Sri A.B.Apparao

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

VIJAYAWADA.

Present : A.B.Apparao, II Additional Civil Judge ( Junior Division). Friday, this the 20th day of June, 2025.

O.S.NO.1512/2019

Between

Boyina Edukondalu, S/o Muthaiah, aged about 50 years, R/o D.No.2-154, Ranga Bomma Centre, Kanuru,

Penamaluru Mandal.……....Plaintiff

And

1.The Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority,

Old VGTM UDA Office, Lenin Centre, Vijayawada.

2.The Panchayat Secretary, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal.

3.The State rep by its District Collector, Krishna District.

…...Defendant Nos. 1 to 3

This suit is coming on for final hearing before me on 19.06.2025 in the presence of Sri Shaik Azghar, Sri B.Venkateswarlu, Learned Advocates for the plaintiff and Smt Ch.Chaitanya, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the defendant Nos.1 to 3, and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing arguments, having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is instituted by the plaintiff seeking the Court to grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their staff, officers etc., from ever interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property including with his four shops in any manner

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 2 whatsoever, either by demolishing the structure of the shed or otherwise in the plaint schedule property , and for costs of the suit thereof.

2.The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are that 2.1)the Plaintiff took the plaint schedule property on lease from Tripuramaly

Anjani Kumari and Tipuramally Gurugnanambika for a period of seven years i.e from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2025 on a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- per month excluding electricity consumption charges and a lease deed was registered to that effect under registered document no. 3301/2018 dated 11.4.2018 before

S.R.O, Patamata ; and that the Plaintiff took the plaint schedule property on lease for running his business operations i.e civil contract works.

2.2)the plaintiff constructed A.C.C sheeted shed consisting of four shops in the plaint schedule property by investing more than Rs.5,00,000/- much to the knowledge of the defendants no.1 and 2; and that during the course of construction of the A.C.C sheeted sheds, the plaintiff was attacked with paralysis and having no other to in order to pay the lease amount, the plaintiff gave the shops for rent to 3rd parties as he is not able to do any business on his own due to his ill-health. While so, on 29.05.2019, the authorities of defendant no.1 inspected site and issued a show cause notice to the plaintiff for alleged construction of A.C.C sheeted without prior permission from defendants no.1 and 2 for explanation ; and that as the plaintiff was attacked with paralysis, he could not give proper reply for the same; and that subsequently the defendants nos. 1 and 2 demanded the plaintiff to remove

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 3 the structure and issued notice on 18.06.2019 and the plaintiff visited the office of defendants nos. 1 and 2 and explained the reason for his non submission of explanation; and that the defendants no.1 and 2 are making preparations for demolition of the structure of plaint schedule property; and that the proposed act of the authorities of the defendants are illegal; and that the authorities of the defendants without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff, the authorities of the defendants are trying to demolish the structure highhandedly and by using force; and that the plaintiff strongly believes that at the influence of the neighboring land owners who failed in their long lapse of about one year, the authorities of defendants are resorting to this illegal act of demolition of structure in the plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit.

3.On the contrary, the defendant no.2 filed his written statement 3.1)denying the averments made in the plaint on the ground that they are not true and correct, and that the suit is not maintainable under law. It is averred therein that the material allegations made by the Plaintiff in his plaint are not true and correct both in law and in fact and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of all his allegations except those that are herein specifically admitted ; and the suit itself is not maintainable in law as the plaintiff did not issue statutory notice U/s.138-A of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act.

3.2) Defendant no.2 further averred that the present suit is not maintainable as the Plaintiff admittedly did not obtain permission from the 1st defendant for

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 4 construction of structures under The Capital Region Development Act, 2014; and that when he did not obtain permission for construction of the shops in the plaint schedule property, he is not entitled to protection from the Court as he happens to be the wrongdoer; and that this 2nd defendant is subordinate to the 1st Defendant in respect of certain activities under the Section.20 of

A.P.C.R.D.A., Act referred to above; and that the 2nd defendant is bound to implement the orders of the 1st defendant in so far as demolition of unauthorized structures in the plaint schedule property is concerned.

3.3) Defendant no.2 further averred that it is false to allege that the plaintiff met the defendant No.2 and explained the reason for his non-explanation to their notice dated 18.06.2019 and that this defendant did not heed the request of the plaintiff; and that such allegation is made for purpose of the suit; and that it is also false to allege that the proposed act of the authorities is illegal and highhanded; and that it is further false to allege that this defendant without giving an opportunity, the authorities of this defendant are trying to demolish the structure highhandedly and by using force; and that there is no influence of neighboring owners on this defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff in Para No.7 of the plaint; and that there is no time limit to demolish the unauthorized structures in the plaint schedule property; and that the 2nd defendant has no option except to implement the orders of the 1st defendant; and that the plaintiff is not entitled to plead hardship and irreparable loss when his construction of structures in the plaint schedule property is found to

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 5 be without approval of plan and when approval of plan for construction of even for the compound wall is mandatory; and that the plaintiff is not entitled to impute motives to the officials of this defendant, when they are discharging their duty of demolition of the unauthorized structures; and that approval of plan for raising structure in the plaint schedule property is mandatory on the part of the plaintiff and even deviation of such plan, if any, is not curable under the A.P.C.R.D.A Act 2014; and that there is no cause of action to the

Plaintiff to file the suit and the entire Para No.8 is nothing but a tissue of falsehoods; and that the motive behind the filing the suit is also highly questionable. Hence, he prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

Defendants no.1 and 3 filed adoption memo adopting the written statement of

Defendant no.2.

4.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by my learned predecessor for trial:

1) Whether there is a cause of action to institute the suit ?

2) Whether this court got jurisdiction to entertain the suit ?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent

injunction relief restraining the defendants, their men, agents,

staff, officers etc., from ever interfering with the peaceful

possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property including

the four shops in any manner ?

4) To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, in order to prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW.1 and got exhibited marked Exs.A.1 to A3. Ex.A1 is

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 6 order issued under section.115(3) of A.P Capital Regional Development

Authority Act to the Plaintiff dated 18.06.2019, Ex.A2 is three demand notices and two receipts for the amount paid to Electricity Department, Ex.A3 is the

Photographs with Compact disk. As the defendants were not reporting readiness in-spite of ample opportunities given to them to proceed with the matter and even in spite of conditional order, the evidence on the side of the defendants came to be treated as nil.

6.Heard the learned counsel on either side. Perused the material available on record. In addition to oral arguments, learned Assistant Government

Pleader filed written arguments on behalf of Defendant nos. 1 to 3.

7. ISSUE NO.2:

Whether this court got jurisdiction to entertain the suit ?

The Plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant nos. 1 to 3 for permanent injunction. The Plaintiff specifically pleaded in plaint that he took the plaint schedule property on monthly rent basis from his landlord to conduct business. P.W.1 who is the plaintiff categorically deposed the same in his chief examination by reiterating the contents of Plaint. The defendant nos. 1 to 3 in their pleadings had not taken plea that this court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Moreover, defendant nos. 1 to 3 neither choose to enter into witness box nor filed any document to show that this court is not having jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Section.9 of Civil

Procedure Code essentially states that Civil Courts have the power to hear

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 7 and decide on all matters of civil nature, unless their jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred by any other law. Admittedly, the Plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant nos. 1 to 3 for permanent injunction with regard to the plaint schedule property. The defendant nos.1 to 3 had not taken plea that this court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, this court is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the present suit is of civil nature. Accordingly, this issue no.2 is answered.

8. ISSUE NOS.1 and 3 :

“Whether there is a cause of action to institute the suit ?”.

and

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction

relief restraining the defendants, their men, agents, staff, officers etc.,

from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of

plaint schedule property including the four shops in any manner ? “.

9.The learned counsel for the plaintiff, while referring to the averments made in the plaint and the evidence adduced on behalf of his client, contended that the plaintiff is the tenant of the plaint schedule property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same . The learned counsel further argued that the defendants are trying to demolish the structure of

Plaint schedule property high handedly and by using force at the instance of neighboring land owners without giving an opportunity to the Plaintiff. The learned counsel for Plaintiff further put forth that the defendants having filed written statement did not prefer to come into witness box to testify the same

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 8 and as a consequence thereof, the case set up by them in the written statement is to be treated as utter false. The learned counsel for Plaintiff thus requested the Court that the present suit may be decreed as prayed for, in the interest of justice.

10.Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the defendant nos. 1 to 3 referring to the averments made in the written statement and the cross-examination made to PW.1, argued that the plaintiff has no right to file this suit against the defendants and that he is not in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and the entire case set up by the plaintiff is out and out false. The Leaned Assistant Government

Pleader further argued that the suit itself is not maintainable as the Plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants without giving statutory notice. The

Leaned Assistant Government Pleader further argued that PW.1/ Plaintiff himself admitted that he did not obtain permission from defendant Nos.1 to 3 for construction of shops. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also asserted the evidence through the cross examination of PW.1 in their favor though the defendant nos. 1 to 3 did not come into witness box, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case before the Court according to law; which he completely failed to do so. The learned Assistant Government Pleader therefore prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with compensatory costs in the interest of justice.

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 9

11.Coming to the settled law on the point as to passing of ex-parte decrees, in BALRAJ TANEJA v. SUNIL MADAN [AIR 1999 SC 3381] the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held inter alia thus:

“43.……… Whether it is a case which is contested by the defendants by filing a written statement, or a case which proceeds ex parte and is ultimately decided as an ex parte case, or is a case in which the written statement is not filed and the case is decided under Order 8, Rule 10, the

Court has to write a judgment which must be in conformity with the provisions of the Code or at least set out the reasoning by which the controversy is resolved.”

