Smt A.Bharathi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGE; KRISHNA DISTRICT; NUZVID

PRESENT : SMT. A. BHARATHI,

XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Friday on this 8th day of April, 2022.

A.S.NO.13/2015.

Between:- 1).Samayamanthula Annapurna, W/o.Late Seshavatharam, aged about 67 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o.Ryali Village, Athreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 2).Samayamanthula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Seshavatharam, aged about 47 years, Hindu, Business, R/o.Ryali Village, Athreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 3).Samayamanthula Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Late Seshavatharam, aged about 42 years, Hindu, Business, R/o.Ryali Village, Athreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 4).SamayamanthulaNagaBadrinarayana,S/o.Late Seshavatharam, aged about 42 years, Hindu, Business, R/o.Ryali Village, Athreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.

... Appellants/D31 to D34.

And

1).Samayamanthula Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o.Krishna Jagan Mohana Rao, Hindu, aged about 53 years, Properties, R/o.Ryali Village, Athreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District (Plaintiff). 2).Samayamanthula Seshavatharam (1st Defendant - DIED). 3).Samayamanthula Jagga Rao, S/o.Krishna Jagan Mohana Rao, Hindu, aged about 56 years, Properties, R/o.Ryali Village, Athreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 4).Samayamanthula Suvarchala, W/o.Krishna Jagan Mohana Rao, Hindu, aged about 78 years, Properties, R/o.Ryali Village, Athreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 5).Obilisetti Satyavathi, W/o.Surya Jagannadham, Hindu, Lands, aged about 59 years, R/o.Ryali Village, Athreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 6).Bondada Lakshmi Ratnam, W/o.Someswara Rao, Hindu, Lands, aged about 51 years, R/o.Pedanindrkolanu, Nidamanuru Mandal, East Godavari District. 7).Obilisetti Surya Jagannadam, S/o.Rama Rao, Hindu, Lands, aged about 64 years, R/o.Ryali Village, Athreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 8).Bondada Ramalingeswara Rao, S/o.Sree Rama Murthy, Hindu, Lands, aged about 59 years, R/o.D.No.8-9-14, Vankayala Vari Street, Rajamundry, East Godavari District.

2

9).Bondada Jagga Rao, S/o.Sree Rama Murthy, Hindu, Lands, aged about 58 years, R/o.D.No.2-27, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District. 10).Bondada Badari Narayana, S/o.Sree Rama Murthy, Hindu, Lands, aged about 58 years, R/o.D.No.15-84, Kanuru, Peravali, West Godavari District. 11).Pulavarthi Bhaskara Rao (DIED). 12).Pulavarthi Surya Seshavatharam, S/o.Bhaskara Rao, Hindu, Lands & Employee, aged about 52 years, R/o.D.No.2-140, NSP Colony road, Maruteru, West Godavari District. 13).Pulavarthi Jagga Rao, S/o.Bhaskara Rao, Hindu, Lands & Business, aged about 59 years, R/o.D.No.2-140, NSP Colony Road, Maruteru, West Godavari District. 14).Pulavarthi Kasi Viswanadham, S/o.Bhaskara Rao, Hindu, Lands & Business, aged about 49 years, R/o.D.NO.2-140, NSP Colony Road, Maruteru, West Godavari District. 15).Grandhi Lakshmi, W/o.Surya Narayana Murthy, Hindu, Lands, aged 51 years, Housewife, r/o.Mummadivaram Village & Mandal, West Godavari District. 16).Konduri Kumari, W/o.K.V.N.Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged 48 years, Housewife, R/o.Kamavarapukota, Kamavarapu Kota Mandal, West Godavari District. 17).Chekka Seetha Ratnam (DIED). 18).Yerramilli Surya Jagan Mohana Rao, S/o.China Appa Rao, Hindu, aged 56 years, Lands, R/o.D.No.9-3-9, Gunduvari Veedhi, Rajahmundry. 19).Yerramilli Venkata Nagadurna Satya Yuvaraj, S/o.Late Jagga Rao, Hindu, aged 31 years, Private Employee, R/o.D.No.9-1-4/2/2, Gunduvari Veedhi, Rajahmundry. 20).Koppula Nagabhushana Reddi, S/o.Muthareddi, Hindu, aged 58 years, Lands, R/o.D.No.1-255, Rangapuram Village, Reddigudem Mandal, Krishna District. 21).Kotla Tulasi Lakshmi, W/o.Late Lakshmi Narayana, Hindu, aged about 61 years, Housewife, R/o.Penugonda Village & Mandal, East Godavari District. 22).Penugonda Suryanarayana, S/o.Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged about 59 years, Agriculture, R/o.Tadimalla Village, Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District. 23).Bayyana Shyam Suresh Rangababu, S/o.Pullayya, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Business, R/o.Tallapudi Village & Mandal, West Godavari District. 24).Grandhi Ahalya Rekha, W/o.Subrahmanya Kiran, Hindu, aged about 31 years, Housewife, R/o.Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 25).Penugonda Venakta Subbarayudu, S/o.Late Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Agriculture, R/o.Tadimalla, Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District. 26).Chakka Hemalatha Naga Satya Kumari, W/o.Venkatarathna Rao, Hindu, aged about 68 years, R/o.Ajjaram Village, Peravali Mandal, West Godavari District.

3

27).Penugonda Vydehi, W/o.Venkata Subbarayudu, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Housewife, R/o.Tadimalla, Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District. 28).Chakka Naga Venakta Veera Venkateswara Gupta, S/o.Late Venkata Ratna, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Business, R/o.Ajjaram Village, Peravali Mandal, West Godavari District. 29).Gogula Sayavahi, W/o.Ramakrishna, Hindu, aged about 66 years, Housewife, R/o.Ryali Village, Athreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 30).Gamini Nageswara Rao, S/o.Naga Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 64 years, Business, R/o.Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 31).Gamini Naga Venkata Satya Sudhakar, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Employee, R/o.Tanuku, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District.

... Respondents.

O.S.NO.138 OF 2007.

