Smt A Naga Sailaja

XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

XV-ADJ Court Complex Nuzvid · Krishna · Andhra Pradesh

Smt A NAGA SAILAJA, XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, is posted at XV-ADJ Court Complex Nuzvid, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,825 court orders on record since 2008. 8 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, ARBEP, EP cases.

2,825

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

AS/27/2019 Compromised

P.Sambasiva Rao vs P.Nageswara Rao (died)

02 Apr 2026

IN THE COURT OF XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: KRISHNA

DISTRICT At NUZVID

PRESENT: SMT. A. NAGA SAILAJA,

XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NUZVID.

Thursday, on this the 2 nd day of April, 2026.

A.S.NO.27 OF 2019 .

Between:-

P.Sambasiva Rao, S/o.late. Nageswara Rao, aged about 65 years, R/o.F.No.2/2, Ram Mohana Residency, Padamatalaka, Vijayawada.

...Appellant.

And

1).P. Nageswara Rao (DIED).

2).Challa Durga Venu, W/o.Nageswara Rao, aged about 60 years, R/o.Pandugula Village, Mylavaram Mandal.

3).Aluru Samrajayam, W/o.Subramanyam, aged about 69 years, R/o.Kanasanapalli Village, Agiripalli Mandal.

...Respondents.

O.S.NO.201 OF 2010.

Between:-

P. Sambasiva Rao. ... Plaintiff.

And

1).P. Nageswara Rao (DIED). 2).Challa Durga Venu.

3).Aluru Sambrajayam. ... Defendants.

The appeal suit is coming before me on 26.3.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sarvasri P. Seshu Mohan & M.M.R. Sankar, Advocates for Appellant, and of Sri K.J. Dixon, Advocate for 2nd respondent, and the 3 rd respondent remained exparte, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree

Dt.5.8.2019 passed in O.S.No.201 of 2010 (Old O.S.No.3060/2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada) on the file of the Junior Civil

Judge, Mylavaram. The Appellant herein is the plaintiff and the

respondents herein are the defendants in the main suit.

The Parties are hereinafter referred to as they arrayed

before the trial Court for the sake of better understanding.

2. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for declaration to declare the settlement deed dt.9.2.2005 as not valid and binding on the plaintiff to the extent of plaint schedule property along with consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff, and for costs.

3.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

The 1st defendant is the father of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 are the sisters of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant has two daughters and one son. The 2nd defendant is the second daughter of 1st defendant and her marriage had taken place in the year 1975 and since then, she is living at her in-laws house. The 1st defendant had got some properties through his father by succession 3 and inherited the ancestral property and he is an agriculturist. After inheritance, the 1st defendant had developed other properties including the plaint schedule property and enjoying them as ancestral properties by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant by managing jointly. The 1st defendant had entered into an agreement of sale with one

Viswanadhula Kamakshamma by executing an agreement of sale dt.19.2.1980 and he received Rs.5,846/- in the beginning and subsequently Rs.1,000/- under the agreement of sale, wherby leaving balance of Rs.500/- to be paid under the agreement. The said

Kamakshamma had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement in O.S.No.256/1983 on the file of III-Addl. District Munsiff, Vijayawada.

The said suit was contested by the plaintiff herein on the ground that he is not a party to the agreement and his signatures were forged.

The 1st defendant remained exparte in the suit. While the suit is pending, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant have got the properties divided by executing a registered partition deed dt.20.7.1987 and got the same registered before the SRO, Mylavaram. At the time of execution of partition deed, the plaint schedule property herein i.e. an extent of Ac.1.46 cents of land in R.S.No.56/1 situated at Nandigama,

G.Konduru Mandal was left undivided in view of pendency of above suit. After division of properties, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant have been enjoying their respective shares peacefully without any objections. Apart from the plaint schedule property, there are other properties which are undivided which were given to the 1st defendant, who had disposed off the properties by himself without the consent of the plaintiff, as they were allotted to the 1st defendant as per the understanding. The plaintiff had been doing contract business apart from agriculture. In order to secure loan to invest as capital in contract business, the plaintiff had placed the registered partition deed 4

before Bank of India, Jyoti Nagar Branch, Karimnagar, for which the 1st

defendant is a co-obligant and created charge over the property covered under partition deed. In view of default in payment of loan amount, the bank had approached DRTA at Hyderabad and filed a suit in O.S.No.56/2002, in which the 1st defendant also received notice, and engaged Advocate to defend the proceedings.

While the matter stood thus, the 2nd defendant, her husband, her sister and her sister’s husband have colluded together and started diverting the mind of the 1st defendant by developing the differences between the plaintiff and 1st defendant. In the absence of plaintiff, the 1st defendant with compulsion of 2nd defendant and others had started executing different documents in the name of above persons and got the same registered. Having came to know the same, the plaintiff got issued a notice dt.20.2.2006 to the defendants herein and also other persons who got the documents registered in their names, except the 1st defendant, all others kept silent. In order to protect the rights of the plaintiff in the properties, he filed suit in O.S.No.45/2006 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nuzvid for declaration and also for

injunction, in which the 1st defendant, one Aluru Samrajyam and the husband of 2nd defendant viz. Ch.Nageswara Rao are the defendants.

The 1st defendant also executed agreement of sale cum power of attorney in favour of Bethalam Venkata Murali Krishnamraju, who inturn registered a sale deed, for which the plaintiff filed another suit for Declaration before the Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The plaint schedule property was under dispute by the time of partition deed.

Later, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant have agreed each other, the plaintiff agreed to retain the entire property in O.S.No.256/1983 including the share of 1st defendant and to repay the amount including suit costs to the said Khamakshmma and a compromise decree was 5 passed and the 1st defendant had delivered the entire property to the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff took possession of plaint schedule property in the year 1987 after payment amount under Receipt dt.21.12.1987. Since then, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property had had been raising paddy crops in the schedule property. While the plaint schedule property is enjoying by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of 2nd defendant on 9.2.2005 and another extent of property in R.S.No.186. The settlement deed is not valid and binding on the plaintiff, in view of understanding that had taken place between the plaintiff and 1st defendant at the time of compromise in O.S.No.256/1983. Since the 1st defendant did not cancel the document even after receipt of notice, dt.20.2.2006, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for Declaration and for consequential injunction, and for costs.

4. After receipt of summons, the 1st defendant filed his written statement by denying the averments of the plaint and submitted that at the time of marriage of 2nd defendant, he gifted the plaint schedule property along with another extent of Ac.1.17 cents of agricultural land in R.S.No.186 of Ch.Nandigama Village towards pasupukumkuma and delivered possession of the same and since then, till today, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. He executed a gift deed dt.9.2.2005 bearing Doc.No.421/2005 in favour of 2nd defendant by mentioning about the gift of plaint schedule property along with other property towards Pasupukunkuma at the time of her marriage, which was taken place in the year 1975. The plaintiff had knowledge of the same and kept quiet all these years. The plaint schedule property is his self acquired property. He further submitted that without conceding the documents i.e. the compromise petition 6 dt.21.12.1987 filed by the plaintiff and 1stdefendant in

O.S.No.256./1983 itself shows that the defendants have paid an

amount of Rs.14,958/- to the plaintiff towards damages for cancellation of agreement of sale and the said information was incorporated in

I.A.No.1517/1987 in O.S.No.256/1983 in Para No.2 of the said compromise terms. This itself shows that himself and the plaintiff herein have interest, right and title over the plaint schedule property.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot pray an injunction against the co-owner.