12.Turning to the evidence adduced before the Court, the plaintiff filed his evidence affidavit as PW.1 almost reiterating the averments of the plaint and he was examined-in-chief as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. Ex.A1 is order issued under section.115(3) of A.P Capital

Regional Development Authority Act to the Plaintiff dated 18.06.2019 ; Ex.A2 is three demand notices and two receipts for the amount paid to Electricity

Department , Ex.A3 is the Photographs with Compact disk.

13.During cross-examination of PW.1 made by the learned Assistant

Government Pleader for the defendants, PW.1 stated that at first instance that he got issued notice to the defendants prior to filing of the suit and again he stated that he had not issued prior notice to the defendants prior to filing of the suit; and that he had not obtained approval from the defendants for construction of shed; and that he had not obtained approval from C.R.D.A for

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 10 construction of shops and shed; and that the defendants got issued show cause notice to him for removal of shed and shops constructed by him. But, he denied the suggestion that he is having knowledge that the shed and shops were in C.R.D.A jurisdiction. He denied the suggestion that he has not given reply to the notice given to him by Panchayath of Kanuru. He further denied the suggestion that he had constructed the shops and shed against to the rules of C.R.D.A and the Panchayat officials demolished the shops and shed which were constructed by him.

14.It is well settled principle of law that in a suit for permanent injunction, the vital and important issue is as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of the plaint schedule property and whether there was an attempt by the defendants to interfere with such possession of the plaintiff, and the burden is entirely on the plaintiff to bring convincing and cogent evidence on record [Vide PENTA URMILA v. KARUKOLA KUMARA SWAMY [2005 (1) ALT 811]].

15.As can be seen from the record, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that he took the plaint schedule property for rent from his landlord under registered lease deed dated 11.04,2018 for running business and constructed A.C.C sheeted shed consisting of four shops in the plaint schedule property by investing more than Rs. 5,00,000/-( Rupees five lakhs only) and due to his ill-health he gave the shops for rent to 3rd parties; and that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 were trying to demolish the construction high

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 11 handedly and by force . The plaintiff as PW.1 also deposed the same in his chief-examination. A perusal of Exs.A.1 is order issued by A.P.C.R.D.A to

PW.1 , Ex.A2 is three demand notices and two receipts and Ex.A3 is photographs with compact disk.

16.That being so, it may be noted here that once the suit was coming up for the evidence on the side of the defendant nos. 1 to 3, as mentioned supra, the defendant nos. 1 to 3 were not reporting readiness to proceed with the matter in spite of conditional order, for the reasons best known to them, and thereby the evidence on the side of defendant nos. 1 to 3 came to be treated as nil. Later, the learned counsel on either side submitted their arguments

before the Court. That is how, the mater is taken up for adjudication on merits

on the basis of the material available on the record and in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

17.In support of the case of the Plaintiff, he is examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A3 in support of his case. The Plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant nos. 1 to 3 for relief of permanent injunction against defendant nos. 1 to 3. In pleadings as well as chief examination evidence,

PW.1 himself admitted that he gave the tenanted premises to 3rd parties for rent because of his ill health. Ex.A1 notice admitted by both parties. While submitting arguments, the learned Assistant Government pleader specifically argued that the plaint schedule property is not in his possession and according to condition no.6 of alleged registered lease agreement 11.4.2018,

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 12 PW.1 is not entitled to sublet the plaint schedule property to others. PW.1 also did not lead any oral evidence and examine any person to show that either himself or alleged 3rd parties on behalf of PW.1 were in possession of the suit schedule property. Even assume a moment, if 3rd parties are in plaint schedule property, the name and address particulars of alleged 3rd parties were not furnished by the Plaintiff in his entire pleadings. If really either the plaintiff or 3rd parties were conducting business in plaint schedule property, they should have obtain permission from commercial tax department and

Kanuru Panchayat authorities to conduct business. Moreover the pleadings and evidence of plaintiff is silent about what type of business was conducting . No document is filed by the Plaintiff to prove his pleadings asto alleged business by the date of filing the suit. As such, Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 documents are no way helpful to the case of the Plaintiff.

18.The contention of the defendant nos. 1 to 3 is that PW.1 constructed the shops and shed in plaint schedule property without approval from them.

PW.1 admitted in cross examination as “ I have not obtained approval from the defendants for construction of shed” ; “I have not obtained approval from CRDA for construction of shop and shed.” PW.1 further admitted that he constructed the shops and shed without approval from the defendant nos. 1 to 3. The next contention of defendant nos. 1 to 3 is that the Plaintiff filed this suit without giving statutory notice to them. The Plaintiff

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 13 shown the Panchayat Secretary of Kanuru Village as defendant no.1. Hence, it is relevant to refer her Section. 138-A of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act.

Section.138 A of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 : Notice of action against

Gram Panchayat :

(1) Subject to the provisions of Section. 138, no suit or other legal proceedings shall be brought against any Gram Panchayat or the Sarpanch or the executive authority or any member, officer or servant of such Gram

Panchayat or against any person acting under the direction of such Gram

Panchayat, Sarpanch, executive authority, member, officer or servant, in respect of any act done or purporting to be done under this Act or in respect of any any alleged neglect or default in the execution of the provisions of this

Act of any rule, bye-law, regulation or order made under it, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing stating the cause of action, the nature of the relief sought, the amount of compensation claimed and the name and place of residence of the intended plaintiff, has been left at the office of the Gram Panchayat and if the proceedings is intended to be brought against any such Sarpanch, executive authority, member, officer, servant or person, also delivered to him or left at his place of residence and unless such notice is given, the court shall not entertain such suit or legal proceeding”.

19.PW.1 admitted in his cross examination that he had not issued prior notice to the defendants prior to filing of this suit. In view of mandatory provision of Section. 138 (A) of A.P. Panchayraj Act and in view of the

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 14 admission made by PW.1 asto statutory notice, the Plaintiff filed this suit without following procedure established under law. PW.1 admitted in his cross examination that Ex.A1 was served to him by A.P.C.R.D.A. PW.1 admitted that he had not obtained permission from the defendants for construction of shed and shop in Plaint schedule property. PW.1 stated that municipal authorities levied tax to the shops and shed. But, he did not file any documentary proof to show that Municipal authorities levied tax. Moreover, there is no evidence on behalf of PW.1 that he gave reply to Ex.A1 notice. He himself admitted that he gave the plaint schedule property to 3rd parties. It is held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property by the date of filing the suit.

20.Moreover, this suit is filed by the plaintiff and hence though the defendants had not entered into witness box, the initial burden is on to prove and establish that he is having legal right and exclusive possession over the suit schedule property by the date of filing the suit. But, in view of the discussion made supra, it is held that the plaintiff failed to establish his legal right and exclusive possession over the suit schedule property. He also failed to prove and establish that the defendants tried to dispossess him from the suit schedule property. On the other hand the evidence on record shows that

PW.1 made construction of shops and shed in the plaint schedule property without approval from defendants. He filed this suit against the defendants

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 15 without giving prior statutory notice to them. Hence, there is no cause of action to file the suit against the defendants.

21.It clearly shows that PW.1 filed this suit against the defendants to get protection for the constructions made by him without following the procedure established under law. So, when the plaintiff failed to prove and establish his legal right and exclusive possession over the suit schedule property by the date of filing the suit, it is held that the plaintiff was not entitled for the discretionary relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, the issues Nos 1 and 3 are answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

I S S U E No. 4:

22. To what Relief?

In view of the finding recorded on Issues No.1 to 3 herein before,

and in the result and for the aforementioned reasons, the suit is

dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected, and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 20th day of June, 2025.

II Addl. Civil Judge( Junior Division) Vijayawada.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined.

For Plaintiff: PW.1 : Boyina Edukondalu For Defendant : NIL

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 16

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Order issued under Section 115(3) of A.P. Capital Regional Development Authority Act to him by the concern authority dated 18.06.2019. (Original).

Ex.A.2 : Three demand notices and two receipts for the amount paid to Electricity Department (Original ).

Ex.A.3 : Photograph along with CD.

For Defendants: -Nil-

II Addl. Civil Judge( Junior Division) Vijayawada.

O.S.NO.1512/2019II A.C.J (J.D), V.J.A.

20.06.2025. 17

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

VIJAYAWADA.

Present : A.B.Apparao, II Additional Civil Judge ( Junior Division). Friday, this the 20th day of June, 2025.

O.S.NO.1512/2019

Between

Boyina Edukondalu, S/o Muthaiah, aged about 50 years, R/o D.No.2-154, Ranga Bomma Centre, Kanuru,

Penamaluru Mandal.……....Plaintiff

And

1.The Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority,

Old VGTM UDA Office, Lenin Centre, Vijayawada.

2.The Panchayat Secretary, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal.

3.The State rep by its District Collector, Krishna District.

…...Defendant Nos. 1 to 3

1)This suit is instituted by the plaintiff seeking the Court to grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their staff, officers etc., from ever interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property including with his four shops in any manner whatsoever, either by demolishing the structure of the shed or otherwise in the plaint schedule property, and for costs of the suit thereof.

2)Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction u/s 50(1) of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act is Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) on which a court fee of Rs.1,786/- was paid u/s 20, Sch.I, Art.I b and c of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act, 1956 by way of bank challan, SBI,Civil Courts Branch, Vijayawada.