Between:-

Samayamanthula Satyanarayana Murthy. ... Plaintiff

And

1).Samayamanthula Seshavatharam (died). 2).Samayamanthula Jaggaroa. 3).Samayamanthula Suvarchala. 4).Obilisetti Satyavathi. 5).Bondada Lakshmi Ratnam. 6).Obilisetti Surya Jagannadam. 7).Bondada Ramalingeswara Rao. 8).Bondada Jaggarao. 9).Bondada Badari Narayana. 10).Pulavarthi Bhaskara Rao. 11).Pulavarthi Surya Seshavatharam. 12).Pulavarthi Jaggarao. 13).Pulavarthi Kasi Viswanadham. 14).Grandhi Lakshmi. 15).Konduri Kumari. 16).Chekka Seetha Ratnam (Died). 17).Yerramilli Surya Jagan Mohana Rao. 18).Yerramilli Venkata Nagadurna Satya Yuvaraj. 19).Koppula Nagabhushana Reddi. 20).Kotla Tulasi Lakshmi. 21).Penugonda Suryanarayana. 22).Bayyana Shyam Suresh Rangababu. 23).Grandhi Ahalya Rekha. 24).Penugonda Venkata Subbarayudu. 25).Chakka Hemalatha Naga Satya Kumari. 26).Penugonda Vydehi.

4

27).Chakka Naga Venkata Veera Venkateswara Gupta. 28).Gogula Sayavathi. 29).Gamini Nageswara Rao. 30).Gamini Naga Venkata Satya Sudhakar. 31).Samayamanthula Annapurna. 32).Samayamanthula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana. 33).Samayamanthula Venkateswara Rao. 34).Samayamanthula Naga Badrinarayana.

... Defendants.

The appeal suit is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.J. Dixon, Counsel for Appellants and of Sri M. Ramesh, Counsel for 1st Respondent, and of Sri N.Bhaskara Rao & Sri N.U.V.S.Ramachandra Rao, Counsels for 22nd Respondent, and Respondent Nos.2, 11 and 17 died pendentelite, and Respondent Nos.3 to 5, 7, 8, 10, 12 to 16, 18, 23 and 25 to 29 remained exparte, and Appeal against Respondent Nos.6, 9, 19 to 21, 24, 30 and 31 dismissed as batta not paid, and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This appeal suit is preferred against the Judgment and

Decree Dt.22.4.2014 passed in O.S.No.138/2007 by Senior Civil

Judge, Nuzvid. The Appellants herein are Defendant Nos.31 to

34, who are legal heirs of 1st defendant, 1st Respondent is Plaintiff and Respondent Nos.2 to 31 are Defendant Nos.1 to 30 in the original suit for partition and the parties hereinafter are referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court for sake of better understanding.

2.Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

One Samayamanthula Jagga Rao got two sons viz. 1st defendant/Seshavatharam and Krishna Jagan Mohana Rao and three daughters viz. Nagaratnamma, Venkatachalam and

Balamani. The Plaintiff/S.Satyanarayana Murthy, 2nd defendant/

5

S. Jagga Rao are sons, 3rd defendant/Suvarchala is wife and

Defendant Nos.4 and 5/Satyavathi and Lakshmi Ratnam are daughters of Late Krishna Jagan Mohana Rao. 6th defendant is son of Obilisetti Nagaratnamma, D/o.late.Jagga Rao, Defendant

Nos.7 to 9 are vendees of property of Nagaratnamma, who sold her half share in 1/4th share of joint family property to Defendant

Nos.7 to 9 under Regd. Sale Deed dt.18.3.1972 and the said

Nagaratnamma died in the year 1998. 10th defendant is husband and defendant Nos.11 to 15 are children of Pulavarthi

Venkatachalam, 2nddaughter of Jaggarao and the said

Venaktachalam died intestate and her legal heirs are Defendant

Nos.11 to 15 were already on record. 16th defendant is purchaser under agreement of sale from the said Venkatachalam for half undivided share in 1/4th share of joint family property and 16th defendant died on 3.6.2012 during pendency of suit and her legal heirs were added as Defendant Nos.20 to 30. During her life time Smt.Chekka Seetha Ratnam/16th defendant executed

Will dt.2.5.2012 to her grand son, Chekka Naga Venkata Veera

Venkateswara Gupta/27th defendant and he is legatee under the

Will. Defendant Nos.17 and 18 are vendors and 19th defendant is vendee of Item No.7 of plaint schedule property which is an extent of Ac.1-37 cents in R.S.No.62/2 under Regd. Sale deed dt.30.7.2007. During pendency of suit, 1st defendant died on 18.1.2013 and his legal heirs were added as Defendant Nos.31 to

34. It is further contended that the said Jagga Rao, 1st defendant and other son Jagan Mohana Rao and Nagaratnamma and

6

Venkatachalam purchased vast extent of dry lands, wet lands and mango garden including plaint schedule property along with 21 others from one Adusumilli Venkateswara Rao and others under Regd. Sale Deed dt.20.5.1960 and 1st defendant is managing the schedule property on behalf of heirs and alienees from co-owners and the Regd. Sale Deed executed in respect of

Ac.1-37 cents covered under R.S.No.62/2 which is Item No.7 of schedule property through Defendant Nos.17 and 18 in favour of 19th defendant, who is his close friend under Regd. Sale Deed dt.30.7.2007 and the said alienation is null and void and it never acted upon plaintiff and Defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 10 to 16 continuing possession of Item No.7 and it is no longer desirable for plaintiff to continue as co-owner, hence the plaintiff constrained to file the suit.

Originally suit is filed by plaintiff against Defendant Nos.1 to 19 seeking partition and to pass preliminary decree in favour of plaintiff and Defendant Nos.2 to 5, against Defendant Nos.1, 6 to 16 of plaint schedule properties i.e. Item Nos.1 to 8 situated in

R.S.Nos.393/1, 394/2, 393/2B, 148/2, 146/1, 62/2 and 115/6 and 7 Rangapuram Village of Reddigudem Mandal, Krishna District into four equal shares and to allot one such share to plaintiff and

Defendant Nos.2 to 5 together and put them in separate possession of same, and enable the plaintiff to get final decree in terms of preliminary decree, directing 1st defendant to render true account of profits realized from suit schedule properties from the date of suit and deliver 1/4th share of plaint schedule

7

properties to plaintiff and Defendant Nos.2 to 5 and pay their share of income from the schedule properties and for costs.

Subsequently, after death of 16th defendant, Defendant Nos.20 to 30 were added as per the orders passed in I.A.No.744/2012 dt.21.11.2012 and after death 1st defendant, Defendant Nos.31 to 34 were added as necessary parties vide orders passed in

I.A.No.119/2013 dt.19.3.2013. Defendant Nos.17 to 19 are added as proper parties to the suit, though no relief is claimed and Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are not available to join as plaintiffs, hence they are added as Defendant Nos.2 to 5 in the suit.