He is paying cist to the plaint schedule property, thus the revenue record shows he is the owner and possessor of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff un-necessarily filing the suits against him and others without having any right over the schedule properties. Even as per the documents relied by the plaintiff, it can be understood that he is of litigant mind and harassing them by filing frivolous suits. The plaintiff grabbed all his property and he is not looking after him. So, his daughters i.e. the 2nd defendant and another daughter Samrajyam is looking after his welfare. He never executed any partition deed by dividing his properties with that of plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff.

The partition deed dt.20.7.1987 said have been registered is not signed by him nor he made execution of the same before SRO,

Mylavaram and reserved his right to file a suit to cancel the said alleged partition deed. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit.

5.The 2nd defendant filed her written statement and submitted that the 1st defendant herein gifted the plaint schedule property along with another extent of Ac.1.17 cents of agricultural land in R.S.No.186 of Ch.Nandigama village to her towards pasupukunkuma and delivered possession of the same and since then, till today, she is in possession and enjoying the same with absolute rights. The 1st defendant executed a gift deed on 9.2.2005 7 bearing Doc.No.421/2005 in her favour by mentioning that the plaint schedule property and other property was gifted to this defendant towards pasupukunkuma at the time of her marriage which was performed in the year 1975. The plaintiff had got knowledge about the same and kept quiet all these years. The plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of her father i.e. 1st defendant. She further submitted that without conceding the documents i.e. the compromise petition dt.21.12.1987 filed by the plaintiff and 1st defendant in O.S.No.256./1983 itself shows that the defendants have paid an amount of Rs.14,958/- to the plaintiff towards damages for cancellation of agreement of sale and the said information was incorporated in I.A.No.1517/1987 in O.S.No.256/1983 in Para No.2 of the said compromise terms. This itself shows that the 1st defendant and the plaintiff herein both have interest, right and title over the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot pray an injunction against the co-owner. The plaintiff had no right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property at any point of time and he did not raise the crop in the schedule property and herself and her son not threatened the plaintiff. The 1st defendant is paying cist to the plaint schedule property and the revenue record also shows that the 1st defendant is the owner and possessor of plaint schedule property.

The plaintiff un-necessarily filing suits against the 1st defendant and others without having any right over the schedule properties. The plaintiff is litigant and filing suit against the 1st defendant and others to harass them. The plaintiff grabbed all the properties of 1st defendant and he is not looking after the 1st defendant. Herself and her sister

A.Samrajyam were looking after the welfare of 1st defendant.

Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit.

6.The 3rd defendant did not file her written statement.

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

i).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that the settlement deed dt.9.2.2005 as not valid and binding on the plaintiff along with to the extent of plaint schedule property and with the consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff?

ii).To what relief?

8. Inadvertently, the trial court again framed the following issues:

i).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?

ii).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

iii).To what relief?

9.During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A16.

10. Per contra, on behalf of defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B5.

11. After hearing both sides and after evaluating the evidence on record, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Mylavaram dismissed the suit on 5.8.2019.

12. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in

O.S.No.201/2010, dt.5.8.2019, the Appellant/plaintiff preferred the

present appeal on the following grounds:

i).The trial court failed to consider the proceedings in

O.S.No.256/1983.

9 ii). The trial court did not peruse the written arguments filed by the plaintiff by explaining the determination of the right in the property about the plaintiff by circumstantial evidence with that of documents.

iii). The trial court ought to have considered the previous proceedings that have taken place between the parties to the suit that was being adjourned along with O.S.No.201/2010 and also common documents and common pleadings for the determination of the established rights accrued to the appellant.

iv). The trial court believed the oral submission of the respondents with regard to Ex.A6 without considering the contents of the documents and unable to discuss Ex.A6.

v). The conclusion of the trial court that plaint schedule is the self acquired property is beyond the pleadings and also the pleadings in O.S.No.45/2006.

vi). The trial court did not consider the securing of injunction at the time of filing of the suit in the year 2006 in I.A.No.968/2006 in

O.S.No.3060/2006 at the time when the jurisdiction was at Vijayawada

and also the continuation of the enjoyment of the property by virtue of injunction for continuous period of 13 years.

vii). The trial court made keen observation of Exs.A13 and

A14 which is the letter that was submitted by the 2nd respondent concludes that the possession was not with the defendants as she was claiming right in the property on the ground of dismissal of the suit for default.

viii). The exhibits marked on behalf of the appellant i.e.

Exs.A1 to A16 were not discussed by the trial court.

ix).The trial court failed to pursue the contents of Ex.A1 about the intention of giving the property as Pasupukunkuma will not 10 cause 1st defendant to enter into a document with Kamakshamma and neither the 2nd defendant had taken any steps to get herself impleaded in the above suit in the event of property having given for the above cause as she had admittedly submitted in cross-examination about the acquaintance of the knowledge of the transaction between

Kamakshamma, appellant and 1st defendant and when the property was delivered to Kamakshamma under possessory agreement the redelivery of the property was not established in evidence or pleadings or by way of any documents by the defendants 1 and 2.

x).The 1st defendant who was alive by the time of filing written statement submits in written statement that without conceding the documents i.e. compromise petition dt.21.12.1987 filed by the plaintiff and this defendant herein, in O.S.No.256/1983 itself shows that the defendants have paid an amount of Rs.14,958/- to the plaintiff towards the damages for the cancellation of agreement of sale and the said information was incorporated in I.A.No.1517/1987 in

O.S.No.256/1983 in Para.2 of the said compromise terms. The said

compromise suit was also signed by this defendant along with the plaintiff. This itself shows that the 1st defendant and the plaintiff herein both have interest, right and title over the plaint schedule property.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot pray for an injunction against the co- owner.

xi).Had the trial court observed the above paragraph, the suit could not be dismissed on the ground that the defendants claimed as co-owner of the property but not the exclusive owner and when the pleading was as stated above, the judgment could have been in different mode by directing for partition of the property instead of confirming the exclusive right to the 1st defendant and confirming the transaction. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the appeal by setting 11 aside the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2019 passed in

O.S.No.201/2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Mylavaram and

to decree the suit with costs.

13.No additional evidence is adduced before the appellate court by both the parties.

14. Now the points for consideration are:

i).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Declaration as well as consequential Permanent Injunction as prayed for?

ii).Whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the Judgment and Decree dt.5.8.2019 passed in O.S.No.201/2010 by the Junior Civil

Judge, Mylavaram and it is liable to be set aside?

iii).To what relief?

15. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the case record.

16. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the suit is filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of settlement deed dt.9.2.2005 in respect of schedule property by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant and for consequential injunction. The plaintiff is the son of 1st defendant and brother of defendants 2 and 3. The properties are ancestral properties devolved to the 1st defendant during partition and later, in the year 1987, the father and son i.e. the plaintiff and 1st defendant partitioned the existing properties, subsequent to partition, the father i.e. the 1st defendant sold several properties and the 1st defendant also sold the schedule property to Kamakshamma by way of possessory agreement of sale in the year 1983. So, the said property was not partitioned. The 1st defendant delivered the property to Kamakshamma and subsequently since the 1st defendant did not come forward, the said Kamakshamma filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale against the plaintiff and 1st 12 defendant and the suit was compromised and the plaintiff paid the entire amount to the said Kamakshamma and obtained delivery of schedule property and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property, but the 1st defendant in order to defraud the right of the plaintiff, executed settlement deed in favour of 2nd defendant in respect of schedule property. The Kamakshamma also gave acknowledgement to the plaintiff. In the year 2005, the 1st defendant with the instigation of defendants 2 and 3 started executing documents in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 in respect of the schedule property and other properties referred in partition deed.

The plaintiff filed separate suit for declaration that the documents executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants in

O.S.No.45/2006 and the plaintiff also filed O.S.No.186/2010 against

the third parties. The schedule property is not included in the partition deed on the ground that the property was sold to

Kamakshamma and possession was also delivered and the suit was filed by Kamakshamma was pending. The transaction between plaintiff and the said Kamakshamma is almost repurchasing of property from Kamakshamma and basing on compromise decree as well as payment by the plaintiff for compromise is evident from Exs.A4 and A6. By the date of partition deeds, the compromise decree, the 2nd defendant was already married. The DW.1 gave admissions in her evidence and as per her evidence, her father told about the compromise of suit in O.S.No.256/1983. The 1st defendant also aware of temporary injunction obtained by the plaintiff and also aware of filing of O.S.No.45/2006 and the 1st defendant did not deny the proceedings between the Kamakshamma and plaintiff. It is the burden of the defendant to submit as to how the property was reverted back to the 1st defendant.

The learned counsel apart from submitting the oral arguments filed written arguments before this court by contending that the 1st defendant executed document which is styled as settlement deed which was executed 30 years after the marriage by incorporating the terms willfully with regard to possession of the property. If the possession was with the 2nd defendant by the date of agreement of sale, the said Kamakshamma cannot pay the cist in her name and the 2nd defendant cannot entered agreement with Kamakshamma in the year 1975. The 1st defendant i.e. father did not contest the suit

O.S.No.256/1983 and the 2nd defendant did not file any document to

show that she was in possession of the property either before the date of agreement or during the 7 years of proceedings. Though the word defendants was referred in the compromise, the 1st defendant remained exparte and the compromise was between the appellant and

Kamakshamma. The 2nd defendant is trying to hang on the plural word used in the compromise decree. The 2nd defendant submitted that Ex.A6 is fabricated and Kamakshamma is a signatory and not a marks woman. But the 2nd defendant is estopped from challenging

Ex.A6 as she is not a party to the document. There is no information with regard to the availability of Kamakshamma. Therefore, the non- examination of Kamakshamma is not against the case of the plaintiff and the said argument is not sustainable. The defendants have arguing that the schedule property is the self acquired property without any basis and by the date of partition i.e. 20.7.1987 between the 1st defendant and plaintiff, the suit O.S.No.256/1983 was pending.

Therefore, the schedule property was not impleaded. The plaintiff got examined P.Ws.2 and 3 who supported his case. The plaintiff proved his possession and enjoyment over the schedule property by 14 way of evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 as well as Exs.A2, A3, A4 and A6.

The trial court wrongly assessed the evidence on record and dismissed the suit. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dt.5.8.2019 in O.S.no.201/2010 and to decree the suit as prayed for.

17.Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that there is no dispute with regard to filing of O.S.No.256/1983 as well as the compromise arrived by the parties in that suit and in view of pendency of the suit, the schedule property was not impleaded. Further, the schedule property was given to 2nd respondent by her father i.e. 1st defendant at the time of her marriage towards pasupukunkuma and subsequently, it was reduced into writing under Ex.A1 and the plaintiff is not entitled to seek Declaration over

Exs.A1 and A2. The 2nd defendant is having valid title and possession over the schedule property as per Exs.B1 to B5. There is no evidence on record to show that the plaintiff repurchased the property and he became absolute owner of the schedule property.

The plaintiff failed to file any documentary proof to show that he is having title over the schedule property. The version of the plaintiff as well as the contents of Ex.A6 are inconsistent with each other and

Ex.A6 is not a valid transaction. The documents filed by the plaintiff i.e. Exs.A2, A5, A7 to A16 are no way helpful to the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the schedule property since 1987. The plaintiff is a litigant going on filing suits and he cannot challenge the gift deed in favour of 2nd defendant without establishing his title over the schedule property. The trial court rightly assessed the evidence on record and dismissed the suit. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

POINT NOs.1 & 2:- 18.It is the case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant is his father and the defendants 2 and 3 are his sisters and the marriage of the 2nd defendant was performed in the year 1975. The 2nd defendant is residing with her in-laws and the 1st defendant got some properties through his father by succession and inherited the ancestral properties and developed other properties with the said income including the plaint schedule property. Thus, the plaintiff and 1st defendant are enjoying the ancestral properties and managing the properties jointly.

The 1st defendant entered into an agreement of sale with V.

Kamakshamma by executing an agreement of sale on 19.2.1980 and received amount of Rs.5,846/- and Rs.1,000/- and leaving the balance of Rs.500/- to be paid under the agreement. Subsequently, the said

V. Kamakshamma filed O.S.No.256/1983 against himself and his father and he contested the suit by denying his signature and the agreement was forged and his father remained exparte. While the suit is pending, himself and his father divided their properties on 20.7.1987 by leaving the schedule property and enjoying their properties and also obtained loan. Subsequently, when the 1st defendant has been alienating the properties, he filed O.S.No.45/2006 and also suit against the third parties. The suit filed by

V.Kamakshamma was ended in compromise as he paid the entire amount to the said Kamakshamma and obtained re-delivery of the schedule property and the said Kamakshamma also issued receipt in his favour showing the payment made by him and since then, he became absolute owner of the schedule property. But the 1st defendant executed settlement deed in favour of 2nd defendant in 16 respect of schedule property on 9.2.2005 which is not valid and binding on him and since the date of decree in O.S.No.256/1983 he has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, thereby, sought the reliefs of Declaration as well as injunction against the defendants.