18

Date of Presentation:04.09.2019. Date of filing of suit :11.09.2019.

3) This suit is coming on for final hearing before me on 19.06.2025 in the presence of Sri Shaik Azghar, Sri B.Venkateswarlu, Learned Advocates for the plaintiff and Smt Ch.Chaitanya, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the defendant Nos.1 to 3, and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing arguments, having stood over for consideration to this day, this court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

D E C R E E

I) that the suit same is hereby dismissed without costs;

2) No cost memo filed on either side.

(Schedule copy is herewith enclosed).

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 20th day of June, 2025.

II Addl. Civil Judge( Junior Division) Vijayawada.

Memorandum Of Costs (Institutional costs)

For PlaintiffFor Defendants

1. Stamp on Plaint1786-00No Costs Memo filed

2. Stamp on Vakalat102-00--

3. Stamp on process130-00--

4. Typing Charges-- 5.Writing Charges-- 19

6. Advocate Fee-- 7.Publication -- Charges

TOTAL2,018-00 --

II Addl. Civil Judge( Junior Division) Vijayawada.

20

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) VIJAYAWADA.

O.S.NO.1512/2019

Between

Boyina Edukondalu, ……....Plaintiff

And

1.The Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority,

Old VGTM UDA Office, Lenin Centre, Vijayawada.

2.The Panchayat Secretary, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal.

3.The State rep by its District Collector, Krishna District.

…...Defendant Nos. 1 to 3.

PLAINT SCHEDULE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Krishna District, Vijayawada Sub-Registry, within the limits of Kanuru Gramapanchayath Area, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District in RS.No.178/1 and 178/2, in an extent of 871 Sq Yards of vacant site along with ACC sheeted shed consisting of four shops therein is being bounded by:

East : Property of Tripuramallu Suryakanthamma South : Road West : Road North : Road

II Addl. Civil Judge( Junior Division) Vijayawada.

OS.No.695 of 2019 1 II ACJ (JD), VJA.

dated 06.03.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE ( JUNIOR

DIVISION), VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: A.B.AppaRao

II Additional Civil Judge ( J.D)

Friday this the 06 th March, 2026

Original Suit Original Suit No 695/2019 No 695/2019

B e t w e e n :

Shidagam Sanyasi Rao, S/o Late Yarakayya aged about 70 years, R/o D.No.25-7-49, Meesala Vari Veedhi, Sitannapeta, Vijayawada. . . . Plaintiff

A n d

1.Shidagam Ravi Chandra Sekhar, S/o Late Yarakaya, aged about 52 years, R/o D.No.26-4/1-1, Krishna Murthy street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada.

2.Smt.Gorrela Durga, W/o Appa Rao, aged about 65 years, R/o D.No.26-4/1-1, Krishna Murthy Street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada.

3. Smt.Ezzada Ramanamma, W/o Srinivasa Rao, aged about 60 years, R/o D.No.11/88, Muthyalam Street, Dhawaleswaram, East Godavari District. . . . Defendants

This case coming before me for final hearing on 03.03.2026 in the presence of Sri N.Narasimha Rao, Learned Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri D.Anjaneya Prasad, Learned Advocate for Defendant no.1 and the suit against Defendants 2 and 3 is dismissed as not claimed by the Plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 3 for partition of the suit schedule property into 4 equal shares and allot one

OS.No.695 of 2019 2 II ACJ (JD), VJA.

dated 06.03.2026

such share to the plaintiff and remaining three shares to defendants 1 to 3 and for costs of the suit.

2.The suit schedule property is house bearing no. 26-4-1 in an extent of 25.0 sq.yards consisting RCC building situated in

Gandhinagar, Gananvolu vari street and Krishnamurthy street,

Municipal Ward No. 17, revenue ward No. 8, block no. 30, N.T.S No.

886/4, assessment no. 13920, old assessment no. 13096, Vijayawada

Municipal corporation area, Vijayawada.

3.The brief averments of the Plaint are that :

the mother of plaintiff Smt Shidagam Saraswathamma and her sister Malleda Simhachalam partitioned their properties by way of partition deed no. 227/1996 dated 19.12.1996 and the mother of plaintiff

Smt Shidagam Saraswathamma got the schedule property to her share in partition which is plaint schedule property; and that she was died intestate on 27.07.2009 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as legal heirs; and that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 became the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

After the ceremonial functions of mother of plaintiff in the presence of elders, the defendants promised to effect the partition of the plaint schedule property as early as possible. Thereafter, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 3 postponed to effect the partition of the plaint schedule property till March 2019 and then the defendants started harassing the plaintiff and expressed his inability to adjust with them and demanded them to effect the partition of the plaint schedule property and in-spite of the same, the defendants had not come forward to effect partition and as such the plaintiff made

OS.No.695 of 2019 3 II ACJ (JD), VJA.

dated 06.03.2026

fatal efforts. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants have been making efforts to sell the plaint schedule property and hence the plaintiff filed the present suit for partition of plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit.

4.On the other hand the 1st defendant filed his written statement stating that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property as his mother Smt.Saraswathamma executed a registered will in his favour on 30.07.1998 and handed over the plaint schedule property to him. Thereafter, the plaintiff executed a compromise letter on Rs.10/- non-judicial stamp paper on 01.12.2004 and the plaintiff received Rs.40,000/- from him and undertakes to never claim share in the scheduled property in future and that his mother Saraswathamma executed a registered Will dated 30.07.1998 in sound state of mind in favor of 1st defendant . The said fact was known to all the defendants including the plaintiff and that the said Will is her last Will and that immediately after the death of said Saraswathamma, the Will effected upon the 1st defendant with regard to plaint schedule property and that his name is also mutated in corporation records and it was known to the plaintiff and 2nd & 3rd defendants; and that the he applied for the loan in

State Housing Corporation Vijayawada urban and for loan payment below Rs.1,00,000/- and the same is pending. Hence he prays the court to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties the following issues are settled for trial.

I S S U E S

1) Whether the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of the registered WILL dated

OS.No.695 of 2019 4 II ACJ (JD), VJA.

dated 06.03.2026

30.07.1998 executed by his mother Smt Shidagam Saraswathamma ?

2) Whether the Plaintiff received Rs.40,000/- from the 1st defendant and executed a compromise letter on 01.12.2004 by giving an undertaking that he would not claim any right over the plaint schedule property, as such, she is stopped from claiming right in the plaint schedule property ?

3) Whether the plaint schedule property is liable for partition into four equal shares and the plaintiff is entitled for one such share as sought for ?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition as sought for ?

5) To what relief ?

6.To prove their respective contentions, the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to A3 and on behalf of the 1st defendant, the 1stdefendant is examined as DW.1, one of the attestor of

ExB.1 is examined as DW.2 and Exs B1 to B3 are marked.

7.Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff filed written arguments.

8.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the suit schedule property is originally belongs to mother of the Plaintiff and after her death, the plaintiff and the defendants are became to the shares of the plaint schedule property and that the plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the property as the defendants are not cooperated for partition and the plaintiff established that the suit schedule property is joint family property and the 1st defendant failed to establish his contention and prayed to decree the suit in favor of the plaintiff as prayed for.

OS.No.695 of 2019 5 II ACJ (JD), VJA.

dated 06.03.2026

9.The learned counsel for the 1st defendant argued that the suit schedule property originally belongs to 1st defendant's mother and during her life time, she got executed Ex.B1 Will in favor of the 1st defendant and that the plaintiff as well as the 2nd and 3rd defendants have no right on plaint schedule property and that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and the plaintiff cannot ask for partition of the plaint schedule property and prayed to dismiss the suit.

10. I S S U E Nos.1 to 3:

As the issues 1 to 3 are inter-related to each other, they have taken up together for discussion.

1.Whether the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of he registered WILL dated 30.07.1998 executed by his mother Smt Shidagam Saraswathamma ?

2.Whether the Plaintiff received Rs.40,000/- from the 1st defendant and executed a compromise letter on 01.12.2004 by giving an undertaking that he would not claim any right over the plaint schedule property, as such, he is estopped from claiming right in the plaint schedule property ?

3.Whether the plaint schedule property is liable for partition into four equal shares and the plaintiff is entitled for one such share as sought for ?

11. At the out set the plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants 1 to 3 for partition of the suit schedule property into 4 equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and remaining three shares to defendants 1 to 3 and for costs of the suit.

12. To prove his case, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 and on behalf of the 1st defendant, the 1st

OS.No.695 of 2019 6 II ACJ (JD), VJA.

dated 06.03.2026

defendant is examined as DW.1 and one of the attestor of Ex.B1 is examined DW.2 and got marked ExsB.1 to B.3.

13. P.W.1 is the plaintiff. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of partition deed

dated 19.12.1996 between Sidgam Sarswathamma and

M Simhachalam. Ex.A2 is the death certificate of S.Sarswathamma

dated 07.02.2009. Ex.A3 is the Valuation Certificate dated 07.03.2009.

14. DW.1 is the 1st defendant. DW. 2 is one of the attestor of Ex.B2.

Ex.B1 is the WILL executed by Shidagam Saraswathamma in favor of the 1st defendant dated 30.07.1998. Ex.B2 is the letter from A.P State

Housing Corporation, Vijayawada urban issued by the Deputy Executive

Engineer dated 19.09.2018. Ex.B3 is compromise letter executed on

Rs.10/- Non stamp judicial paper by the plaintiff in-favor of 1st defendant.