3.Defendant No.1/S. Seshavatharam filed his written statement and after his death, his legal heirs i.e. Defendant

Nos.31 to 34 filed memo adopting written statement of 1st defendant, while admitting relationship among the parties and denied the allegations made in the plaint. It is contended that after Balamani got separated her share from other co-owners in or about the year 1971, there was an oral partition of some of properties among the remaining co-owners keeping the plaint schedule properties and the properties described in the schedule appended to written statement as joint family properties. The plaint schedule properties and the properties mentioned in the written statement are joint family properties of all the co-owners and they are in joint possession and enjoyment. 1st defendant was demanding the plaintiff as well as Defendant Nos.2 to 16 to co-operate for partition of joint family properties covered by plaint schedule as well as the properties mentioned in his written

8

statement, 2nd defendant was not co-operating and 1st defendant is ready and willing for partition. It is further contended that since plaintiff is seeking partial partition of joint family properties, this suit is bad and liable to be dismissed.

4.18th Defendant filed separate written statement, admitting the relationship among the parties and submitted that his great grandfather Jagga Rao and his two sons partitioned their properties through Regd. Partition Deed dt.27.6.1957 vide

Doc.No.1026/1957 of Sub-Registrar, Kothapeta. The said Jagga

Rao executed Will dt.9.4.1962 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing his undivided 1/26th share in the properties situated at Rangapuram and Reddygudem villages which is equivalent to 44 acres to his eldest daughter Yerramelli

Balamani, who is grandmother of 18th defendant with absolute rights. As per the arrangement among sharers, father of 18th defendant and 17th defendant became absolute owners along with other children of Balamani, hence they sold Item No.7 in favour of 19th defendant and he is bonafide purchaser. 1st defendant also got knowledge of the same and he signed as one of the attestor in the Regd. Sale Deed dt.30.7.2007. So far as 1/26th share of deceased Jagga Rao, plaintiff and other family members have no right and he has no objection for effecting partition of other properties left by Jagga Rao and there is no cause of action for filing the suit, hence it is prayed to dismiss the suit.

9

5.27th defendant filed separate written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint and submitted that 16th defendant executed Will dt.2.5.2010 bequeathing all her properties in his favour and she died on 3.6.2012 without revoking the Will leaving him as her grand son and also

Defendant Nos.20 to 26 and 28 as her legal heirs. It is further contended that after death of 16th defendant, the said Will came into force and he is entitled as legatee under the Will and he is entitled for half share in 1/4th share in the plaint schedule properties and prays to pass preliminary decree as prayed in the plaint.

6. As per the orders in I.A.No.1276/2009 dt.19.8.2011, plaintiff filed replica answering to the properties mentioned in the written statement of 1st defendant. It is contended that 1st defendant filed his declaration in C.C.No.363/TRV of 1975 under provisions of A.P. Land Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act showing that extents i.e. Ac.5-24 cents, Ac.4-80 cents, Ac.2-99 cents, Ac.11-89 cents and Ac.4-80 cents covered by R.S.Nos.52, 55, 72, 2 and 445 respectively situated in Rangapuram Village as properties belongs to him. The above properties are shown in the written statement also, indicating the partition of joint family properties belonging to him and other co-owners. It is further contended that plaintiff also surrendered Ac.5-12 cents in

R.S.No.2, Ac.4-80 cents in R.S.No.55 and Ac.2-99 cents in

R.S.No.72 towards excess of land held by him under provisions of

Ceiling Act. Plaintiff has also executed Regd. Sale Deed in

10

respect of Ac.7-00 cents covered by R.S.No.2 of Rangapuram village in favour of one Janga Pulla Reddy under Regd. Sale Deed dt.6.7.1982 and he also executed an agreement of sale dt.27.7.1993 in favour of Defendant Nos.7 to 9 in respect of

Ac.5.00 cents covered by R.S.No.52/2 of Rangapuram village.

Plaintiff has dealt the properties allotted to his share in the oral partition effected in the year 1971 as his separate properties, hence the above lands are kept joint along with plaint schedule properties and they are liable for partition.

7.Based on the pleadings of both sides, the trial court settled the following issues and additional issues for trial:-

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition as prayed for?

ii) Whether Defendant No.19 is bonafide purchaser of an extent of Ac.1.37 cents in R.S.No.62/2 of Rangapuram

Village?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for rendition of accounts from 1st defendant and for profits thereunder as per share?

iv) To what relief?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES: Dt.31.12.2011:

i) Whether there is oral partition in the year 1971?

ii) Whether the suit is bad for partial partition as the properties covered under R.S.Nos.2, 55, 72, 52/2, 445 are kept joint along with plaint schedule properties?

8. During course of trial, plaintiff got examined himself as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 on his behalf. D.Ws.1 and 2

11

were examined, but no documents were marked on behalf of defendants.

9.After evaluating both oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid decreed the suit holding that plaintiff is entitled for partition of 1/4th share together with Defendant Nos.2 to 5 and for delivery of possession.

10.Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the

Appellants/Defendant Nos.31 to 34, who are legal heirs of 1st defendant, preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

That the Judgment and Decree of the trail Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The trial

Court ought to have seen that the properties described in the schedule appended to the written statement of 1st defendant are also joint family properties of Appellants and respondents herein and the suit is bad for non joinder of entire properties. The trial

Court ought to have dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit filed by plaintiff seeking partial partition by leaving some other joint family properties. The trial Court ought to have seen that the evidence of PW.1 itself discloses that some of the joint family properties were not included in the plaint schedule and consequently the suit for partition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed, hence it is prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dt.22.4.2014 passed in

O.S.No.138/2007 by Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid.

12

11. Now the points for consideration are:

i) Whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the

Judgment and Decree Dt.22.4.2014 in O.S.No.138/2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid?

ii) To what relief?

12.Heard the learned counsel for Appellants/Defendant Nos.31 to 34, as well as 1st Respondent/Plaintiff and perused the material on record.