19.Per contra, the case of the 1st defendant is that, he gifted the schedule property to his daughter i.e. 2nd defendant at the time of her marriage towards Pasupukunkuma and delivered possession of the same to her and since then, the 2nd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights and subsequently he executed a registered deed on 9.2.2005 in respect of property delivered to her and the plaint schedule property is his self acquired property. The plaintiff also signed along with him in the compromise petition. The plaintiff has been filing suits un-necessarily to grab the properties. He never executed any partition deed by dividing his properties with the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff and he did not sign in the partition deed dt.20.76.1987. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

20.The 2nd defendant contended that the schedule property was gifted to her by her father during her marriage towards pasupukunkama in the year 1974 and delivered possession. She has been enjoying the property and the schedule property is the self- acquired property of 1st respondent. The Ex.A6 clearly shows that the defendants have been paid the amount of Rs.14,958/- towards damages and for cancellation of agreement and the plaintiff did not get any title over the schedule property and he did not raise any crop and the 1st defendant is paying land tax and the name of 1st defendant is mentioned as owner and possessor in the revenue records. Herself and her sister are looking after the welfare of father and the plaintiff 17 filed the suit to grab the schedule property. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit.

21.Since the suit is filed by the plaintiff to declare that the settlement deed dt.9.2.2005 is not valid and for injunction, the burden heavily lies on the plaintiff to prove his right and possession over the schedule property before challenging the said settlement deed dt.9.2.2005.

22.To substantiate his contention, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW.1 and reiterated the contents of plaint in lieu of his examination in chief and got marked Exs.A1 to A16.

23. In support of his contention, the plaintiff also got examined one Cherukuri Venkata Mouli Prasad, who is the attestor of Ex.A6 as

PW.2. He deposed about the mediation held by his father to settle the dispute between Kamakshamma and plaintiff and 1st defendant.

He further deposed about the payment of money by the plaintiff to the said Kamakshammas and issuing of receipt by the Kamakshamma in favour of plaintiff. Whereas, coming to the cross-examination, the

PW.1 categorically admitted that he is not a witness in

O.S.No.256/1983 and he has no acquaintance with the plaintiff and for

the first time he saw the plaintiff in that suit on the day of execution of

Ex.A6 and Ex.A6 was prepared in the court complex. He further deposed that he did not remember the details of the case mentioned in

Ex.A6. He further admitted that he did not know whether the contents of Ex.A6 were mentioned in the compromise memo filed into the court or not.

24.The plaintiff also got examined Rajulapati Pangidaiah, who is the third party to the suit as PW.3. He deposed that he is having tractor and used to hire to third parties for the last 12 years.

He has been cultivating the plaint schedule property and paying lease 18 to the plaintiff and the father of the plaintiff never objected him.

Whereas, coming to the cross-examination, the PW.3 deposed that he cannot say the number of tractor and he has no driving license and he gave the property to lease to one Koteswara Rao, Danekula

Peddabbaiah and Prattipati Srinu. He further deposed that he did not verify the documents in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is residing at Vijayawada and there are no disputes between the plaintiff and defendants prior to the death of 1st defendant.

25.Per contra, the defendants 2 and 3 are examined as

D.Ws.1 and 2 and narrated the contents of the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant in lieu of their examination in chief and got marked Exs.B1 to B5.

26.The defendants also got examined one Gade Kotaiah, who is the third party to the suit as DW.3.

27.As seen from the above oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. Admittedly, the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are the children of 1st defendant. Further, as per the pleadings it is clear that the 1st defendant got the properties from his ancestors.

28.As per the version of the plaintiff during the year 1987 himself and his father partitioned the properties by way of registered partition deed and they both are enjoying their respective shares. The 1st defendant denied the said partition during his pleadings, but no contra evidence is adduced by him. Further, the plaintiff relied on

Ex.A11 to show the said partition. From the contents of Ex.A11 as well as from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that the ancestral properties were partitioned between the plaintiff and 1st defendant under Ex.A11. It is an admitted fact that the plaint schedule property 19 was not partitioned at the time of execution of Ex.A11. It is admitted by PW.1 that the schedule property was not reflected in Ex.A11.

29.As per the version of the defendants, the schedule property is the self acquired property of 1st defendant and so, it was not impleaded in the partition. Whereas, the plaintiff contended that in view of pendency of O.S.No.256/1983 by the date of Ex.A11, the said property was not impleaded in Ex.A11. To show that the schedule property is the self acquired property of 1st defendant, except the oral evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 there is no evidence on record.

But the said fact can be elicited from out of the pleadings available on record. Further, it is an admitted fact that the 1st defendant entered into agreement of sale with V.Kamakshamma in respect of the schedule property on 19.2.1980.

30.As per the contents of the plaint, the 1st defendant alone entered into agreement of sale with Kamakshamma on 19.2.1980. If the schedule property is the ancestral property, it was not divided between the plaintiff and 1st defendant, how the 1st defendant alone entered into agreement with Kamakshmamma. Further, it is clear that the suit was filed by Kamakshamma for specific performance of agreement of sale against the father and son i.e. the 1st defendant and plaintiff herein. In the said suit, the 1st defendant remained exparte and the plaintiff contended that the agreement is forged one and denied his signatures on the said agreement. But is not the contention of plaintiff, who is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.256/1983 that the schedule property is not the self acquired property of 1st defendant. Further, it is clear from Exs.A3 and A4 that the said suit was ended in compromise and the terms of compromise was filed by both parties. As per the terms of compromise as well as from the contents of Ex.A3, it is clear that the defendants i.e. the plaintiff and 1st 20 defendant herein paid the amount towards damages and for cancellation of agreement.

31.A plain reading of Ex.A4 i.e. compromise petition filed by both parties, it is clear that the defendants have paid Rs.14,958/- to the plaintiff towards damages for cancellation of agreement of sale and the plaintiff has delivered possession of the land to the defendants on the day of compromise itself. The said terms were embodied in the judgment i.e. Ex.A3.

32.As per the version of the plaintiff, he alone paid the amount and took possession of the schedule property and the

Kamakshamma passed receipt to that effect in his favour. He got marked the said receipt as Ex.A6 and got examined the attestor of the receipt as PW.2. When the defendants are categorically denying the said receipt, the burden heavily lies on the plaintiff to establish the execution of Ex.A6 which is the source of his title. The plaintiff is deriving title over the schedule property through Ex.A6 receipt. He contended that since he alone paid the amount, the property was reverted back to him and he became absolute owner of the said property. If really Ex.A6 was issued by the Kamakshamma, definitely the said fact will be noted in Exs.A3 and A4. But in the compromise petition as well as in the suit, there is no mention of Ex.A6. Further, from the contents of Exs.A3 and A4, it is clear that both the defendants i.e. plaintiff and 1st defendant herein have paid the amount and Ex.A4 contains the signatures of 1st defendant herein. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish that he alone paid the amount and obtained possession of schedule property and also get title over schedule property through Ex.A6. The plaintiff himself admits that the plaint schedule property was not shown in Ex.A11 and also admits that as per Ex.A2 he is one of the defendants and he contested the suit in 21

O.S.No.256/1983 and he contested the suit and himself and his father

entered into compromise under Ex.A4. As per Ex.A4 himself and his father paid the entire amount to the plaintiff and the document marked under Ex.A6 is not filed O.S.No.256/1983 and the name of the scribe was not reflected in Ex.A6 and settlement was effected between himself and his father on 21.12.1987. But no document was effected between himself and his father on 21.12.1987. The evidence of

PW.2 is also not supported the contents of Ex.A6. Further, from the evidence of PW.1, Ex.A6 was not filed in O.S.No.256/1983. So, the plaintiff failed to establish that soon after payment of amount by him the schedule property was reverted back to him and he obtained possession of the schedule property on 21.12.1987. Further, the trial court rightly held that the payment of amount as per the compromise petition and the receipt executed by Kamakshamma in favour of the plaintiff do not create any right in favour of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. There is no document to show that the schedule property was handed over to plaintiff by Kamakshamma and it was partitioned between himself and 1st defendant.