15. The admitted facts of the case are that the Plaintiff and defendants are brothers and sisters and they are all children of Late

Shidagam.Saraswathamma. It is also an admitted fact that his mother

Shidagam.Saraswathamma got the plaint schedule property through

Ex.A1 partition deed.

16.The contention of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 are having equal right to get the equal share in the plaint share in the plaint schedule property. But, the contention of the 1st defendant is that his mother executed Ex.B1 registered WILL in his favor and basing on the said WILL, the plaint schedule property is devolved upon him and that the Plaintiff is not having any right over the plaint schedule property. Since this is a suit filed by the plaintiff for Partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property claiming it to be

OS.No.695 of 2019 7 II ACJ (JD), VJA.

dated 06.03.2026

joint family property as the property originally belongs to their mother who died intestate. Hence, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the suit schedule property belong to an undivided Hindu family, and only when the initial burden is discharged, then the other side who contends to the contrary, be called upon to prove their case. So, now the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule property belong to undivided Hindu family.

17.Plaintiff as PW.1 deposed that that his mother Smt

Shidagam Saraswathamma and her sister Mellada.Simhachalam partitioned the properties by way of partition deed vide document

No.2227/1996 dated 19.12.1996 and his mother got plaint schedule property to her share in partition held between his mother and the sister of his mother and that Smt Shidagam Saraswathamma, who is the mother of plaintiff and defendants, continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and thereafter on 27.07.2009, she was died by leaving behind her, the plaintiff and the defendants as legal heirs. As can be seen from the contents of the written statement filed by the defendant no.1 also the said fact was admitted by him in his evidence. So, it is established that the suit schedule property is belong to the mother of the plaintiff and defendants. Since it is also admitted by both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant that the mother of plaintiff and defendants Smt Shidagam.Saraswathamma was died on 27.07.2009 .

18.Now, it is the contention of the 1st defendant that during the life time of his mother, she got executed Ex.B1 registered WILL in his favor and basing on the said WILL, he became the absolute owner of the

Plaint schedule property. The further contention of 1st defendant is that the plaintiff had taken Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) from

OS.No.695 of 2019 8 II ACJ (JD), VJA.

dated 06.03.2026

the 1st defendant and executed Ex.B3 compromise letter and hence the

Plaintiff has no right to seek partition of the plaint schedule property.

19.The 1st defendant has further testified as DW.1 and he stated that during the lifetime of his mother, she executed Ex.B.1 WILL bequeathing the plaint schedule property to him and thereafter the plaint schedule property devolved upon him and since then he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and that the plaintiff has no right seeking partition of the plaint schedule property. In support of the evidence of DW-1, one of the attestor of Ex.B1 was examined as DW.2. DW.2 deposed in his chief examination that Ex.B1 was executed by the mother of DW.1 in favor of 1st defendant and he singed on Ex.B1 WILL. In cross-examination, DW.2 swears that he knows the family members of plaintiff since his childhood; and that he do not know the educational qualification of the mother of plaintiff and 1st defendant. He categorically swears that he has not witnessed the execution of the alleged WILL. He further admitted that he knows

only the fact that he signed on will and he doesn’t know the

contents of Ex.B1 WILL. He further admitted that he has not read over the contents of WILL. He further admitted that he has not seen the WILL. He further admitted that he has not seen the WILL dated 30.07.1998 to till today.

20.The contention of 1st defendant is that DW.2 is acted as one of the attestors for execution of Ex.B1 WILL alleged to be executed by the mother of 1st defendant. But, the evidence of DW.2 clearly shows that he has not witnessed the execution of Ex.B1 as he had not stated anything about who scribed the Ex.B1 and who is the 2nd attestor.

Moreover, DW.2 also failed to say anything about that the mother of 1st defendant put her signature before him and he witnessed the same. As

OS.No.695 of 2019 9 II ACJ (JD), VJA.

dated 06.03.2026

such in view of mandatory of provisions of law for proving a document

WILL, the 1st defendant failed to prove Ex.B1 WILL in accordance with law . Moreover, the 1st defendant admitted himself that he was present at the time of registration of Ex.B1 WILL . He further admitted that at the execution of Ex.B1, his mother is hale and healthy. As such when the mother of 1st defendant is hale and healthy at the time of execution of

Ex.B1, why his mother executed Ex.B1 in his favor and he failed to explain the reasons and under what circumstances she was compelled to execute Ex.B1 in his favor. Moreover, DW.2 had not deposed about the execution of Ex.B1. So, the evidence of DW.1 is not believable .

DW.1 being propounder of WILL was miserably failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Ex.B1 and hence contention of the plaintiff that Ex.B1 brought into existence as proved by eliciting the facts and circumstances in the cross-examination of DWs.1 and 2. In the above circumstances, the evidence of D.W.2 is also not useful in proving the case of the 1st defendant. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with admissions of DWs.1 and 2 and in view of the foregoing discussion supra, this court is of considered view that

Ex.B1 WILL is not true, valid and binding on the plaintiff.

21.The next contention of the 1st defendant is that the plaintiff received Rs.40,000/-( Rupees forty thousand only) and executed compromise letter in favor of the 1st defendant. On perusal of the compromise letter which was marked on behalf of 1st defendant, only one person is alleged to have been put his signature on it and the space for putting signature of 2nd person is kept blank without signing by anybody and lastly at the place by whom it was drafted was also kept blank. If really the alleged document was executed by the plaintiff as alleged by the 1st defendant, he has to examine the attestor who was alleged to have been attested the alleged document to prove its

OS.No.695 of 2019 10 II ACJ (JD), VJA.

dated 06.03.2026

contents. On one hand, the version of 1st defendant is that his mother executed Ex.B1 WILL in his favor and the plaintiff has no right to claim share in the plaint schedule property. On the other hand, the next contention of 1st defendant is that the plaintiff received Rs.40,000/- ( Rupees forty thousand only) from the 1st defendant and executed

Ex.B3 compromise letter. So, the main contention of 1st defendant with regard to alleged Ex.B3 is that the plaintiff relinquished his right by taking Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand only). But the nomenclature of document is captioned as “compromise letter “. Admittedly, other defendants are also the legal heirs along with the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant failed to explain why he entered into alleged compromise letter with the plaintiff alone when there are other share holder who are the other defendants. So, the 1st defendant has no clarity to put-forth his defence to disprove the contention of plaintiff with regard to rights of plaintiff and defendants on plaint schedule property.

So, in any way, the 1st defendant failed to prove ExB.1 WILL as well as

Ex.B3 compromise letter because though the defendant examined one of the attestor of Ex.B1 WILL, he failed to stick on his averments of his chief evidence affidavit and he completely deviated from his version in cross-examination. So, the evidence of 1st defendant is not corroborated by DW.2 in any manner with regard to execution of Ex.B1 WILL.

Moreover, the 1st defendant also failed to prove alleged Ex.B3 compromise letter.

22.In case between M.Gangamma Vs M.VenkataNarayana reported in 2024(1) ALT 472 Hon’ble High Court of A.P held with regard to (a)Validity of a Registered WILL :: Even if it is a registered WILL, it cannot be accepted as valid . (b) Duty of propounder of WILL :: The duty is casts upon the propounder of WILL to disprove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the WILL, otherwise it is not a valid WILL. In

OS.No.695 of 2019 11 II ACJ (JD), VJA.

dated 06.03.2026

the present case also , the 1st defendant failed to prove execution of

Ex.B1 WILL even though it is registered document. Hence , Ex.B1 has no sanctity in the eye of law.

23.Now, it is the case of plaintiff that his mother got the suit schedule property through partition deed from her sister. The 1st defendant failed to prove the documents Ex.B1 and Ex.B3 documents and hence both

Ex.B1 and Ex.B3 are not binding on the Plaintiff. As such, the 1st defendant failed to place any evidence to disprove the claim of plaintiff.

Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim. Issues Nos 1 to 3 are answered accordingly in favor of the plaintiff.

24.Issue No.4: -

In view of the finding under Issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered in favor of plaintiff; he is entitled for possession of the plaint schedule property. Hence, issue no.4 is answered in favor of plaintiff.

25.Issue No.5 ( To what relief?)

(i) In view of the finding under Issue Nos.1 to 3, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the decree in his favour. Accordingly, this point is also answered positively in favour of the plaintiff.

(ii) In the result, the suit is decreed. A preliminary decree is passed for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and for allotment and separate possession of one such share to

OS.No.695 of 2019 12 II ACJ (JD), VJA.

dated 06.03.2026

the plaintiff, by metes and bounds. In view of relationship between the parties, no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pro- nounced by me in open Court on this the 06 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-AB AppaRao

II Add. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

PW.1:Shidagam Sanyasi Rao 1 st DEFENDANT :

D.W.1:Shidagam Ravi Chandra Sekhar D.W.2: Palleda Srinivasa Rao

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintiff: For 1 st Defendant :

EX.A1 is the Certified copy of partition deed dated 19.12.1996 between

Sidagam Saraswathamma and M.Simhachalam.

Ex.A.2 is the death certificate of S.Saraswathamma, dated 07.02.2009.

Ex.A.3 is the valuation certificate dated 07.03.2009.

