioner GHMC and the said authority issued proceedings under Ex.A36 dated 13.O8.2OO9 mutating t1 e name of defendant No.3 in municipal records. In the light of this clinching evidence the finding of the ftial Court that defendant No.3 obtained sale deeds without paying tJle sale consideration and those sale deeds are nomina.l is unsustainable and without sound reasoning.

31. The trial court relying on Ex.A23 dated O5.10.2013 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government, held that the defendant No.3 challenged the regularization of the suit schedule property, which is factually incorrect. Ex.A23 discloses that defendant No.3 sought regularization of her house property to an extent of 1253 Sq.yds under G.O.Ms.No. 166 dated

26.O2.2OO8. The said 1253 Sq.yds is distinct and different from tJle suit schedule property. The trial Court appears to have confused and also under a misconception felt that the land to 23 an extent of 1253 Sq.yds claimed to be regularized by defendant No.3 is part of the suit schedule property. In this manner, the trial Court erred in misinterpreting Ex.A23. The principal Secretary, while rejecting the claim of defendant No.3 for an extent o[ 1253 Sq.yds under Ex.A23 stated t]rat land measuring an extent of 7OO sq.yds was already regularized in favour of her mother Dandu Venkamma. Thus, it is clear that the suit schedule property is not t}re part of tJ:e land claimed by the defendant No.3.

32. The k'arned Counsel appearing for plaintiff heavity relied on the impugned judgment of the trial Court and thereby contended that the trial Court passed ttre judgment by grving valid reasons in decreeing the suit in O.S.No.439 of 2009. He further contended that the father of the plaintiff purchased tJre suit schedule property under Exs.A2 and A3 from the farmers of the said land and the same was regulai"izcd in the name of the mother of the plaintiff, who is the female head of t]le family. Therefore, no exclusive rights were conferred on Dandu Venkamma and it is a joint family property. He further contended that the sale deeds executed by Dandu Venkamma in favour of D.W. I and D.W.2 are sham and nominal and no sale consideration was passed on. However, he admitted t-hat sale ! 24 deeds under Ex.A16 to A18 remains unchallenged ald further he admitted the execution of Ex.Bl-letter stating that the same was executed in order to execute the Deed of Regularization in the name of Dandu Venkamma. However, he fails to distinguish G.O.Ms.No.972 between date of regularization and Patta certihcates. Therefore, he contended that t-here are no merits in the appeal.

33. The leamed counsel for defendant No.l supplements the arguments of the Senior Counsel in contending that the .suit schedule property is the joint family propert5r. The Counsel for the defendant No.l admits that she has executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of D.W.2 and however she unilaterally revoked the Gift Deed executed in favour of the D.W.2. He further contended that since the suit schedule property is the joint family property, defendant No. 1 revoked the registered Gift Deed unilaterally. However, except reading and placing relia:rce in the impugned judgment, the learned counsel has not placed any citations except ma-king oral submissions. 25

34. The learned Counsel for defendant No.3 relied on the decision of the Hon'lcle Apex Court in the case of Parimo'l Vs. Veena alias Bhdrti,t in which it was held as under: "The prouisions of Sec. 101 of tlte Euidence Act prouide that the burden of proof of tle facts rests on tlle partg tuho substantiallg asserts it and not on the partg who denies it. ln fact, burden of proof means tllat a partg LLas to proue an allegation before he is entitled to a judgment in his fauour. Sec. 1O3 prouides tL@t tle burden of proof as to anA particular fact lies on that person uho tutshes th.e court to belieue in its eistence, unless it is prouided bg ang special lana that proof of that fact sl:.i:,ll lie on ang partia ar person. The prouision of Sec. 1O3 amplifies the general rule of Sec. loi that the burden of proof lies on the pers;on utho asserts the affinnatiue of facts in issue". r .