33.Further, as per the version of the 1st defendant, the schedule property is his self acquired property and he gifted the same to the 2nd defendant at the time of her marriage and subsequently executed Ex.A1. The version of 1st defendant is also not believable, as he did not deny the entering of agreement of sale with

Kamakshamma as well as filing of the suit by Kamakshamma and compromise decree passed in O.S.No.256/1983. The 1st defendant even did not choose to deny the proceeding in O.S.No.256/1983.

Admittedly, the marriage of the 2nd defendant took place in the year 1975 and if really, the schedule property was given to 2nd defendant and also delivered the possession of the property at the time of her 22 marriage i.e. 1975 itself, how the 1st defendant entered into agreement of sale with Kamakshamma in the year 1980 and delivered possession to the said Kamakshamma on the date of agreement and how the

Kamakshamma paid cist for the said property. So, the 2nd defendant failed to establish that she is in possession and enjoyment of schedule property since the date of her marriage. Further, the plaintiff also failed to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property since 1987. The plaintiff himself admits that there is no documentary proof to show that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till today. Though there are some latches in the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3, since this is a suit filed for declaration, the plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness of the case of the defendants and he has to establish his case by way of cogent evidence. In absence of any proof of his title in respect of schedule property, the plaintiff is not entitled to sought for cancellation of the settlement deed executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant.

The plaintiff sought the relief only in respect of schedule property in

Ex.A1 but the trial court wrongly gave finding that the plaintiff is not entitled for cancellation of two properties mentioned in Ex.A1. Even if the plaintiff proved that plaint schedule property is ancestral property, he is having only half share in plaint schedule property but not entitled for total share. So, he is not entitled for cancellation of Ex.A1 in respect of total extent of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff failed to establish that he alone paid the amount and the property was reverted back to him. The plaintiff mainly relied on Ex.A6 to prove his title over the schedule property and he failed to prove the same.

Therefore, he is not entitled for declaration and consequential injunction and the judgment of the trial court warrants no interference by this court.

23 34.On reappraisal of the evidence on record, this court does not find any irregularities in the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court. The trial court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. Thereby, the decree and judgment of the trial court warrants no interference by this court. The appellant is not entitled for setting aside the decree and the judgment of the trial court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. These points are answered accordingly against the appellant and in favour of the respondents.

POINT No.3:- 35.In the result, this Appeal suit is dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree dt.5.8.2019 passed in O.S.No.201/2010 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mylavaram. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-A. Naga Sailaja,

XV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA DISTRICT, AT NUZVID.

Copy to:

The Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division), Mylavaram.

Sd/-A. Naga Sailaja,

XV-ADJ, NZD.

OS/20/2019

Sri Tankasala Constructions and Real Estates Enikepadu vs Lanka Hymavathi

13 Apr 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ::

KRISHNA DISTRICT AT NUZVID

PRESENT: Smt.A. NAGA SAILAJA,

XV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, NUZVID

Monday, on this the 13 th day of April, 2026.

O.S.NO.20/2019.

Between:

Sri Tankasala Constructions & Real Estates, Enikepadu, Represented by its Managing Partner Tankasala Subarao, S/o.Rama Swamy, aged 63 years, Business, R/o.Enikepadu, Vijayawada Rural.

..Plaintiff

And

1. Lanka Hymavathi, W/o.Kishore Babu, aged about 47 years, Housewife & Properties, R/o.Veeravalli Post, Bapulapadu Mandal.

2. Lanka Venkata Karthik, S/o.Kishore Babu, aged about 23 years, Properties, R/o.Veeravalli Post, Bapulapadu Mandal.

3. Lanka Jigeesha, D/o.Kishore Babu, aged about 21 years, Properties, R/o.Veeravalli Post, Bapulapadu Mandal.

..Defendants.

This suit is coming on 9.4.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Sd. Farooq, Advocate for plaintiff and of M/s.A. Vijaya Kumari & P. Durga Rao, Advocates for defendants, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon hearing, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of Sale dated 21-9-2016 directing the 1st defendant to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property at the expenses of the plaintiff within a reasonable period prescribed by the Court along with defendants 2 and 3 and in case, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed within the prescribed time, the Court may itself execute the regular Sale Deed in terms of agreement of sale dt.21.9.2016 on behalf of defendants; alternatively direct the 1st defendant to return Rs.68,05,500/- together with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization, and for costs.

2. The averments of the Plaint in brief are as follows:

The 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the schedule property. The plaintiff is resident of Enikepadu doing construction and real estate business. The defendants 2 and 3 are the children of 1st defendant. The 1st defendant entered into contract with the Managing Partner of Plaintiff’s firm on 3.10.2014 agreeing to sell the schedule property at Rs.1,14,000/- per cent which comes a total consideration of Rs.80,94,000/- for Ac.0.71 cents. On the date of entering into agreement of sale the

Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm paid Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.000001 by HDFC Bank, Vijayawada Town to the 1st defendant. Thereafter, the 1st defendant executed an un- possessory agreement of sale on 21.9.2016 by mentioning about 3 her entering into contract with the Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm and also receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque by her.

On the date of execution of un-possessory agreement of sale, the

Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm paid Rs.41,45,500/-. Thus, the total comes to Rs.46,45,500/- and the balance of sale consideration of Rs.34,48,500/- payable within 3 months from the date of execution of unpossessory agreement of sale. The 1st defendant has to get her name mutated in revenue records under online process and she has to obtain pattadar pass books and title deeds within the period of 3 months and report her readiness and willingness and clear the cist and to get her name mutated in the revenue records. If the obligation of 1st defendant is not fulfilled within the stipulated time, the condition of 3 months is not applicable. The 1st defendant has to get the schedule property measured within the stipulated period. If the 1st defendant is ready with all the documents within the time and on the failure of

Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm in performing his part of contract i.e. paying Rs.34,48,500/-, the agreement is deemed to be cancelled. The 1st defendant further agreed to execute a regular sale deed either in the name of Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm or his order. Subsequently, the 1st defendant did not report her readiness in informing the Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm that she is ready to perform her part of contract within 3 months from 21.9.2016. The 1st defendant contacted the

Managing partner of plaintiff’s firm in the first week of October, 2016 stating that she is in Bangalore and asking the Managing

Partner of plaintiff’s firm i.e. T. Subba Rao to arrange amount 4 payable and further asked him to pay the said amount to her son