Sd/-AB AppaRao

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Vijayawada. For 1 st Defendant :- Ex.B.1 is the Certified copy of Registered Will Smt.Shidagam Shraswathamma executed in favor of defendant Dt.30.07.1998. Ex.B.2 is the Xerox copy of the letter from AP State Housing Corporation, Vijayawada Urban issued by the Executive Engineer Dt.19.09.2018 Ex.B.3 is the compromise letter on Rs.10/- Non Judicial Paper executed by the plaintiff and received Rs.40,000/-.

Sd/-AB AppaRao

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Vijayawada.

OS.No.695 of 2019 13 II ACJ (JD), VJA.

dated 06.03.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE ( JUNIOR

DIVISION), VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: A.B.AppaRao

II Additional Civil Judge ( J.D)

Friday this the 06 th March, 2026

Original Suit Original Suit No 695/2019 No 695/2019

B e t w e e n :

Shidagam Sanyasi Rao, S/o Late Yarakayya aged about 70 years, R/o D.No.25-7-49, Meesala Vari Veedhi, Sitannapeta, Vijayawada. . . . Plaintiff

A n d

1.Shidagam Ravi Chandra Sekhar, S/o Late Yarakaya, aged about 52 years, R/o D.No.26-4/1-1, Krishna Murthy street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada.

2.Smt.Gorrela Durga, W/o Appa Rao, aged about 65 years, R/o D.No.26-4/1-1, Krishna Murthy Street, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada.

3. Smt.Ezzada Ramanamma, W/o Srinivasa Rao, aged about 60 years, R/o D.No.11/88, Muthyalam Street, Dhawaleswaram, East Godavari District. . . . Defendants

1. This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 3 for partition of the suit schedule property into 4 equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and remaining three shares to defendants 1 to 3 and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on 29.04.2019.

Plaint numbered on 29.04.2019.

OS.No.695 of 2019 14 II ACJ (JD), VJA.

dated 06.03.2026

2)Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction u/s 50(1) of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act is Rs.2,52,046/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty two thousand and forty six only)on which a court fee of Rs.200/- was paid u/s 20, Sch.I, Art.I b and c of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act, 1956 by way of bank challan, SBI,Civil Courts Branch, Vijayawada.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 03.03.2026 in the presence of Sri N.Narasimha Rao, Learned Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri D.Anjaneya Prasad, Learned Advocate for Defendant no.1 and the suit against Defendants 2 and 3 is dismissed as not claimed by the Plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till tody, this court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

D E C R E E

(i) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants ; and

(ii)that the plaint schedule property into divided four equal shares and for allotment and separate possession of one such share to the plaintiff, by metes and bounds. In view of relationship between the parties, no order as to costs.

(iii) that the plaintiff to bear his own costs of Rs. Rs.302-/ (Rupees three hundred two only) that the de- fendants do bear their own costs of Rs.NIL. (Costs memo not filed both sides) (Schedule copy attached).

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 06th day March, 2026.

Sd/-AB Appa Rao

II Additional Civil Judge (JD), Vijayawada.

Memorandum Of Costs

For PlaintiffFor Defendant

1. Stamp on Plaint200-00--

2. Stamp on 102-00--

OS.No.695 of 2019 15 II ACJ (JD), VJA.

dated 06.03.2026

Vakalath

3. Stamp on ---- process

4. Typing Charges---- 5.Writing Charges----

6. Advocate Fee----

7. Jr. Advocate Fee----

TOTAL302-00 --

Sd/-AB AppaRao

II Additional Civil Judge (JD), Vijayawada.

C.C.No.607 of 2025 1 II AJMFC, VJA

Dated 27.02.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, VIJAYAWADA.

Present: - AB AppaRao,

II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada. Friday, this the 27th day of February, 2026

Calendar Case No.607 of 2025

(Cr.No.299 of 2024 Krishnalanka PS., Vijayawada)

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka Police Station ,

Vijayawada. ... Complainant

And

1.Madhu Subba Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, aged about 50 years, R/o Gowda Bazar, Gudavalli, Krishna District.

2.Tirupati naga Kasthuri Kumar, S.o Phanindra Rao, aged about 53 R/o D.No.3-58/1, Godavarru Village, Kankipadu Mandal Krishna District,

3. Nallagati Sriramulu @ Malaganti Srinivasa Rao, aged about 58 years, R/o D.No.32-26-57, Opposite SRR College, Machavaram, Vijayawada. ... A.1 to A.3

This case presented before me on 25.02.2026 for hearing, in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of SriM.Suseela, Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused and having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub_Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka Police station, Vijayawada

City laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.299/2024 for the offence punishable U/s.34(A) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Amended) Act 2020.

2.On 09.07.2024 at about 12.00 mid night PW.3 received reliable information about illegal transportation of liquor and then he secured 2 mediators PW.2, LW.7//Venuthurumilli Ramana and proceeded to

Kanakadurga Bar, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada city along with his staff PW.1 and noticed that the accused was tried to escape from that place; and that he caught hold the accused and on enquiry the A.1 confessed that on instructions of bar owner ie., A.3 they were selling liquor even after timings completed to get commission. PW.4 verified the bag which is in possession

A.1 found ie., King fisher strong beer bottles -6 650ml, 2) Kingfisher

Platinum logged beer bottles -6 650ml, 3) Kinghfisher storm beer bottles -6 botles 650ml, 4) Royal palace -16 bottles 180ml, 5) Morpheus -x0- Blended

Reserve Brandy -2 bottles 180ml 6) Kyron Rare Brandy French Blend -2 bottles 180ml, 7) Sterling Reserve (B-7) -6 bottles 180ml, 8) Blenders pride -1 bottles 180ml, 9) Magic Moments -2 bottles 180ml, 10) Royal stag classic whiskey -2 bottles 180ml, 11) Courier Nepoleon -2 bottles 180ml, 12)

Manjeera Blue -4 bottles 180ml, 13) Mansion house -11 bottles 180ml, 14) officers choice -35 bottles 180ml, the said bottles and cash of Rs.2,000/- from the possession of A.1 under the cover of Ex.P.3 mediators report in the presence of mediators PW.2 LW.7//Venthurumilli Ramana and his staff.

Later, PW.3 returned to the police station and registered Ex.P.4 mediators report as a case in Cr.No.299/2024 under Section 34(A) of AP Excise Act 1968 Amended Act 2020 and issued Ex.P.4 FIR. During the course of investigation, PW.3//SI of police proceeded to Swargapuri road along with his staff where he causing hold of A.2, on enquiry, A.2 admitted about the confession of offence, A.2 further confessed about the commission of offence, PW.3//SI of Police drafted 2nd mediators report. A.1 and A.2 are forwarded to the court along remand report for Judicial custody. A.3 surrendered before the court. Later, PW.3 examined as PW.1, LW.2/Paagi

Pavan Kumar, LW.3/Madhan Ramesh, LW.4/Redumadugu Durga Prasad and LW.5/Odugu Prasad and recorded their detailed statements. PW.3/SI of

Police prepared rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P.5, and he seized property to the lab for chemical analysis. Thereafter on his transfer, 3

LW.9/SI of Police confronted to PW.3 on charge sheet and he is identified ie., the signature of LW.9//SI of Police. During the course of investigation,

LW.9//SI of Police sent MO.1s to 14 sample to chemical examiner through letter advice u/Ex.P.6 received chemical analysis report from chemical examiner u/Ex.P.7. LW.9/SI of Police received orders from the Commissioner of Police for destruction of liquor seized from the possession of accused.

After completion of investigation, LW.9/SI of Police filed charge sheet against the accused Nos 1 to 3.

3.Cognizance of the offence punishable U/S.34(A) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 was taken against the Accused.

4. On appearance of the Accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge for the offence U/s.34(A) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, has been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. The Accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.7 and Mos.1 to 14. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW.2/Paagi Pavan Kumar, LW.3/Madhan Ramesh,

LW.4/Redumadugu Durga Prasad and LW.5/Odugu Prasad,

LW.7//Venthurumilli Ramana and LW.9//K.Santhoshamma, SI of Police and hence their evidence is closed.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material placed against the accused Nos 1 to 3, for which the accused denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on their behalf.

4

8.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

9. Now the Point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34(A) of A.P. Excise

Act, 1968, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point :-

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3, Exs.P.1 to P.7 and Mos.1 to 14 were marked.

11.The case of the prosecution is that on 09.07.2024 at about 12.00 mid night, PW.3 received reliable information about illegal transportation of liquor and then he secured mediators PW.3, LW.7/ Venthurumilli Ramana and proceeded to opposite proceeded to Kankadurga Bar, Krishnalanka,

Vijayawada along with his staff ie.,, PW.1, LW.7//Venthurumilli Ramana and noticed that the accused was tried to escape from that place; and that he caught hold the accused and on enquiry the accused confessed about commission of offence and seized King fisher strong beer bottles -6 650ml,

2) Kingfisher Platinum logged beer bottles -6 650ml, 3) Kingfisher storm beer bottles -6 botles 650ml, 4) Royal palace -16 bottles 180ml, 5) Morpheus -x0-

Blended Reserve Brandy -2 bottles 180ml 6) Kyron Rare Brandy French

Blend -2 bottles 180ml, 7) Sterling Reserve (B-7) -6 bottles 180ml, 8)

Blenders pride -1 bottles 180ml, 9) Magic Moments -2 bottles 180ml, 10)

Royal stag classic whiskey -2 bottles 180ml, 11) Courier Nepoleon -2 bottles 180ml, 12) Manjeera Blue -4 bottles 180ml, 13) Mansion house -11 bottles 180ml, 14) officers choice -35 bottles 180ml, the said bottles and cash of

Rs.2,000/- from the possession of A.1 under the cover of Exs.P.2 and P.3 mediators report in the presence of mediators PW.2, LW.7/ Venthurumilli

Ramana and his staff. Later, PW.3 returned to police station and registered

Ex.P.3 mediators report as a case in Cr.No.299/2024 under Section 34(A) of 5

AP Excise Act 1968 Amended Act 2020 and issued Ex.P.4 FIR. During the course of investigation PW.3 examined PW.1, PW.2, LLW.2/Paagi Pavan

Kumar, LW.3/Madhan Ramesh, LW.4/Redumadugu Durga Prasad and

LW.5/Odugu Prasad, and LW.7/V.Ramana and recorded their detailed statements. PW.3 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and that he sent Mos.1 1 to 14 samples to chemical examiner through letter advice.