35. The same proposition was laid down in t1le case of Chainnan, Board. of Trustees, Sri Ram Mqndir I/s. S. RSgalakshmi.2

36. In an,rLher case between Rangammal Vs. Kuppusuamg & dnother3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court heid as under: "It hardLg needs to be highlighted that in a suit for partition. it is expected of the plaintiff to include onlg tlase properties for partition to u-thich the family ll.r;'s clear title and unct.mbiguouslg belong to the members of tlte joint familg, ;:.uhich sought to be partitioned ond if sgmeone else's propertA, meaning therebg dispttted properties included in the scledule of the suit for partition, and the same is contested bg a third partA Luho is allowed to be ' (zor r) t scc sq: '? zote 1zy scc::s ' zor r 1r2y scc zzo I I 26 impleoded bg an order of the trial court, obuiouslg, it is the plaintiff utho r.uill haue to first of atl disclnrge the burden of proof for establishing that the disputed propertg belongs to the joint familg uthich shnutd be partitioned excluding someone uho claims that some portion of the joint fomilg propertA did not belong to tLe joint fomilg in regard to tthich decree for partition is sought".

37. The said propositions laid dovrn in the above decisions are squarely applicable to the facts on hand. In the present case also burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that it is the joint family property, but he failed to establish his contention with the support of oral and documentar5r evidence. Ignoring. the settled principle of law the trial court shifted tJle burden on to the defendant to establish that it is self-acquired property, therefore the approach of the trial Court is not proper.

38. While answering the factum of non-receipt of sale consideration the learned counsel for appellant/defendant No.3 relied on the decision of the Honlcle Apex Court in t-Ile case of Kaushik Prem Kumar Mishra and anotlter Vs.Kanii Raleria and anothef, in which it was held as under: "The question of pagment of sale consideration utould oise onlg and onlg if the Vendor makes d speciftc stotement in his pleadings as also in his deposition in support of tLte pleadings that h-e did not receiue ang sale consideration eitler by utag of cheque, or bg cash. There 4 2024 SCC Online SC 1756 27 is no such pleading and as a Vendor did not enter the u.titnes:; box, euen if there uas anA such pleading, there is no statement to proue such pleading. T?uts, the aboue argament being based on minor discrepancg, in the statemcznt of the Appellant, no benefit can be deriued bg the Respondents. TlLe argument is accordinglg rejected". "There is orae more reason to reject this argument. Euen iJ' assuming that no sale consideration was paid euen though there u.tas a registered sale deed, it utould be at the tnstance of the Vendor, to challenge the said sale deed ort the ground that no sale consideration been paid. In the f,resent case, there is no such challenge to tle sale deed for being declared as uoid or being cancelled on such ground:;. Thus also the soid o.rryment deserues to be rejected". "Registrotion of a docttment carries uith its presum,r:tion of conectness until and unless the same u)o,p. cholleryled by utay of independent proceeding or a counter claim. In the obsence of ang such claim, the sale deed in fauour of the appellants has to be treated as a ualkl document."

39. The same proposition is a-lso applicable to the present case. The plaintiff simply contended that vendor did not receive tJ:e consideration, but he failed to prove the said fact by examining necessary witnesses. He did not challenge those sale deeds and being a third party to tJle sale deeds, he cannot take such plea also therefore, tJle conclusion arrived at by the trial Court that sale deeds are nominal is untenable in the.eye of law. l

40. With regard to tJle unilateral cancellation of gift deed, the learned Ccunsel for the appeliant/defendant No.3 placed 28 reliance on the decision of t}re Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.Thdjuddin Vs. TamiTnadu Khddi & Village Industries Boar& in which it was held as under: "ln this connection, a reference maA be made to tLrc prouisions of Sec. 126 of the Transfer of Propertg Act, 1882 tthich prouides that a Gifi connot be reuoked except for certain contingencies enum,erated therein". "In simpler uords, ordinarilg a Gifi Deed cannot be reuoked except for the ttwee contingencies mentioned aboue. The First is uhere the Donor and Donee agree for its reuocation on the happening of ong specified euent. In the Gift Deed there is no such indication that the Donor and the Donee haue agreed for the reuocation of the Gifr, Deed for anA reason much less on the happening of ang specified euent. Therefore, the FIRST exception permitting reuocation of the Gifi Deed not attracted the case at hand. SECONDLY, a Gifi Deed would be uoid tuhollg or in part if the parties agree thot tt shall be reuocable uhollg or in part u.tith the mere will of tLrc Donor". In the present case, there is no agreement betueen the parties for the reuoc-ation of the Gifr Deed uthollg or in part or at the ere utill of the Donor. Therefore, tLrc aforesaid condition permitting reuocation or holding such a Gifi Deed utould be uoid does not applg. THIRDLY, o Gifi is liable to be reuoked in a case where it is in tLLe nature of the contract uhich could be rescinded. me StjI under consideration is not in the form of a Contract and the contract, if any, is not liable to be rescinded. TLu.Ls, none of the exceptions permitting reuocation of the Gifi Deed stands attracted in tlle present case. "Tluts, leading to the onlg conclusion that the Gifi Deed, uthich uLas uolidly made, could not Laue been reuoked in any monner. Accordinglg, reuocatidn deed d.ated: 17.O8.1987 is uoid ob initio and is of no consequence wLtich has to be ignored." t 2024 SCC Online SC 3017 29

41. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'b1e Apex Court is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the uni-lateral revocation of the Gift Deed is invalid.

42. The decree and judgment passed in O.S.No. 1314 of 2O03 was challenged in A.S.No.166 of 2O10, by the Respondent No.2/Defendant No.2. The trial Court without framing any points for consideration as required under Order 4 I rule 3 1, allowed t1.e appeal purely basing on the frndings recorded in O.S.No.439 of 2OO9.

43. The learned Counsel for t1le appellant/defendant No.3 relied on the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Somakka Vs. K.P. Basaaaraj, in which it was held as follows: "From tlle aboue settled legal pinciples on the duta, scope and pouers of tLrc First Appellate Court, ue are of the fi-nn uieut an.d fullg conuinced thnt High Court committed a senous etor in neith-er forming . the points for the detennination nor considering the euidence on record, in particulor, which had been relied upon bA the Trial Court. The impugned judgment of the High Court is ttarc unsustainable in laut and liable to be set aside".

44. The said proposition of law is squarely applicable to the facts on hand. Admittedly, the trial Court failed to frame any points for determination except holding that ttre suit schedule property is a joint family propert5r and thereby declared the I 30 judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.13l4 of 2003 as unsustainable. Such finding recorded by the trial Court is wrong. Therefore, the judgment passed is A.S.No.166 of2O10 is liable to be set aside.

45. Once it is declared that the suit schedule propert5r is the self-acquired property of Dandu Venkamma, the sale deed executed by her in favour of D.W.l and D.W.2 are va,lid and binding on the plaintiff and admittedly the said Sale Deeds remains unchallenged. Therefore, the suit frled by the plaintiff utde O.S.No.439 of 2OO9, is dismissed with costs by allowing the appea-l in A.S.No.87 of 2017.

46. A.S.No.107 of 2017 is filed against O.S.No.759 of 2O08. OS No.759 of 2OO8 was frled by defendant No.3 seeking eviction of D.Ramachandra Raju, from the suit schedule property bearing H.No.2- 4913, in Sy.No. 123 of Hydernagar village, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and also clairned mesne proflt @ Rs. 1O,OOO/- per month. Since the entire suit schedule property in O.S.No.439 of ,2009 declared as the self-acquired property of Dandu Venkamma, who in tum sold the same in favour of Vidyalatha/defendant No.3 and her sale deeds remain unchallenged, as such, tJle W' 31 plaintiff i.e., Vidyalatha, being the absolute owner of the H.No.2- 49/3, is enlifled for decree of eviction of D.Ramachandra Raju and 30 da1's' 6-. is granted to hirn to vacate and handover the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is also at liberty to fiie a separate application for ascertaining tJ:e mesne profits and accordingly the suit in O.S.No.7S9 of 2OO8 is decreed with costs as prayed firr by allowing t.Ile A.S.No.1O7 of 2OlZ.

47. A.S.No.104 of 20 17 is filed against tJ.e judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.199 of 2Ol4 (old O.S.No. lS17 of 2Oe9). The said suit is f ed for perpetual injunction of the House premises bearing No. 2-43/3. The plaintiff is able to establish the possession over the suit schedule property by oral and documentary evidence i.e., Ex.AI7 arrd A1g and registered Gift Settlement Deeds i.e., Exs.B13 and A36, copy of the Mutation Order dated 13.08.2009 by incorporating the name of Vidyalatha in tJle place of Dandu Venkamma. Therefore, appellant/Vidyalatha is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for and consequentJy A.S.No.104 of 2077 is allowed by granting decree in O.S.No.199 of 2014, by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 32 4a- C.R.P.No.4232 of 2OL7 is liled against the Order in C.M.A.No.49 of 2OlO which is liled against the Orders dated

22.O3.2O1O passed in I.A.No.927 of 2OO9 in O.S.No.1517 of 2OO9 (O.S.No.l99 of 2Ol4(new)). Since the suit in O.S.No.199 of 2Ol4 is decreed, no further orders are required in C.R.P.No.4232 of 2017.