Venkata Karthik and her daughter Jigeesha who were residing in

Eluru by that time. Accordingly the Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm made payment of Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and 3 on 11.10.2016 at Eluru. At that time, the relative of defendants including elder brother of husband of 1st defendant were present and witnessed T.Subba Rao paying Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and 3. The defendants 2 and 3 gave original sale deed dt.15.4.1996 under which the 1st defendant has purchased the property and also the sale deed dt.24.2.1987 under which Thummala Kutumba Rao has purchased the property. Thus, the Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm made major part of sale consideration of Rs.68,05,500/- within the stipulated time. The 1st defendant promised to acknowledge the payment of Rs.21,60,000/- on the date of agreement of sale immediately after she came back to Veeravalli and also promised to get the schedule property measured as per the extent available on ground. The Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm is and has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract i.e.

balance of sale consideration and to purchase stamps and to meet the expenses for registration, but the 1st defendant has been postponing the issue from time to time on one pretext or the other. The Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm has left with no other alternative but to issue a notice by reporting his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. Therefore, the plaintiff’s firm got issued a notice on 5.9.2019 to the 1st defendant by reporting his readiness and willingness to perform his part of 5 contract. The defendants 2 and 3 who are children of 1st defendant who received Rs.21,60,000/- are proper and necessary parties to the suit. The notices sent to defendants are returned un-served with an endorsement addressee left from Veeravalli though residing in Veeravalli. The Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm is therefore, obliged to file this suit against the defendants for specific performance of contract. Hence, the suit.

3. After receipt of summons, the 1st defendant filed her written statement and the defendants 2 and 3 adopted the written statement filed by the 1st defendant. The statement filed by the 1st defendant is that, the agreement of sale is a time bound agreement and the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract as per the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement within the stipulated time, so the suit is barred by limitation. As per the terms of agreement, the plaintiff failed to discharge his contractual obligation within the stipulated time of 3 months, the suit agreement of sale is deemed to be cancelled and the same is not in force. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and he is not always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff is also not entitled to seek the alternative relief of refund of advance of sale consideration as he failed to perform his part of contract within the stipulated period of 3 months. The plaintiff did not pay Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and 3 and the defendants 2 and 3 never received any amount and did not hand over the original sale deed to the plaintiff. In order to cover up his latches and negligence, the 6 plaintiff weaved a cock and bull story with false averments. The defendants 2 and 3 are no way concerned to the plaint schedule property and neither representatives nor agents of 1st defendant.

If really, the plaintiff paid the above said amount to the defendants 2 and 3 what prevented the plaintiff to obtain an acknowledgement from them. This fact itself apparently establishes the fraud played by the plaintiff. In fact, at the time of execution of suit agreement of sale, the plaintiff received the original documents of the schedule property from the 1st defendant for verification and promised to return the same as early as possible but the plaintiff kept the said original documents with his possession. Taking advantage of the custody of the original documents the plaintiff created a cock and bull story in order to cause wrongful gain to him. Without prejudice to her contentions on humanitarian grounds as a law abiding citizen she is ready to execute sale deed if the plaintiff paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.34,42.500/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of lapse of statutory period of 3 months. She received only

Rs.46,45,000/- from the plaintiff out of consideration amount of

Rs.80,94,000/-. There is gross negligence on the part of plaintiff and he failed to perform his part of contract as such she is not liable to execute any document in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee in respect of schedule property. She also got issued notice to the defendant by categorically stating her case.

Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, this court settled the 7 following issues for trial.

i).Whether the Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm paid

Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and 3 towards part of sale consideration or not?

ii).Whether the Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm is ready and willing to perform their part of contract or not?

iii).Whether the Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm is entitled for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale against the 1st defendant or not?

iv).Whether the plaintiff’s firm is entitled for refund of

Rs.68,05,500/- from the 1st defendant with interest as alternative relief or not?

v).To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff,

P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A9.

6.Per contra, on behalf of defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B7.

7.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the case record.

8.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that as per the terms of agreement of sale, the burden lies on the 1st defendant to get ready with necessary documents and to obtain pattadar pass books and title deeds and to clear the arrears of cist and to get ready for registration. But the 1st defendant failed to obtain those documents and ready for registration though the plaintiff’s firm is ready for registration with the balance amount. Thereby, as per the terms of agreement, the 8 agreement is in force and no notice was given by the 1st defendant for cancellation of agreement and forfeiture of advance amount as well as the agreement and the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the 1st defendant did not come forward. The learned counsel further argued that, at the request of 1st defendant while she was in Bangalore, he paid

Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and 3 on 11.10.2016 in the presence of relatives and brother of husband of 1st defendant and the 1st defendant failed to issue receipt or acknowledgement to that effect thereafter. Thereby, the plaintiff added the defendants 2 and 3 who are proper and necessary parties and they also signed as attestors in Ex.A1. The plaintiff’s firm is well reputed company and they have no necessity to cheat the 1st defendant and no necessity to weave cock and bull story and the plaintiff’s firm paid the said amount to the defendants 2 and 3 in the presence of PW.2 and DW.3. The evidence of PW.2 supports the version of the plaintiff in respect of part payment, thereby, the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale from the defendants and the payment of

Rs.21,60,000/- is also clear from Ex.A2. Therefore, the defendants have to execute sale deed after receipt of balance of sale consideration by deducting Rs.21,60,000/-. The 1st defendant in order to escape her liability leveled false allegations against the plaintiff. Therefore, prays to decree the suit.

9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s firm did not pay the amount of

Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and 3. There is no 9 evidence on record to establish the said fact and DW.3 pleaded ignorance of the said fact. The evidence of PW.2 who is the henchman of PW.1 cannot be considered. The plaintiff failed to establish his readiness and willingness and further failed to establish the payment of Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and

3. Ex.A2 clearly shows that the plaintiff deposited 4 cheques in his account and it does not reveal that the defendants 2 and 3 received the amount. If really the cheques are available with the plaintiff, he can make the said payment by way of cheques and withdrawal of amount from his account does not establish the fact that he paid the said amount to the defendants 2 and 3. Further, the defendants 2 and 3 did not have custody of original sale deed in respect of title of 1st defendant over the plaint schedule property at the time of payment of amount of Rs.21,60,000/- by the plaintiff to them. The said document was handed over by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff at the time of entering into agreement for the purpose of verification by the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to establish his readiness and willingness and he approached the court with unclean hands. So, the plaintiff’s firm is not entitled to seek the equitable relief of specific performance of contract. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit.

ISSUE NOS.1 TO 3:-

Since all the issues are inter-linked they shall be discussed under one head in order to avoid repetition and for better appreciation.