12.As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses that PW.4 who is the

Investigating officer and who registered the case and obtained the relevant documents in accordance with the procedure under Exs.P2 and P.3, he sent

MOs.1 to 14 through letter of advice u/Ex.P6 and LW.8// SI of Police received Ex.P.7/Chemical analysis report, and filed charge sheet.

13.Since there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution, PWs 1 and 3 are the official witness and the mediator ie., PW.2 alleged to be accompanied with PW.3 did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore the evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. P.W.3 in his cross-examination admitted that he has not mentioned the serial numbers, bathc number of Mos 1 to 14 under Ex.P.2 and that he has not mentioned denomination of cash of Rs.2000/;. He further admitted that mediators have not submit any permission letter obtained from superior officer of mediators. He further admitted that the scene offence is a busy locality. He admitted that he did not mention the serial numbers of alleged liquor bottles in Ex.P.3 mediators report and that he did not issue written summons to the mediators. He further admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. As per evidence of prosecution PW.3 did not secure the local inhabitants to act as mediators at scene of offence. Further, the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 could be considered for the procedural aspect to complete the investigation only and no incriminating material was leveled in their evidence against the accused.

6

14.In the present case, the entire case of the prosecution is based on the alleged seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of the accused.

Therefore, it is to be noticed whether the investigating agency has followed the procedure relating to search and seizure, section 100 Cr.P.C. deals with the search and seizure. According to section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure, it is the obligation on the part of the investigating officer, who conducted search and seizure to secure the local inhabitants to prove the seizure and when the officials failed to secure the independent witnesses, the search and seizure is not free from doubtful and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

15.Further our Hon'ble High Court in a case of Y. Srinivasulu Reddy

Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) L.S. 242 held that :

“if no one was willing act as panch witness, a written order should be passed for the purpose of conducting search and seizure and in the said case the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated”

16.In Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 AP wherein it is held that :

“the panchanama is hit by sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and sec.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion.” 17.Coming to the present case, admittedly P.W.1 did not issue any written notice to any of the villagers with a request to act as mediators. PW.3 ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C, and also law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in Sri Y.Srinivasulu

Reddy case and also Mudavat Motia case, which he did not do so. All 7 these lacunas in the investigation of PW.4 shows that he has not done proper investigation in seizure of the alleged contraband from the possession of accused.

18.Since P.W.4 did not follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High

Court in Srinivasulu Reddy case and in Mudavath Mothiai’s case the case of the prosecution is not believable and further P.W.1 and PW.4 are interested witnesses being Police official, as such their evidence cannot be relied upon without any corroboration from the independent witnesses.

Admittedly in this case the prosecution did not choose to examine independent witnesses to corroborate the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 who are the police officials.

19.In the said circumstances, the entire search and seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all.Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was found in possession of 15 180 ml., Old Admiral brandy bottles.

20.In view of the above findings, it is appeared that the evidence of the prosecution is not free from doubtful circumstances,as such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion 8 that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34(A) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

21.In the result, accused Nos 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence

U/s.34(A) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and thereby they are acquitted U/s.248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment. The marked Mos.1 to 14 case property, vide CPR No. /2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27 th day of February, 2026.

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Gotru Murali None. P.W.2: Chebrolu Venu Gopal (Mediator) P.W.3: Y.Durga Rao SI of Police

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Mediators report dated 09.07.2024. -NIL- Ex.P2: Mediators report dated 09.07.2024 12.00 PM mid night Ex.P3: Mediators report dated 06.30 PM Ex.P4: Original FIR Ex.P.5 Rough sketch Ex.P.6 Letter of Advice. Ex.P.7 Chemical analysis report.

9

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1 is King fisher strong beer sample bottle

MO.2 is Kingfisher Platinum logged beer sample bottle,

MO.3 Kingfisher storm beer sample bottle,

MO.4 Royal palace sample bottle,

MO.5 Morpheus -x0- Blended Reserve Brandy sample bottle

MO.6 Kyron Rare Brandy French Blend sample bottle,

MO.7 Sterling Reserve (B-7) sample bottle,

MO.8 Blenders pride sample bottle

MO.9 Magic Moments sample bottle,

MO.10 Royal stag classic whiskey sample bottle,

MO.11Courier Nepoleon sample bottle

MO.12 Manjeera Blue sample bottle,

MO.13 Mansion house sample bottle

MO.14 officers choice -35 bottles sample bottle

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

10

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS -cum- JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), FIRST

Present: - AB AppaRao,

II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada. Friday, this the 27th day of February, 2026

Calendar Case No.607 of 2025

(Cr.No.299 of 2024 Krishnalanka PS., Vijayawada)

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnalanka Police Station ,

Vijayawada. ... Complainant

And

1.Madhu Subba Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, aged about 50 years, R/o Gowda Bazar, Gudavalli, Krishna District.

2.Tirupati naga Kasthuri Kumar, S/o Phanindra Rao, aged about 53 R/o D.No.3-58/1, Godavarru Village, Kankipadu Mandal Krishna District,

3. Nallagati Sriramulu @ Malaganti Srinivasa Rao S/o Veeraiah, aged about 58 years, R/o D.No.32-26-57, Opposite SRR College, Machavaram, Vijayawada.

… A.1 to A.3

Charges under section(s) : U/Sec. 34(A) of AP Excise Act

Date of occurrence:09.07.2024

Date of report:09.07.2024

Date of appearance:---

Date of commencement of trial:19.11.2025

Date of closure of trial:20.02.2026

Date of hearing :03.02.2026

Date of Judgment:27.02.2026 11

Result of the Case: In the result, accused Nos 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.34(A) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and thereby they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment. The marked MOs.1 to 14 case property, vide CPR No.

/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay :The case was taken on file on 18.07.2025. On 09.10.2025 copies furnished to the accused. On 23.10.2025 A.1 to A.3 were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C, charge U/sec.34 (A) of AP Excise Act, was framed read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution, PWs1 to 3 were examined,

Exs.P1 to P7 and MOs1 to 14 marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 23.02.2026 and reported no defence evidence. Heard arguments. Judgment was

pronounced on 27.02.2026.

Sd/-A

II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

Copy Submitted to The Hon’ble II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

VIJAYAWADA

Present: A.B.AppaRao, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada

Thursday, this the 27th day of February, 2025.

O.S.No. 1026 of 2022.

Between:.

Nallamothu Dhana Sekhar Prasad, S/o late Nallamothu Vara Prasada Rao, Hindu, age : 49 years, Business, Resident of H.No.6-13-129, GollapallemgattuRoad,Mahantipuram, Vijayawada. … Plaintiff. And:

1.Peteti Rojmeri, W.o Peteti Prasada Rao, Hindu, age : 60 years, Housewife, R/o D.No.7-11-34A, GollapallemgattuRoad,Mahantipuram, Vijayawada.

2.Peteti Kezia Rani, D/o Peteti Prasada Rao, W/o Ravi, Hindu, age : 45 years, Housewife, R/o D.No.7-11-34A,GollapallemgattuRoad, Mahantipuram, Vijayawada.

3.Peteti Jhansi Rani, D/o Peteti Prasada Rao, W/o Santa Kumar, Hindu, age : 43 years, Housewife,R/o D.No.7-11-34A, Gollapallemgattu Road, Mahantipuram, Vijayawada.

4. Peteti Vijayanand, S/o Peteti Prasada Rao, Hindu, age : 31 years, R/o D.No.7-11-34A, GollapallemgattuRoad,Mahantipuram,

Vijayawada.

5. Peteti Siva Kumari, W/o late Vjaya Alfred, Hindu, age : 49 years, Housewife, R/o D.No.7- 11-34A, Gollapallemgattu Road, Mahantipuram, Vijayawada.

6. Peteti Priyanka, D/o late Peteti Vijaya Alfred, W/o G.Paul, Hindu, age : 28 years, Housewife, R/o D.No.7-11-34A, Gollapallemgattu Road, Mahantipuram, Vijayawada.

7. Peteti Priyadarshini, D/o lage Peteti Vijaya Alfred, W/o Madhu, age : 25 years, Housewife, R/o D.No.7-11-34A, Gollapallemgattu Road, Mahantipuram, Vijayawada.

8.Peteti Abhinash, S/o late Vijaya Alfred, Hindu, age : 22 years, R/o D.No.7-11-34A, GollapallemgattuRoad,Mahantipuram, Vijayawada.

... Defendant Nos. 1 to 8.