POINT No.1:

13.The learned counsel for Appellants/D31 to D34 submitted arguments contending that their father S.Seshavatharam, who is 1st defendant in the suit, got 1/4th undivided share in the plaint schedule properties as well as properties appended to the written statement along with Defendant Nos.2 to 18 and they are liable to be partitioned into four equal shares and out of which one share has to be allotted to 1st defendant and plaintiff has filed the suit at the instance of 2nd defendant without disclosing all the joint family properties, hence suit is not maintainable without getting partition of entire joint family properties. It is further contended that the trial Court erred in passing judgment and decree in favour of 1st respondent/ plaintiff, hence it is prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.138/2007 dt.22.4.2014 by the trial

Court.

13

14.The learned counsel for 1st Respondent/plaintiff has submitted arguments contending that originally plaint schedule properties i.e. Item Nos.1 to 8 are joint family properties of plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 5, 6 to 9 and 31 to 34, after death of 1st defendant, and an oral partition took place in the year 1971 between Jagga Rao and his two sons and two daughters as already Balamani elder daughter of Jagga Rao took 1/5th share, and 1st defendant used to maintain joint family properties of other defendants during his life time, hence the suit is filed claiming partition of four equal shares of plaint schedule properties, as defendant Nos.2 to 5 are not available to join as plaintiffs, they are added as defendant Nos.2 to 5 in the suit.

15.As seen from the evidence of DW.1 (S.Venkateswara Rao), who is son of Defendant No.1 and 33rd Defendant in this suit is that 1st defendant/their father filed written statement in the suit and after his death, he and Defendant Nos.31, 32 and 34 are pursuing the suit. DW.1 further deposed that suit is not maintainable since the properties mentioned in the schedule appended to the written statement of their father are joint family properties of plaintiff, Defendant Nos.1 to 18, since the plaintiff failed to bring all the joint family properties in the present suit, suit is liable to be dismissed as partial partition of properties is not maintainable. In cross examination, DW.1 admitted that he has no objection to share the plaint schedule properties between plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 18 as pleaded in the plaint.

DW.1 further admitted that total extent of Item No.1 mentioned

14

in the written statement is Ac.25.00 cents in R.S.No.52 and his father got only Ac.5.00 cents i.e. 1/5th share in Ac.25.00 cents and Item No.2 mentioned in the written statement is Ac.24.00 cents which is not correct. DW.1 further admitted that Item No.3 mentioned in the written statement is Ac.14.95 cents and his father got an extent of Ac.2.99 cents in Item No.3 and the said land was surrendered to the Government as excess land. DW.1 further admitted that Item No.4 mentioned in the written statement is Ac.16.00 cents, but it is an extent of Ac.59.45 cents and his father got an extent of Ac.12.12 cents to his share and out of which an extent of Ac.7.00 cents was sold to Janga Pulla

Reddy as mentioned in Ex.A2 letter and Ac.5.00 cents were surrendered to Government under Land Ceiling Act. DW.1 further admitted that Item No.5 mentioned in the written statement is

Ac.0.45 cents, but it is an extent of Ac.24.00 cents and the said land was sold away by all joint family members to one Betham

Krishna Murthy and others and out of Ac.24.00 cents, Ac.1.50 cents was left for NSP Canal and Ac.2.50 cents was acquired by

Government and his father received notice for acquisition of said land in R.S.No.445 and no property was left in Ac.24.00 cents.

16.As seen from the evidence of DW.2 (V.Rama Rao) is that he knew plaintiff and defendants and 1st defendant used to manage the joint family properties situated at Rangapuram Village during his life time and some landed property i.e. Ac.7.00 cents were sold by 1st defendant on behalf of his joint family members in the year 1982 in favour of Janga Pulla Reddy and the sale proceeds

15

were shared by all the joint family members. In cross examination, DW.2 admitted that he does not know whether

Yerramalli Balamani got 1/5th share in the joint family property by virtue of Will executed by her father Jagga Rao and after death of Jagga Rao in the year 1970, 1st defendant and his brother Jagan Mohana Rao, Sisters Nagaratnamma and

Venkatachalam are in joint possession of the properties.

Therefore, the evidence of DW.2, who is third party to the suit, is not much helpful to the case of defendants as he has no knowledge in regard to sharing of joint family properties among their family members.

17.Evidence of PW.1 (S.Satyanarayana Murthy), who is plaintiff in the suit is that 2nd defendant is his brother, 3rd defendant is their mother, defendant Nos.4 and 5 are his sisters and they are legal heirs of Late Krishna Jagan Mohana Rao, who is brother of 1st defendant and son of Jagga Rao. 18th defendant is grandson of Yerramalli Balamani, who is sister of his father. One

Nagaratnamma and Venkatachalam are also sisters of his father and 6th defendant is son of Nagaratnamma and 10th defendant is husband of Pulavarthi Venkatachalam, sister of his father and

Defendant Nos.12 to 15 are their children. After death of Jagga

Rao, there was oral partition between father of plaintiff, 1st defendant, Nagaratnamma, and Venkatachalam prior to 1975 and 1st defendant, who is elder male member, used to manage joint family properties and he used to share income derived from it. 1st defendant got executed a sale deed in respect of Item No.7

16

of plaint schedule property without having absolute rights over the said property. Defendant Nos.17 and 18 are not competent to execute sale deed in favour of 19th defendant, hence the plaintiff is seeking partition of Item Nos.1 to 8 of plaint schedule properties seeking 1/4th share together with Defendant Nos.2 to 5 and separate possession. In support of said contention, PW.1 got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is certified copy of declaration filed by 1st defendant showing that he sold an extent of Ac.7.00 cents to Janga Pulla Reddy in the year 1982. Ex.A2 is registration extract of sale deed dt.6.7.1982. Ex.A3 is letter of 1st defendant dt.23.11.1982 to his brother-in-law P. Bhaskara Rao and Ex.A4 is notice issued by RDO, Nuzvid to 1st defendant and 2nd defendant regarding acquisition of land. In cross examination of PW.1, it was elicited that there was no document to prove their oral partition and no pattadar pass books were obtained to their respective shares and his paternal aunt Balamani took 1/5th share from her father in the year 1971 itself and another paternal aunt Pulavarthi Venkatachalam was given half share out of 1/4th undivided share and total extent of land purchased by

Jagga Rao is Ac.200.00 cents and he has no documentary proof to show that 1/5th share was given to Balamani by virtue of Will executed by his grandfather Jagga Rao. Apart from the plaint schedule properties, their family also got properties at

Rangapuram and Nunnavarapugutta villages and his elder brother used to look after the properties.