10.It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff’s firm entered into agreement with 1st defendant for purchase of schedule property i.e. Ac.0.71 cents on 21.9.2016 and the terms were settled on 3.10.2014 to purchase the schedule property at

Rs.1,14,000/- per cent. At the time of settling terms, the plaintiff paid Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cheque to 1st defendant and on the day of agreement, the plaintiff paid Rs.41,45,500/-. As per the terms of agreement, the balance of Rs.34,48,500/- is to be paid by the plaintiff’s firm within 3 months from the date of agreement i.e. on or before 21.12.2016. As per the terms of agreement if the plaintiff failed to pay the balance amount within the stipulated time, the agreement cannot be enforced. In the said agreement, it is also clearly mentioned that in the meanwhile, the 1st defendant has to get her name mutated in the revenue records under online process and she has to obtain pattadar pass book and title deed and to report her readiness and willingness to the plaintiff. If the obligation of 1st defendant is not fulfilled within the stipulated time of 3 months, the condition of 3 months is not applicable. Subsequently, the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. At the request of 1st defendant as she was in Bangalore, the Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm paid

Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and 3 on 11.10.2016 and at that time, he obtained original sale deed of 1st defendant and subsequently, inspite of repeated demands as well as issuing of notice, the defendants did not choose to come forward for 11 execution of sale deed and therefore, he is constrained to file the suit against the defendants 1 to 3 for enforcement of agreement of sale or for alternative relief of return of advance amount.

11.Per contra, the defendants admit the entering into agreement of sale with the plaintiff’s firm and receipt of

Rs.46,45,500/- from the plaintiff but denied the payment of

Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and 3 at the request of 1st defendant and also denied the giving of original sale deed by the defendants 2 and 3 to the plaintiff at the time of alleged payment of Rs.21,60,000/-. The 1st defendant reported her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract and she intimated the same to the plaintiff’s firm and contended that the plaintiff did not choose to perform his part of contract within the stipulated time.

Further, the 1st defendant expressed her readiness and willingness to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff’s firm by receiving balance of sale consideration of Rs.34,48,500/- and denied the payment of Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and 3.

12.Since this is a suit filed for specific performance of agreement of sale, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to establish the execution of agreement of sale as well as his readiness and willingness as per Section 16 (c ) of Specific

Performance Act.

13. To substantiate his contention, the Managing Partner of

Plaintiff’s firm viz. Tankasala Subbarao is examined as PW.1 and reiterated the contents of plaint in lieu of his examination in chief and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is the original Un- possessory Agreement of Sale dated 21.9.2016 executed by the 12 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the statement of account copy dt.31.8.2019 issued by HDFC Bank, Vijayawada.

Ex.A3 is the registered sale deed dt.15.4.1996 executed by

T.Kutumba Rao in favour of 1st defendant. Ex.A4 is the Office copy of notice dt.5.9.2019 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants. Ex.A5 is the postal receipts dt.5.9.2019. Ex.A6 is unserved notice of 1st defendant. Ex.A7 is unserved notice of 2nd defendant. Ex.A8 is unserved notice of 3rd defendant. Ex.A9 is

Mee-seva copy of acknowledgement of registration of firms dt.25.9.2014.

14. In support of his contention, the plaintiff also got examined one Meda Sudhakara Rao, who is the third party to the suit as PW.2. He deposed that he knows both the parties and he is working as car driver to the plaintiff since 30 years. He used to assist the plaintiff in selling and purchasing lands and plots. 10 years ago, the 1st defendant sold Ac.0.71 cents under un-possessory agreement of sale and the plaintiff paid

Rs.68,05,500/- and the plaintiff paid Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and 3 in the first week of October, 2016 at Eluru in his presence and the elder brother of husband of 1st defendant was also present at that time. The defendants 2 and 3 received the said amount. Thereafter, the 1st defendant is not responding, the plaintiff filed this suit.

15.Per contra, the 1st herself is examined as DW.1 and narrated the contents of the written statement filed by her in lieu of her examination in chief and got marked Exs.B1 to B7. Ex.B1 is the office copy of legal notice got issued by the defendants to 13 the plaintiff with postal receipt dt.20.9.2019. Ex.B2 is the postal acknowledgement. Ex.B3 is the reply notice got issued by the plaintiff to defendants counsel dt.10.10.2019. Ex.B4 is the office copy of registered notice got issued by defendants to the plaintiff along with postal receipt dt.4.11.2019. Ex.B5 is the postal acknowledgement. Ex.B6 is the Money order receipt

No.009053728568578050 dt.4.11.2019. Ex.B7 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing D.No.2755/2016 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff dt.21.9.2016.

16.In support of their contention, the defendants got examined one Guntupalli Basavamma, who is the mother of the 1st defendant as DW.2. She deposed that the 1st defendant is her daughter and since the date of death of husband of 1st defendant, she has been residing with 1st defendant. She also deposed about the entering of agreement by the 1st defendant with the plaintiff and sale of Ac.0.92 cents by 1st defendant to the plaintiff earlier and denied the payment of Rs.21,60,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendants 2 and 3.

17.One Lanka Suresh Babu, who is summoned by the defendants is examined as DW.3. He deposed that the plaintiff purchased his landed property and the defendants are the wife and children of his younger brother. The 1st defendant sold some extent of property prior to Ex.A1 to the plaintiff and he was not present at the time of payment of money by 1st defendant to the plaintiff with regard to earlier transaction as well as Ex.A1 transaction and he did not know whether the plaintiff paid

Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and 3 on 11.10.2016 in 14 respect of advance amount in his presence or not and he did not know whether the defendants 2 and 3 handed over the link documents to the plaintiff in his presence or not.

18.On culmination of the above oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to the title of 1st defendant over the schedule property. It is an admitted fact that the 1st defendant purchased Ac.1.63 cents from

T.Kutumba Rao which is evident from Ex.A3. Further, it is also an admitted fact that out of Ac.1.63 cents, the 1st defendant sold

Ac.0.92 cents to the Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm and executed sale deed on the same day after receipt of

Rs.24,50,000/-. The said fact is evident from Ex.B7 which is the certified copy of sale deed dt.21.9.2016. It is also an admitted fact that on the same day of Ex.B7, the 1st defendant entered into agreement of sale with the Managing Partner of plaintiff’s firm in respect of Ac.0.71 cents i.e. the schedule property herein. It is also an admitted fact that the bargain was fixed at the rate of

Rs.1,14,000/- per cent and the total amount for Ac.0.71 cents is

Rs.80,94,000/-. It is also an admitted fact that, the plaintiff paid

Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cheque on the date of fixing of bargain i.e. on 3.10.2014 to the 1st defendant bearing No.000001 of

HDFC Bank, Vijayawada. Further, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff paid Rs.41,45,500/- to the 1st defendant on the day of agreement of sale dt.21.9.2016. So, in total the plaintiff paid

Rs.46,45,500/- to the 1st defendant as on the day of agreement of sale. The 1st defendant also admitted the said fact and the same was also mentioned in Ex.A1. So, the balance amount to 15 be paid by the plaintiff is Rs.34,48,500/-. Upto this extent, there is no dispute by both the parties.

19.As per the terms of Ex.A1 the balance amount is to be paid within 3 months from the date of agreement i.e. on or

before 21.12.2016. The plaintiff also did not choose to deny the

term incorporated in Ex.A1 with regard to payment of balance amount. As per the version of the plaintiff, out of the balance amount, he paid Rs.21,60,000/- on 11.10.2016 to the defendants 2 and 3 at Eluru who are the children of 1st defendant at her request as she was in Bangalore. The 1st defendant categorically denied the said payment. Then, the burden heavily lies on the plaintiff to establish the said fact. According to the

PW.1, he went to Eluuru and paid Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and 3 on 11.10.2016 in the presence of his car driver i.e. PW.2 and DW.3 who is the senior paternal uncle of defendants 2 and 3 and other relatives. When the defendants are denying the said fact, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish the said payment. To establish the said fact, the plaintiff relied on Exs.A2 and A3 as well as the evidence of PW.2.