This suit came up on 23.01.2025 for final hearing before me in the pres- ence of Sri.A.Eswara Sai and Sri.M.Uday Kumar learned Advocates for the Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 has been called absent and set ex- parte as per the order dated 18.01.2023 and remained exparte, and Defen- dant Nos.5 to 8 has been called absent and set exparte as per the order

dated 22.07.2023 and remained exparte, upon hearing the learned counsel

for the plaintiff and upon perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is the suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant Nos. 1 to 8 for seeking the relief for partition of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares with metes and bounds and allot one such share to the plaintiff 3 (1/3rd share ) with separate possession, 1/3rd share to the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 ( i.e., ¼th each in the said 1/3 rd share ) and 1/3 rd share the defendant Nos.

5 to 8 ( i.e., ¼th each in the said 1/3 rd share ) and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

(I)The plaintiff is the son of Nallamothu Vara Prasada Rao and Peteti Meri

Chittemma. The mother of plaintiff Peteti Meri Chittemma, one by name

Peteti Prasada Rao and another by name Peteti Vijaya Alfred are the children of Peteti George and Peteti Santhoshamma @ Mahalakshmi. The defendant

No.1 is the wife and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the children of Peteti Prasad

Rao (i.e., elder brother of plaintiff’s mother), the defendant No.5 is the wife and defendant Nos. 6 to 8 are the children of Peteti Vijaya Alfred ( i.e., younger brother of plaintiff’s mother ). The maternal grandfather of the plaintiff by name Peteti George died intestate on 30.10.1985 leaving behind his wife by name Peteti Santhoshamma @ Mahalakshmi, mother of plaintiff Meri

Chittemma, Peteti Prasada Rao and Peteti Vijaya Alfred as his only legal heirs.

(ii) During the life of the plaintiff’s maternal grand father, he got acquired a share in his father’s property by way of Regd., Partition deed dated.14.12.1945, doc. Bearing No.3699/1945, SRO, Vijayawada, executed in between him and his brother by name Peteti Sayanandam, with regard to the property situated at D.No.7-11-34A, Gollapaem Gattu Road, Mahanthipuram,

Wynchipet, Vijayawada in an extent of 80.6 sq.yards of residential site more specifically described in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff’s maternal grandfather Peteti George got constructed a Madras Tiled House in the plaint schedule property. Subsequently the plaintiff’s maternal grandfather died 4 intestate in the year 1985 leaving behind his wife, plaintiff’s mother and her two younger brothers. Subsequent to the death of plaintiff’s maternal grandfather, the plaintiff’s maternal grandmother also died intestate in the year 1992 ans so that the plaintiff’s mother, her two brothers remained as only legal heirs having equal rights over the plaint schedule property.

(iii)The plaintiff’s mother who is a school teacher, used to reside along with her husband and children separately at her own residence and used to look after her two younger brothers and gave support to their families, who used to reside in the plaint schedule property, which is nearby to the residence of the plaintiff’s mother. The younger brother of his mother Peteti Prasada Rao left the home in the year 1997 due to some family disputes and so that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are remained as his legal heirs. By that time the plaintiff’s mother gave her support to the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 by giving food shelter to the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in her house and during the said period the plaintiff herein along with his family resided in one of the portions of the plaint schedule property. Subsequently, the plaintiff shifted to his mother’s house and the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 shifted to paint schedule property.

(iv)Thereafter as the Madras Tiled House in the schedule property was deteriorated, the plaintiff’s mother with her own money got repaired the entire house and got altered the Madras Tiled House into an RCC Building, in order to make convenient residence to the families of her two brothers and the plaintiff’s mother by that time let out some part of the plaint schedule property to others and used to collect rents for the same. Subsequently, in the year 2000, second younger brother of plaintiff’s mother, by name Peteti Vijaya

Alfred died intestate leaving behind the defendant Nos. 5 to 8 herein as his 5 only legal heirs. Further, as the half of the house in the schedule property was damaged, the plaintiff’s mother gave shelter in her house to the defendant

Nos. 1 to 4 and thereafter, the plaintiff in the year 2014 got demolished the part of the said house and got constructed an RCC building in which the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have been resided and in the 1st floor of the remaining half Madras Tiled House the defendant Nos. 5 to 8 are resided in the ground floor of the same, and subsequently from the year 2018, as the defendant

No.5 expressed her difficulty in bearing the educational expenses of the defendant No.8, on that the plaintiff’s mother gave her support to the defendant No.5 by giving the monthly rent collected from the ground floor to the defendant No.5 to bear the educational fees of the defendant No.8, the mother of the plaintiff keeping in view to love and affection over the brothers and their families.

(v)The defendant No.4 has ulterior motive and got provoked remaining defendants and with collusiveness trying to alienate the plaint schedule property along with the 1/3 rd share of the plaintiff’s mother. On knowing the same the mother of plaintiff got astonished and questioned the same and for which all the defendants stated that the mother of plaintiff is having no right over the schedule property in any manner and also stated that they can sell away the property as per their own wish and declared that the mother of plaintiff is not going to get any share in the schedule property. Being Hindus, as per the Hindu Succession Act, the mother of plaintiff, her two brothers are having 1/3 rd share each in the schedule property. Thereafter, the mother of plaintiff got issued legal notice on 06.11.2021 through her counsel to all the defendants demanding for partition of the defendants for the said partition of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares and for cooperation of the 6 defendants for the said partition of the plaint schedule property and the said notice has been received by all the defendants and the defendants did not choose to give any reply for the same.

(vi)On 08.11.2021, the mother of plaintiff died intestate. During her life time she executed a will on 01.08.2020 in favour of the plaintiff herein, bequeathing her undivided share in the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and so that subsequent to her death, the said will dated.01.08.2020 came into force and in view of the same the undivided 1/3 rd share of mother of plaintiff is devolved upon the plaintiff and the plaintiff became the absolute owner of undivided 1/3 rd share of the plaint schedule property. Subsequent to the death of mother of plaintiff, the plaintiff informed the execution of the above mentioned will dated.01.08.2020 by his mother in favour of the plaintiff on many occasions and requested all the defendants to cooperate for the partition of the plaint schedule property to him, but the defendants started that the defendants are not going to cooperate for the partition of the schedule property and declared that the plaintiff can do whatever he can. Thereafter the plaintiff got issued a notice on 27.04.2022 to the defendants informing about his right over the plaint schedule property. Hence, this suit.

3.Inspite of ample time provided to the defendant Nos.1 to 4, they did not choose to file their written statements, hence they were set exparte as per the order dated 18.01.2023 and remained exparte. Inspite of ample time provided to the defendant Nos.5 to 8, they did not choose to file their written statements, hence they were set exparte as per the order dated 20.07.2023 and remained exparte.

7

4.In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.5 on his behalf and reported no further evidence.

Therefore, the evidence on his side came to be closed and it was then posted for arguments.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record.

6.The point that arise for determination in this suit are:

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for partition of suit schedule property into three equal shares and for allotment of 1/3th share to the plaintiff, defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and defendant Nos. 5 to 8 ?

2) To what relief ?

POINT NO.1 :

07. To prove the contention of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff himself is examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A1 to A5. EX.A1 is certified copy of Regd., partition deed executed in between Peteti George, Peteti

Satyanandam vide document bearing No.3699/1945 on the file of SRO,

Vijayawada along with neat copy dated.14.12.1945, EX.A2 is the original will executed by the mother of plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff, dated.01.08.2020,

EX.A3 is the market value certificate issued by the joint sub-registrar,

Vijayawada, dated.31.03.2022, EX.A4 is the office copy of the legal notice dated.23.04.2022, EX.A5 is the original postal receipts dated.27.04.2022.

08. As per the record, that the chief examination of P.W.1 is replica of contents of plaint. When the contents of plaint compared with the documents relied by plaintiff show that under Certified copy of Regd., partition deed 8 executed in between PetetiGeorge and his brother by name Peteti

Satyanandam, documents bearing no.3699/1945 on the file of SRO,

Vijayawada on 14.12.1945 the total extent of 80.6 sq.yards of residential site and two RCC building, it is evident that the suit property is in existence as per Ex.A1.

Further Ex.A2 shows that the original will executed by the mother of plaintiff in favour of plaintiff on 10.08.2020. Ex.A4 shows legal notice dated 27.04.2022 was issued to defendant Nos. 1 to 8 calling upon him to partition the suit schedule property and under said legal notice was Returned as not claimed.

Ex.A3 is Valuation certificate issued by joint sub-registrar, Vijayawada, dated.31.03.2022.

09. From the entire evidence of plaintiff, discloses that P.W.1 relied on

Exs.A1 to A3 in support of his suit relief. As the defendant Nos. 1 to 8 failed to appear and contest the suit, the oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with exhibits

A1 to A5 are remained unchallenged. Therefore, the plaintiff claiming the suit relief of partition where the property shown by Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are remained unchallenged and proved to claim sought by plaintiff. Since there is no contention by the defendants over the suit schedule property even after legal notice under Ex.A4. This court holds that the Plaintiff has able to prove his contention with the support of Ex.A1 and other documents. Further basing on

Ex.A2 will executed by the mother of plaintiff and averments in plaint as well as chief examination it is believed by this court that plaintiff is the legal heir of deceased Peteti Mary Chittemma. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit relief.

9

Point No.2 :

10. In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed ordering partition of suit schedule property into 3 equal shares allot one such share to the plaintiff (1/3rd share ) with separate possession, 1/3rd share to the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 ( i.e., ¼th each in the said 1/3 rd share ) and 1/3 rd share to the defendant

Nos. 5 to 8 ( i.e., ¼th each in the said 1/3 rd share ) and no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, prints are taken by her corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 27th day of February, 2025.