17

18. As seen from the evidence of DW.1, it is proved that the properties appended in written statement of 1st defendant are not left for partition and they were shown as properties of 1st defendant. As per the written statement of 18th defendant undivided share of Jagga Rao was bequeathed to his elder daughter Balamani, and after death of Jagga Rao, Will came into force and father of Defendant Nos.17 and 18 became absolute owners along with other children of Balamani and sold Item No.7 of plaint schedule property to 19th defendant under sale deed dt.30.7.2007, though 18th defendant filed written statement, he did not adduce any evidence in order to substantiate that Item

No.7 of plaint schedule property fell to the share of said Balamani and the said property devolved upon the sons of Balamani i.e.

defendant Nos.17 and 18 and they are absolute owners to sell that property to 19th defendant. 19th defendant remained exparte and he did not adduce any evidence to show that he is bonafide purchaser from Defendant Nos.17 and 18 in respect of

Item No.7 of plaint schedule property. In the absence of reliable documentary evidence that Item No.7 of plaint schedule property is liable to be partitioned and sale deed dt.30.7.2007 executed by Defendant Nos.17 and 18 is not binding on the plaintiff. In view of the admissions of DW.1 that plaint schedule properties are joint family properties and they are left for partition together with some other properties. In the absence of documentary proof from defendants side that there are some other joint family properties left for partition and the said properties are not

18

included in the plaint schedule by the plaintiff, the learned Senior

Civil Judge has rightly come to conclusion that the plaint

schedule properties i.e. Item Nos.1 to 8 are left for partition among the joint family members, hence plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share together with Defendant Nos.2 to 5 in the plaint schedule properties and entitled for mesne profits after ascertainment by way of filing separate application under Order

XX Rule 18 CPC. In view of aforementioned reasons and discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid and the same is hereby confirmed. Accordingly this point is answered against

Appellants/Defendant Nos.31 to 34.

POINT NO.2:

19.In the result, this appeal suit is dismissed by confirming

Judgment and Decree dt.22.4.2014 passed in O.S.No.138/2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this 8th day of April,

2021.

XV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA DISTRICT AT NUZVID.

Copy to:

The Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KRISHNA DISTRICT :: NUZVID.

PRESENT:- SMT A.BHARATHI,

XV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,NUZVID.

Thursday, on this 31st day of March, 2022

SESSIONS CASE NO.09/2017.

(PRC.NO.40/2015 ON THE FILE OF II-ADDL. JMFC, NUZVID)

Committed by:II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, NUZVID.

Name and Description of thePallapothu Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Late Accused Gangaraju, Aged 40 years, Yadava, R/o.Khandrika Gollagudem, H/o.Mirjapuram Village, Nuzvid Mandal. Prosecution conducted bySri N.A.Khan, Addl. Public Prosecutor Accused defended bySri G. Prasada Rao, Advocate for Accused Offence charged byU/s.302 of IPC Plea of AccusedNot guilty Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence of orderIn the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/s.302 of IPC and accordingly he is hereby acquitted as per the provisions U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 7 and unmarked case property if any are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. A. Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri G. Prasada Rao, Advocate for Accused and the same is having stood over to this day for consideration, and upon perusing the material on record, delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction Circle laid charge sheet against Accused in Cr.No.223/2014 of Hanuman Junction

P.S. for the offence U/s.302 of IPC.

2. Material allegations levelled against Accused as per the charge sheet are that:

2

On 7.12.2014, LW.1/Mohammad Subhani gave report at

P.S., Hanuman Junction in regard to missing of his elder sister viz.

Sheik Bajibi @ Bajima, aged about 35 years that marriage of deceased was performed about 14 years back, she blessed with a son and since 13 years, deceased was staying at his house in

Veleru village after death of her husband and used to eke out livelihood by doing coolie works and on 3.12.2014 deceased

Bajima left his house and did not turn up. Though they searched for deceased Bajima in the relatives houses, her whereabouts not traced out, hence he requested necessary action. Then, LW.22/SI of Police, Hanuman Junction registered the case in

Cr.No.233/2014 under Women Missing and took up investigation in the case.

During course of investigation, on 9.1.2015 LW.9/Smt.K.

Terejamma, VRO of Veleru village produced Accused/Pallapothu

Venakteswara Rao, resident of Veluru Village before LW.22/SI of

Police along with report stating that Accused made extra judicial confession statement admitting that he developed illegal intimacy with deceased and on 3.1.2015 at about 10.00 a.m. he committed murder of deceased by strangulating her neck with saree and left dead body at Lingam Cheruvu lands due to money disputes. Basing on the report of LW.9/VRO, LW.22/SI of Police altered section of law from Women Missing to U/s.302 IPC on 9.1.2015 and filed section alteration memo before II-Addl. JMFC,

Nuzvid. Later LW.23/Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction took up further investigation, visited scene of offence i.e. Lingam

Cheruvu tank lands, found dead body of deceased in highly 3 decomposed state, examined and recorded detailed statements of witnesses, got drafted scene of observation report, rough sketch in the presence of mediators LW.9/K.Terejamma and

LW.18/A.Bhavani Shankar, Vice Sarpanch of Veleru village, and seized material objects i.e. silk saree, blouse pieces, saree fall, one key, cell phone, pair of chappals, small plastic wire basket from the scene under the cover of mediators report, held inquest over dead body and also got conducted spot postmortem examination through LW.17/Dr.B.Srinu Naik, Asst. Professor of

Siddhardha Medical College, Vijayawada and handed over dead body to the family members.

During course of investigation, LW.23/Inspector of Police forwarded preserved specimens of viscera for chemical analysis and after receipt of RFSL report, LW.17/Dr.B.Srinu Naik, Medical

Officer issued final opinion that cause of death is due to asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. During course of investigation, LW.23/Inspector of Police arrested Accused on 9.1.2015 and sent him for judicial custody. After receipt of final opinion and after completion of investigation, Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against Accused for the offence punishable

U/s.302 IPC.

3. Based on the charge sheet, II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Nuzvid, took cognizance of the case against Accused

U/s.302 of IPC vide PRC No.40/2015 and copies of documents were furnished to him U/s.207 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Krishna Division at Machilipatnam U/s.209

Cr.P.C, as the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of 4

Sessions. In turn the case is made-over to this court on the point

of jurisdiction for disposal according to law.

4. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and

Counsel for Accused, Accused was examined U/s.228 (2) Cr.P.C, charge U/s.302 IPC was framed, read-over and explained to

Accused in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined out of 23 witnesses and Exs.P1 to P30 and M.Os.1 to 7 were marked by the prosecution. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined U/s.313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence found against him, for which, he pleaded innocence and stated no evidence on his behalf.

6. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the evidence on record.

7. Now the point for determination is:

i)Whether the prosecution could able to establish guilty of

Accused for the offence punishable U/s.302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

ii)To what relief?

POINT No.1:

8. Case of prosecution in the nutshell is that on 3.12.2014 about 10.00 a.m. at Lingam Cheruvu Tank in Veleru Village Accused committed murder of deceased Sk.Bajibi @ Bajima, elder sister 5 of defacto complainant/PW.1 due to money disputes, hence

Accused is liable for the offence punishable U/s.302 IPC.

9. At the outset, evidence of prosecution witnesses is briefly referred to as follows:

PW.1 (Md. Subhani) is defacto complainant and younger brother of deceased. According to PW.1, marriage of his elder sister (deceased) was performed with one Rehmathulla about 12 years ago and she blessed with one son, after death of her husband in an accident, deceased came to his house in Veleru village and residing with him, she used to attend coolie works, about six years ago, deceased left the house but did not turn up, they searched in the houses of their relatives and lodged missing report (Ex.P1) at P.S., Hanuman Junction and after one month, dead body of deceased was found at Lingamcheruvu situated in their village, then their family members identified the dead body in the presence of police, Police recovered belongings of deceased i.e. M.Os.1 to 5/Saree, Plastic Wire Basket, small key,

Celkon make cell phone, pair of chappals from the scene of offence and dead body was handed over to them after conducting spot PME. PW.1 further deposed that he does not know Accused in the present case. Since PW.1 did not support the prosecution case, he was cross examined by Addl.PP with reference to his statements (Exs.P2 and P3) said to have been stated before the Investigating Officer alleging that deceased developed illegal intimacy with Accused and he expressed his suspicion on Accused, but he denied the same.

PW.2 (Md. Munni)/wife of PW.1 and sister-in-law of deceased, PW.3 (Sk.Nurjahan)/sister of deceased, PW.4 6 (Patan Khatija)/sister of deceased, deposed in the similar lines of PW.1 in regard to missing of deceased. PW.5 (Sk.Nagore),

PW.6 (K.Anjamma @ Buddamma), PW.7 (A.Srinivasa Rao),

PW.8 (Sk.Masthan), PW.9 (Sk.Kareemulla), PW.10

(Md.Khasim), PW.12 (T.Srinivasa Rao), PW.13 (A. Siva

Nagaraju), and PW.14 (A. Bhavani Sankar), are inhabitants of Veleru village. Since these witnesses also did not speak any incriminating evidence in regard to death of deceased, they were cross examined by Addl.PP with reference to their statements (Exs.P4 to P16, P22 and P23) said to have been stated before the

Investigating Officer, but they denied the same.

PW.11 (Kalapala Terejamma) is VRO of Veleru village of

Bapulapadu Mandal, at the relevant time deposed that on 9.1.2015 at about 9.00 a.m. while she was attending official duty at Panchayat Raj Office, Accused went to her and made extra judicial confession statement admitting that he developed illegal intimacy with Sk.Bajibi/deceased, R/o.Veleru village and committed murder of deceased by strangulating her neck with saree due to money disputes and thrown the dead body into

Lingamcheruvu of Veleru village, then she got recorded confession statement of Accused/Ex.P17 through one Joshi, VRA of Veleru village and obtained signature of Accused and immediately Accused was produced before the SHO, Hanuman

Junction P.S. along with Ex.P17/confession statement and she presented report/Ex.P18 to the Police, thereafter police secured presence of LW.19/K.Gabriel and recorded confession statement of Accused in their presence and proceeded to Lingamcheruvu along with mediators, then Accused shown them the place where 7 the dead body was lying in the bushes of said tank, then dead body was lifted out by the villagers and it was identified by the family members of deceased. Then police affected the arrest of

Accused and got prepared mediators report and seized material objects (MO.1/blue colour synthetic saree, MO.2/Plastic wiere bag, MO.3/Saree falls, blouse pieces, house key, MO.4/Mobile

Phone, MO.5/two pairs of plastic chappals, MO.6/blouse pieces yellow and brick colour, MO.7/Yellow color saree fall) at scene of offence and Police got prepared scene observation report/Ex.P20, and held inquest over dead body and obtained her signature along with other mediator PW.14/A.Bhavani Shankar and as per the statements of blood relatives of deceased, they came to know that Accused committed murder of deceased due to money disputes as noted in Col.No.15 of Inquest Report/Ex.P21. In cross examination, PW.11 stated that Accused has no prior acquaintance with her and she did not obtain signature of Joshi,

VRA of Veleru village, who scribed extra judicial confession statement of Accused.

PW.15 (Dr.B.Srinu Naik) is Assistant Professor of

Siddhartha Medical College, Vijayawada at the relevant time stated that on 10.1.2016 on requisition from Police, Hanuman

Junction in Cr.No.223/2014, he conducted spot PME at 3.00 p.m.

on dead body of Sk.Bajima and found the following injuries:

i)On opening the saree around the neck of deceased, all neck muscles are in advanced state of decomposition. All neck structures are fractured into multiple pieces. Thyroid cartilage fracture into multiple pieces. Hyoid bone fractured at greater horns on both sides. He preserved viscera for chemical analysis 8 and sent the same to RFSL, Vijayawada through SDPO. Time of death is about 40 days prior to postmortem examination. Ex.P24 is PME report. PW.15 further deposed that after receiving RFSL report/Ex.P25, he issued final opinion/Ex.P26 opining that cause of death is due to asphyxia due to ligature strangulation.

PW.16 (I.V.Nagendra Kumar), SI of Police, Hanuman

Junction PS at the relevant time deposed that on 7.12.2014 at about 12.00 noon PW.1,brother of deceased came to police station and gave Ex.P1/complaint about missing of his elder sister viz. Sk.Bajibi @ Bajima. Accordingly, case was registered and FIR/Ex.P27 was issued in Cr.No.223/2014 of Hanuman

Junction under Woman Missing and on the same day, he recorded statement of PW.1/Md.Subhani, then he visited scene of offence village and caused enquiries with kith and kin of missing woman and recorded statements of P.Ws.2 to 7 and

LW.7/P.Shanmukhachari and sent information to neighbouring police stations and media regarding woman missing. PW.16 further deposed that on 9.1.2015 at about 2.45 p.m. PW.11 came to Police Station along with Accused and submitted report along with confession statement of Accused/Ex.P17, based on the said report, he altered section of law from woman missing to Sec.302

IPC and issued altered FIR/Ex.P28 and sent information to

PW.17/K.N.Vijaya Kumar, CI of Police and handed over CD file along with Accused for further investigation and thereafter he accompanied and assisted PW.17 in further investigation.