49. S.A.No.1O1 of 2Ol7 is filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No. 166 of 201O. The said appeal is frled against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1314 of 2OO3 frled by Vidyalatha for declaration, questioning the unilateral cancellation of the Gift Deed dated 19.08.2003 under Ex.B17. D.W.l executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of the plaintill under Ex.B13 Gift Settlement Deed, dated 22.11.2O02, which was unilaterally cancelled under Ex.B 17 as referred in O.S.No.439 of 2OO9. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that as per Section 126 of the T.P Act, unilateral calcellation is unsustainable and further Defendant No.l/Saraswathi admitted the execution of the Registered Gift Deed and however cancelled the same due to family problems. By well, considered judgment, the trial Court decreed the suit on O1.O4.2OO9. The first Appellate Court without framing any points for determination and also without re-appreciating the oral and 33 documentar5z evidence, set aside the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No. 1314 of 2O03 by allowing A.S.No. 166 of 2OtO, by a common judgment dated 23. 1 1.2O 16.

50. Therefore, the substantial question of law arose in tJle second appea_l is tJrat i1 Whether tte judgment of the first appellote Court setting aside the judgment and_ the d.ecree passed bg th_e trial cottrt uithout framing any potnts for d.etennination as contemplated under Order 41 rute 3 I of CpC is sustainable in lau? ii) Whether the registered_ Gifi Deed. is tiable to be set aside unilaterallg tuhen the same is accepted ant acted upon and further it is against Section 126 of T.p Act?

51. For all the reasons stated above, the first appeliate Court erred in setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 1314 of 2OO3, without ttrere being any re_appreciation of oral and dor;umentar5z evidence and further failed to frame any points for determination which is mandatory. The trial Court, while decreeing the suit recorded valid reasons which are in accordance with tlle law. Therefore, t]1e judgment passed in A.S.No.166 of 2OlO is liable to be set aside, by allowing the S.A.No.l0t of 2OLZ and consequently confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1314 of 2OO3 dated O1.O4.2OO9. I 34

52. In view of the forgoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the common judgment passed by the trial court in O.S.No.439 of 2OO9 is without proper appreciation of oral and documentar5r evidence and various findings recorded by the trial Court are also unsustainable in the eye of law. Hence, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.439 of 20OS deserve to be set aside while allowing the A.S.No.S7 of 2Ol7 -

53. In ttre result, . , i) A.S.No.87 of 2077 is allowed by setting aside the common Judgment and decree dated 23.71.2016 passed in O.S.No.439 of 2OO9. Consequently, the said suit is dismissed with costs. ii) S.A.No.lOl of 2077 is allowed by setting aside the common Judgment and decree dated 23.11.2O16 passed in A.S.No.166 of 2OlO. Consequently, tJle Judgment artd decree passed in O.S.No.1314 of 20O3, dated 01.O4.2OO9, is hereby confirmed. iii) A.S.No.1O17 is allowed by setting aside the commoa Judgment and decree dated 23.1L.2O16 passed in O.S.No.759 of 2OO8. Consequently, O.S.No.759 of 2OO8 is decreed with costs as prayed for. As plaintiff i.e., Vidyalatha, being the absolute ovner of the H.No.2-49l3' is ,1 35 entltled for decree of eviction of D. Ranachandra Raju and 3O days time is graated f6 him to \racate and handover the suit schedule property. The plaintitf ls at tiberty to llle separate application for ascertaining the mesne profits, ir) A. S. No. 1O4 of 2OLZ is allowed by setting aside the common Judgment and decree dated. 23.11.2016 passed in O.S.No. 199 of 2OI4. Consequently, the said suit is decreed with costs and the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. v) Since tl.e suit in O.S.No.199 of 2Ol4 is decreed.. no further orders are required in C.R.p.No.4232 of 2OlZ. Consequendy, the Civil Revision petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if aly, shall stand closed' sd/_ K. sRrNrvASA RAo JOINT REGISTRAR / / NoTE ; This Commc,n Judgment is amended as per the Court Order dated 04_03_2025 made in l.A.No..l ot 2O2S (for beino mentioned) in A S.No.107 of ' ZAli- Ol modifying the point (iii) in paragraph No.53 of A.S.No 10Z of 20 17 This amenderd Common Judgment 9oqy substitutes the earlier Coilron Judgment despatcherd on 1B_O2_2025. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I The Spl. Sessions Judoe for trial of cases under SC/ST (pOA) Act_cum_Vll ffii; 7::ffi:i,d sessions L,ag", "il E ,U;:i"#i,j" Reddy Disrrict To, 1 The Vll Addl. Senior Civit Judge, R.R, District at L B. Nagar. One CC to Sri A Alavender Co-rO, navocate IOeUCI One CC to Sri. N Mukund Reddy, Advocatu l'OpUq' Two CD Copies