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Vijayawada.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:- None- PW.1 : Nallamothu Dhana Sekhar Prasad.

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: -Nil-

EX.A1 : Certified copy of the Regd. Partition deed executed in between Peteti George and his brother by name Peteti Satyanandam, Doc. Bearing No.3699/1945 on the file of SRO Vijayawada along with neat copy dated.14.12.1945.

EX.A2 : Original will executed by the mother of the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff, dated.01.08.2020.

Ex.A3 : market value certificate issued by the joint sub-registrar, Vijayawada, dated.31.03.2022.

Ex.A4 : Office copy of the legal notice dated.27.04.2022 to the defendant

Ex.A5 : Original postal receipts dated.27.04.2022.

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Vijayawada.

1

OS.783/2020 II ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

DT.20.06.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)::

VIJAYAWADA

Present: A.B.AppaRao, II Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Vijayawada

Friday, this the 20th day of June, 2025.

O.S.No. 783 of 2020.

Between:.

Pinnamaneni Prasad Babu, S/o Late Subba Rao, aged about 61 years, R/o D.No.23-10-25, Purushotham Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada. … Plaintiff. And:

Tadepalli Vijay Kumar, S/o Raja Rao, aged about 39 years, Business, R/o D.No.6-4-11/1, Taylor pet, Chittinagar, Vijayawada.

... Defendant.

This suit is came up on 19.06.2025for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Goli Narasimha Rao, learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri N.V.Mohan Rao, learned Advocate for defendant, upon hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and upon perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is the suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.3,44,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs forty four thousand only) being the principal and accrued interest due under a promissory note dated 28.09.2017 executed by 2

OS.783/2020 II ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

DT.20.06.2025 the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs only ) along with subsequent interest and costs thereon.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

(i)the defendant borrowed a sum ofR s.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs only )from the plaintiff on 28.09.2017 by way of cheque bearing

No.000043 drawn on Andhra Bank, Lakshminagar Branch, Vijayawada from the plaintiff for his family necessities, and agreed to repay the same together with interest @ 24% perannum on demand either to the plaintiff or his order and executed a promissory note to that effect on the same date in his own handwriting in favour of the plaintiff.

Thereafter, despite repeated demands made by and on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to discharge the debt due under promissory note. At last the defendant issued a cheque bearing

No.453206 dated 22.09.2020 drawn on Andhra Bank, Vijayawada towards part payment and the said cheque was dishonored. Hence, the plaintiff instituted this suit.

3.The defendant appeared before the court and filed his written

statement. The averments of written statement are that :

3.1) He denied the allegations made by the plaintiff in plaint against the defendant. The defendant specifically pleaded that he borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) by hand loan on 28.09.2017 and that on the same day the plaintiff obtained promissory note and undated cheque from him for the purpose of security. The de- fendant further contended that in the same year i.e., end of December, 2017 the defendant discharged his entire debt along with interest by way of cash and after discharge of debt, the defendant requested the plaintiff 3

OS.783/2020 II ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

DT.20.06.2025 to hand over the promissory note and undated cheque which were taken for security by the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff said that he kept said promissory note and undated cheque at out side and those were mis- placed.

3.2) The defendant further averred that In the month of June, 2018, the defendant finally demanded the plaintiff for his promissory note and un- dated cheque and that the plaintiff informed to the defendant that his brother also borrowed amounts and not at paid and that if the brother of defendant paid the amount and then the plaintiff Will give promissory note and undated cheque to the defendant and that defendant has no way connection with the debt of his brother. The defendant further averred that the plaintiff is doing in money lending business (Call Money) in and around the Vijayawada and used to file illegal suits against the borrowers to extract the huge amounts by way of imposing higher rate of interest with support of anti social elements. Hence he prayed the court to dis- miss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings my predecessor, the following issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the discharge pleaded by the defendant is true, valid and biding on the plaintiff ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is Original promissory note executed by the de- fendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 4

OS.783/2020 II ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

DT.20.06.2025 28.09.2017. Defendant did not choose to adduced any evidence either oral or documentary on his behalf.

6.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Inspite of ample opportunities given by the defendant, he failed to submit his arguments and hence the arguments on defendant side is treated as NIL. Perused the material available on record.

7.As issues Nos 1 and 2 are inter related to each other, both issues were taken together for discussion.

8.Issue Nos.1 and 2:

(1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration? (2)If so, whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

9. As per the averments of written statement filed by the defendant that he admitted that he borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 28.09.2017 and also about the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of plaintiff. In view of admission made by the defendant, the plaintiff is not obligated to prove the execution of Ex.A.1 and its contents.

The main contention of defendant is that he discharged the amount to the plaintiff.

5

OS.783/2020 II ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

DT.20.06.2025

10.However, to prove the execution of promissory note by the defendant in favour of plaintiff, plaintiff himself is examined as PW.1 and he deposed that on 28.09.2017 the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- for his family necessities, and executed Ex.A.1 /promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% perannum. He further deposed that when he demanded the defendant for repayment of the debt due under suit promissory note, the defendant intentionally used to dragon the payment and postponed same some pretext or the other. At last the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.453206, dated 22.09.2020 and the same was dishonored on presentation to the bank authorities.

But the defendant failed to repay the amount and in order to avoid the promissory note debt, he filed the suit praying to decree the suit.

11.On the other hand, as the defendant taken discharge plea, the defendant filed his chief evidence affidavit. Inspite of ample and sufficient time provided to the defendant, he failed to attend to the court and thereby this court eschewed the chief evidence affidavit of defendant.

Hence, the defendant did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf. The defendant contended in his written statement that he discharged the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Inspite of sufficient time is granted to the defendant, he failed to attend to the court for cross 6

OS.783/2020 II ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

DT.20.06.2025 examination of PW.1 and thereby cross examination of Pw.1 is closed.

Hence, the defendant failed to brought any positive evidence in his favour to show that he discharged the amount borrowed from the plaintiff.

Hence, the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 is remains unchallenged.

12.In addition to that, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1 is found reliable than the defence of the defendant as to discharge of Ex.A.1/promissory note debt. The defendant also did not attribute any motive to the plaintiff to filing a false suit to get wrongful gain.

Under the facts and circumstances and probabilities of this case, this

Court believed that the suit promissory note was duly executed by defendant on receipt of consideration. More ever, the defendant failed to brought any cogent evidence to prove his discharge plea. Hence, plaintiff proved that defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from him and executed Ex.A1 promissory note, but failed to repay the same. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim. The issue is answered accordingly.

13.Issue No.3:- ( To what relief?)

i) In view of the finding under Issue Nos.1 and 2, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the decree in his favour. Accordingly, this point is also answered positively in favour of the plaintiff.

7

OS.783/2020 II ACJ (JD), Vijayawada

DT.20.06.2025

14.(ii) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plain- tiff against the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount of

Rs.3,44,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs forty four thousand only) the plaintiff is also entitled for the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of in- stitution of the suit to till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the realization on the principal sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, prints are taken by him corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20th day of June, 2025.

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Vijayawada.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:- None-

PW.1 :Pinnamaneni Prasad BabuTadepalli Vijay Kumar

Documentary Evidence.

For Plaintiff: For Defendant : -Nil-

Ex.A1 is Original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 28.09.2017

II Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Vijayawada.

8

Date of Presentation :01.10.2020. Date of filing of suit :09.10.2020.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)::

VIJAYAWADA

Present: A.B.AppaRao, II Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Vijayawada Friday, this the 20th day of June, 2025.

O.S.No. 783 of 2020.

Between:.

Pinnamaneni Prasad Babu, S/o Late Subba Rao, aged about 61 years, R/o D.No.23-10-25, Purushotham Street, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada. … Plaintiff. And:

Tadepalli Vijay Kumar, S/o Raja Rao, aged about 39 years, Business, R/o D.No.6-4-11/1, Taylor pet, Chittinagar, Vijayawada.

... Defendant.

1)This is the suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.3,44,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs forty four thousand only) being the principal and accrued interest due under a promissory note dated 28.09.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs only ) along with subsequent interest and costs thereon.

2)Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction u/s 50(1) of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act is Rs.3,44,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs forty four thousand only)on which a court fee of Rs.5,926/- was paid u/s 20, Sch.I, Art.I b and c of A.P.C.F 9 and S.V. Act, 1956 by way of bank challan, SBI,Civil Courts Branch, Vijayawada.

3) This suit is came up on 19.06.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Goli Narasimha Rao, learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri N.V.Mohan Rao, learned Advocate for defendant, upon hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and upon perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration this day, this court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

D E C R E E

(i) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant ; and

(ii) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.3,44,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs forty four thousand only );

and

(iii) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit to till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum till the realization on the principal sum ofRs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only ) ; and

(iv) that the defendant also do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 18,181/ - (Rupees Eighteen thousand one hundred eighty one only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 20th day of June, 2025.

II Additional Civil Judge Junior Division), Vijayawada.

Memorandum Of Costs For PlaintiffFor Defendant

1. Stamp on Plaint5,926-00No Costs Memo filed

2. Stamp on Vakalath102-00-- 10

3. Stamp on process65-00--

4. Typing Charges100-00-- 5.Writing Charges100-00--

6. Advocate Fee8,916-00--

7. Jr. Advocate Fee2,972-00-- TOTAL18,181-00 --

II Additional Civil Judge Junior Division), Vijayawada.