PW.17 (K.N. Vijay Kumar), CI of Police, Hanuman Junction

Circle at the relevant time deposed that on 9.1.2015 he received intimation from PW.16/SI of Police in regard to alteration of 9 section of law in Cr.No.233/2014 U/s.302 IPC and production of

Accused along with extra judicial confession statement/Ex.P17 recorded by PW.11/VRO, and on the same day, he took up further investigation, verified the CD file and investigation done by

PW.16 on proper lines and he also got recorded confession statement of Accused in the presence of mediators and in pursuance of said confession statement, he proceeded to

Lingamcheruvu along with mediators and found decomposed dead body of deceased lying at Lingamcheruvu Tank Bund, then he got drafted mediators report/Ex.P19 in regard to identification of dead body in the presence of mediators/PW.11 and LW.19/K.

Gabriel, Accused was arrested and sent to judicial custody.

PW.17 further deposed that on 10.1.2015 again he visited

Lingamcheruvu, recovered MO.1/blue color saree, MO.2/plastic wire basket, MO.3/Key, MO.4/red and black color Celkon cell phone, MO.5/pair of chappals, MO.6/two blouse pieces and

MO.7/yellow and black color saree fall from the scene and prepared scene observation report/Ex.P20 and rough sketch/Ex.P29 in the presence of mediators, later he conducted inquest/Ex.P21 over dead body in the presence of blood relatives and recorded their statements and sent requisition to conduct spot postmortem examination as dead body was in highly decomposed state and after PME by PW.15/Dr.B.Srinu Naik, dead body was handed over to blood relatives. PW.17 further deposed that on 11.1.2015 he visited house of deceased, collected Voter

ID card of deceased for identification purpose, recorded statements of P.Ws.12 and 13 and LW.7/Pakki Shankukhachari, on 12.1.2015 he examined LW.16/Dr.Shasisekhar to prove the 10 treatment given to Accused, on 22.1.2015 he secured presence of PW.2 and recorded her statement, later he sent material objects to RFSL, Vijayawada for chemical analysis through letter of advice/Ex.P30 and after receiving final opinion/Ex.P26, he filed charge sheet against Accused for the offence U/s.302 IPC. In cross examination, PW.17 stated that major part of

Lingamcheruvu was dried and one fly over bridge leads to

Vijayawada-Eluru was existing and there is pathway on the northern and eastern sides and road on the western side of

Lingamcheruvu tank bund and no body informed them about dead body prior to 9.1.2015.

10. The learned Counsel for the Accused has argued that prosecution has failed to establish motive on the part of Accused to kill the deceased through any independent witnesses, further none of prosecution witnesses stated about illegal intimacy between Accused and deceased prior to the incident. It is further argued that it is settled principle of law that extra judicial confession made by Accused is a weak piece of evidence unless it is corroborated to connect Accused with the crime. In the present case extra judicial confression alleged to be made by

Accused before PW.11/VRO after lapse of one month of incident admitting his guiltyand showing the dead body of deceased at

Lingamcheruvu is not inspiring confidence of the Court, hence it cannot be relied upon in the absence of other circumstantial evidence. In support of said contention, the learned counsel for

Accused relied upon judgment in the case of “State of Punjab

Vs. Gurudeep Singh” reported in AIR 1988 SC 1705 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is settled proposition of law 11 that extra judicial confession cannot be treated as substantive evidence by itself, it can be used as corroborative to complete the chain of circumstances, if there is no other reliable evidence, conviction cannot be based solely on the extra judicial confession alleged to be made by Accused.

11.As can be seen from above evidence, P.Ws.1 to 5 are family members of the deceased. P.Ws.6 to 10 and 12 are villagers and known to deceased, these witnesses did not disclose illegal intimacy between Accused and deceased as alleged by prosecution and money disputes between them at the time of incident. As seen from Ex.P1/report lodged by PW.1 and evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, it appears that deceased was widow, having 13 years old son and eking livelihood by doing coolie works and residing in the house of PW.1 and she was missing from 7.12.2014 onwards and after one month i.e. on 9.1.2015 her dead body was found in Lingamcheruvu tank in highly decomposed state and Police recovered belongings of deceased i.e. M.Os.1 to 7 under cover of mediators report after identifying the dead body. As seen from evidence of PW.14/mediator for scene of observation and inquest reports discloses that dead body was identified as Shaik Bajima, Sister of PW.1 and her wearing apparels i.e. M.Os.1 to 7 were recovered by Police in

Lingamcheruvu tank in the presence of P.Ws.10, 11 and himself.

Further, from the evidence of PW.15/Medical Officer coupled with

Ex.P24/PME Report, Ex.P25/RFSL Report and Ex.P26/final opinion discloses that dead body of deceased was in highly decomposed state and cause of death was due to asphyxia due to ligature strangulation and death was occurred about 40 days prior to 12 postmortem examination. Therefore, it can be understood that deceased met with homicidal death. Except evidence of

PW.11/VRO, there is no evidence on recordto connect Accused with death of deceased. As seen from cross examination of

PW.11/VRO, admittedly she is not having prior acquaintance with

Accused and deceased. According to her on 9.1.2015 at about 9.00 a.m. Accused himself voluntarily came to her office and made extra judicial confession stating that he committed the offence due to money disputes and he thrown the dead body into

Lingamcheruvu tank, then she got recorded the statement of

Accused under Ex.P17 and gave report/Ex.P18 to Police and thereafter Accused led them to Lingamcheruvu Tank and shown the dead body of deceased. Thereafter section of law was altered from Woman Missing to Sec.302 IPC. Except extra judicial confession made by Accused, there is no independent source of evidence to connect Accused with the alleged crime.