2. J. 4. 5. DUgh 0s\ \ HIGH COURT DATED: 091011202s 0410..31202s AMENDED COMI\1ON JUDGMENT SA.No.101 of 2017 A.S. No. 87, 104 and 107 of 2017 CRP No. 4232 of 2017 S{ATE ) 'itfr It $''\?' ? a)r .t) l A' o Allowing the A.S. No. 87 of 2017, S.A No. '101 ot 1>-017, A.S. No. 107 ot 2017, A.S. No. 104 ol 2017 is allowed and CRP No. 4232 ot 2017 is closed L'\ 6 I l 4b--n , abl' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT NO: 107 OF 2017 Between: Smt. Alluri Vidyalatha, Wo late ARK Raju, Household, Fl/o H.No.'l-2-4813/1, Hydernagar, Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Aged about 51 years, Occ: Near Seven hills, Nizamapet ...Appel lanUPlaintiff AND D. Ramachandra Raju,, S/o late Sri Rama Ralu, Aged about 54 years, Occ business, Rl/o H.No.2-4313 and 2-4913, Hydemagar village, Nizampet Road, kukatpally, Hyderabad. ...RespondenURespondent Appeal under section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree Dated 23.11.2016 in OS. No. 759 OF ,2008 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989-cum-Vll Addl District Judge, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.NAGAR This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. N l/ukund Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri A Alavender Goud, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and decree as follows:-

1. That the A.S.No. 107 of 2O17 be and hereby is allowed; 2. That the Common Judgment and decree daled 23.11.2016 passed in O.S. No. 759 of 2008 on the file of the Gourt of the Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-Vll Addl. District and Sessions Judge, at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District is set aside;

3. That as Plaintiff i.e., Vidyalatha being the absolute owner of ttie H. No. 2-4913, is entitled for decree of eviction of D. Ramachandra Raju and further 30 days time is granted to him to vacate and handover the suit schedule property. 4. That the Plaintiff i.e.,Vidyalatha is also at liberty to file separate application for ascertaining the mesne profits. I I I

5. That the appellants be and hereby are entitled to costs of Rs. 25,0151to be paid by the respondents MEMORAND U M OF COSTS A.S. No.107 0f 2017 S.No. Particulars 1 2 3 4 6 o I Slam s for Vakalatnama S amps used for the MemoJCourt fee Stamps for Jud gment of the Lower Court Siam s for decree of the Lower Court Value of C Advocate's fee Fee Certificate not filed Batta and Posta Translation and Printin Cha TOTAL Stam a r used for enclosures Rs. Ps. 05.00 ',24926.00

03.00 05.00 46.00 00.00 30.00 00.00 I 2s,015.00 That the appellants are entitled to costs of Rs.25,015^ to be paid by the Respondent Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR NoTE : That the <iecree is amended as per the Cou( Order dated 04-03-2025 made in l.A.No.1 of 2025 (tor being mentioned) in A.S.No.107 of 20" 7 including the 3'd point. This amended decree copy substitutes the earlier decree despatched on 18-02-2025. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K, SRINIVASA RAO INT REGISTRAR J S CTION OFFICER To, DL

1. The Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC/ST (pOA) Act-cum-Vll Addl. Distri:t and Sessions Judge, at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District

2. The VllAddl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar. 3. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:09/0'l/2025 04103t2025 AMENOED DEC REE AS.No.107 of 2017 A.S. No 107 ot 2017 is allowed. s