Having regard to the submission made by the counsel for

Accused and in view of above facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to establish guilty of Accused for the offence U/s.302 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. In the absence of reliable evidence from prosecution side that Accused is solely responsible for the death of deceased, he is entitled for acquittal for the charge U/s.302 of

IPC. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

POINT NO.2:

12. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.302 of IPC and accordingly he is hereby acquitted as per the provisions U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 7 and 13 unmarked property if any are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me, this the 31stday of March, 2022.

XV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KRISHNA DISTRICT, NUZVID.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENSE

PW.1: Md.Subhani. None PW.2: Md.Munni. PW.3: Sk.Nurjehan. PW.4: P.Khatiza. PW.5: Md.Nagore. PW.6: K.Anjamma. PW.7: A.Srinivasa Rao. PW.8: Sk.Mastan. PW.9: Sk.Karimullah. PW.10: Md.Khasim. PW.11: K.Terejamma. PW.12: T.Srinivasa Rao. PW.13: A.Siva Naga Raju. PW.14: A.Bhavani Shankar. PW.15: Dr.B.Srinu Naik. PW.16: I.V.Nagendra Kumar. PW.17: K.N.V.Jaya Kumar.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Report Dt.7.12.2014. Ex.P2: Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1. Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 before PW.17. Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2. Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 before PW.17. Ex.P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 before PW.17. Ex.P8: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P9: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 before PW.17. Ex.P10: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5. Ex.P11: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 before PW.17. Ex.P12: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6. Ex.P13: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7. Ex.P14: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.8. Ex.P15: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.9.

14

Ex.P16: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.10. Ex.P17: Extra judicial confession statement of Accused. Ex.P18: Report of PW.11. Ex.P19: Mediators Report. Ex.P20: Scene observation report dt.10.1.2015. Ex.P21: Inquest report. Ex.P22: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.12. Ex.P23: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.13. Ex.P24: PME Report. Ex.P25: RFSL report. Ex.P26: Final opinion. Ex.P27: FIR. Ex.P28: Altered memo. Ex.P29: Rough sketch. Ex.P30: Letter of advice.

DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

MO.1: Blue color silk saree. MO.2: Plastic wire basket. MO.3: Key. MO.4: Red & Black color Celkon cell phone. MO.5: Pair of Chappals. MO.6: Two blouse pieces. MO.7: Yellow and Brick color saree fall.

XV A.D&S.J., Nuzvid.

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KRISHNA

DISTRICT AT NUZVID

PRESENT: Smt. A.Bharathi

XV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, NUZVID

Friday, on this 1st day of April, 2022

A.S.NO.35/2018.

Between; 1).Koppula Pitchi Reddy. 2).Koppula Venkata Reddy. 3).Koppula Babu Reddy. 4).Koppula Pratapa Reddy. 5).Koppula Rami Reddy.

6).Koppula Sudhakara Reddy. ..Appellants.

And

Thummuru Venkateswara Reddy. ..Respondent.

APPEAL FILED BY APPELLANT UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 & SEC.96

OF C.P.C. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PAASSED ON

8.8.2017 IN O.S.NO.165/2010 BY THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYLAVARAM MADE IN:

Between:

Thummuru Venkateswara Reddy.…Plaintiff.

And

1).Koppula Pitchi Reddy. 2).Koppula Venkata Reddy. 3).Koppula Babu Reddy. 4).Koppula Pratapa Reddy. 5).Koppula Rami Reddy. 6).Koppula Sudhakara Reddy.…Defendants.

This Appeal coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Appellants in person as their counsel Sri UNP died, and Respondent remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon hearing, this court made the following:

2

JUDGMENT

The Appellants filed the appeal U/o.41 R1 & Sec.96 of CPC against the decree and judgment dt.8.8.2017 in O.S.No.165/2010 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Mylavaram seeking to set aside the said judgment and decree and for costs.

2.Appellants are called absent. No representation on behalf of Appellants. Hence A.S. is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me, in the open court, on this 1st day of

April, 2022.

XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA AT NUZVID.

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KRISHNA

DISTRICT AT NUZVID

PRESENT: Smt. A.Bharathi

XV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, NUZVID

Monday, on this 4th day of April, 2022

A.S.NO.52/2017.

Between;

Syed Abdul Azeez. ..Appellant.

And

1).Guggilla Kishore. 2).Guggilla Ravi.

3).Dunaga Lokeswara Rao. ..Respondents.

APPEAL FILED BY APPELLANT UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 & SEC.96

OF C.P.C. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PAASSED ON

1.8.2017 IN O.S.NO.70/2012 BY THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, TIRUVURU MADE IN:

Between:

Syed Abdul Azeez.…Plaintiff.

And

1).Guggilla Kishore. 2).Guggilla Ravi. 3).Dunaga Lokeswara Rao.…Defendants.

This Appeal coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Appellant in person as his counsel Sri UNP died, and of Sri B. Chandra Sekhara Rao, Advocate for Respondents, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon hearing, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

The Appellants filed the appeal U/o.41 R1 & Sec.96 of CPC against the decree and judgment dt.1.8.2017 in O.S.No.70/2012 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru seeking to set aside the said judgment and decree and for costs.

2

2.Appellant called absent. No representation. Several opportunities were given for engaging counsel, even though no representation. Hence Appeal Suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me, in the open court, on this 4th day of

April, 2022.

XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA AT NUZVID.

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KRISHNA

DISTRICT AT NUZVID

PRESENT: Smt. A.Bharathi

XV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, NUZVID

Thursday, on this 31st day of March, 2022

A.S.NO.25/2017.

Between;

Bolligarla Hymavathi. ..Appellant.

And

Yadala Srinivasa Rao. ..Respondent.

APPEAL FILED BY APPELLANT UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 & SEC.96

OF C.P.C. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PAASSED ON

5.5.2017 IN O.S.NO.175/2009 BY THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, NUZVID MADE IN:

Between:

Bolligarla Hymavathi.…Plaintiff.

And

Yadala Srinivasa Rao.…Defendant.

This Appeal coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Appellant in person as his counsel Sri UNP died, and of Sri G. Prasada Rao, Advocate for Respondent, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon hearing, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

The Appellant filed the appeal U/o.41 R1 & Sec.96 of CPC against the decree and judgment dt.5.5.2017 in O.S.No.175/2009 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid seeking to set aside the said judgment and decree and for costs.

2

2.Counsel for Respondent present. Appellant called absent.

Since no representation on behalf of Appellant from several dates of hearing. Hence A.S. is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me, in the open court, on this 31st day of

March, 2022.

XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA AT NUZVID.