From Ex.A2, it is clear that the plaintiff deposited 5 cheques in his account on 10.10.2016 and withdrawn cash of Rs.21,60,000/-.

But the said fact does not establish that he paid the said amount to the defendants 2 and 3. Except the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no proof on record to show that the plaintiff paid

Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and 3. The PW.1 himself admits that he cannot file any document into the court to show that he paid Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and 3. The 16

PW.2 also deposed that there is no documentary proof to show that he is the car driver of plaintiff since 30 years and the payment of amount by the plaintiff to the defendants 2 and 3 was not endorsed on the backside of Ex.A1. He further admits that except his oral saying, there is no proof to the said payment.

The plaintiff is a businessman and doing real estate business since long time, then, what prevented the plaintiff to obtain any receipt or acknowledgement from the defendants 2 and 3 while paying the said amount as an abundant caution. Further, the defendants 2 And 3 are studying in Eluru Engineering College and they are residing at Eluru by the alleged date of payment as per the evidence of DW.3. Admittedly, they are the students and the plaintiff has to explain what is the necessity of such huge amount for the defendants 2 and 3 who are studying and they are students by that time. Further, the said payment was not endorsed on the backside of agreement of sale which is within the custody of the plaintiff. Further, the PW.1 did not choose to obtain any receipt or acknowledgement from the 1st defendant subsequent to the payment and he kept quiet without demanding the 1st defendant to issue any acknowledgement or receipt for the said payment until filing of this suit or issuing of notice by him under Ex.A4. So, with regard to payment of Rs.21,60,000/- there is no iota of evidence placed by the plaintiff. Admittedly, no prudent man that too a businessman, would give such a huge amount without any acknowledgement or receipt from the defendants 2 and 3 who are the students.

20. The another version of the plaintiff to support the 17 said payment is that, after receiving the said amount of

Rs.21,60,000/-, the defendants 2 and 3 handed over the original sale deed of 1st defendant to him, whereas, the 1st defendant’s contention is that, she gave her original title deed to the plaintiff at the time of Ex.A1 agreement for verification. If really, the original sale deed was given by the defendants 2 and 3 at the time of payment of Rs.21,60,000/- what prevented the plaintiff to endorse the said payment in original sale deed of 1st defendant instead of obtaining separate receipt or acknowledgement from the defendants 2 and 3. Further, how far the version of the plaintiff is believable that the defendants 2 and 3 who are studying are having custody of original sale deed of their mother.

Further, it is clear that the original sale deed i.e. Ex.A3 the 1st defendant purchased Ac.1.63 cents and on the same day of

Ex.A1, she sold Ac.0.92 cents to the plaintiff under Ex.B7 and obtained sale deed on the same day. The plaintiff paid the total and purchased Ac.0.92 cents and obtained the sale deed on the same day. As per the version of 1st defendant, she handed over the original sale deed i.e. Ex.A3 to the plaintiff at the time of

Ex.B7 for verification. The plaintiff contended that the handing over of original was not mentioned in Ex.B7. But without verification of title of 1st defendant, how far it is believable that the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration for Ac.0.92 cents and obtained registered sale deed from the 1st defendant on the same day under Ex.B7 and also entered into agreement under Ex.A1.

So, the version of plaintiff with regard to custody of original sale deed is not proved.

21.Coming to the evidence of DW.3, as per the version of plaintiff, he paid the amount to the defendants 2 and 3 in the presence of DW.3 who is no other than the senior paternal uncle of defendants 2 and 3. The DW.3 pleaded ignorance of the fact during his chief-examination as well as cross-examination and stated that he did not know whether the plaintiff paid

Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and 3 in his presence or not.

22.The another version of the plaintiff is that, the defendants did not choose to deny the alleged payment by way of reply notice though he mentioned the same in Ex.A4. A perusal of Ex.A4 clearly goes to show that the plaintiff issued the said notice on 5.9.2019 i.e. 3 days prior to filing of the suit and the said notice was returned and not served to the defendants 1 to 3 under Exs.A6 to A8. The Ex.A4 was not received by the defendants 1 to 3 and it was returned as they left the Veeravalli village and residing at Bangalore. Even as per the version of plaintiff, the 1st defendant is residing in Bangalore and the defendants 2 and 3 are residing in Eluru but he got issued notice to Veeravalli address and the said notice was not served on the defendants 1 to 3. In Ex.B1 also, it is mentioned that the 1st defendant is residing at present in Bangalore. So, the question of denial of payment of Rs.21,60,000/- which was mentioned in Ex.A4 by the defendants does not arise as the said notice was not received by them. The plaintiff elicited from the evidence of DW.1 that there is no denial in Ex.B4 with regard to payment of Rs.21,60,000/- but a perusal of Ex.B4 clearly goes to show that all the allegations in the reply notice are false. The 19 defendants denied all the allegations in the notice. Further, it is clear that the defendants issued Ex.B1 notice to the plaintiff after filing of the suit calling upon the plaintiff to come forward for registration. Subsequently, the plaintiff got issued reply under

Ex.B3 by which time the suit was pending and the defendants categorically denied the payment of Rs.21,60,000/- in their written statement. So, viewed from any angle it is clear that the plaintiff failed to establish the payment of Rs.21,60,000/- to the defendants 2 and 3.

23.Coming to the enforcement of agreement, as per the version of plaintiff, he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract within the stipulated time but the 1st defendant did not come forward. The defendants contended that since the plaintiff failed to pay the balance amount within 3 months, the agreement shall stands cancelled. But in the said agreement it is also clearly mentioned that the 1st defendant has to get the schedule property measured within 3 months and to obtain pattadar pass books and mutation proceedings and report her readiness and willingness to the plaintiff within the stipulated time. If the 1st defendant failed to comply the condition within 3 months, the term agreement is enforced within 3 months is not applicable. A plain reading of terms of agreement clearly shows that the 1st defendant has to get ready with her part of contract within 3 months and she has to apply for mutation and other revenue documents within 3 months. So, the initial burden lies on the 1st defendant to perform her part of contract before registration.

The DW.1 admits during her chief-examination that she is ready 20 with the said documents within 3 months and informed the same to the plaintiff. But coming to the cross-examination, she categorically admitted that as per Ex.A1, if the delay occurred on her part in obtaining the above documents for registration, the terms in the agreement shall not be applicable. She further admits that as per the terms of Ex.A1, she has to submit original documents and link documents to the plaintiff and in the meanwhile, she has to clear the tax arrears and to get entered the pattadar pass book and title deed much less before the date of registration. She further admits that she did not give notice to the plaintiff that she is ready and willing to perform her part of contract. She further admits that there is no documentary proof to show that she informed the plaintiff about her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract prior to issuing of notice by the plaintiff. She further admits that she did not give notice to the plaintiff stating that the agreement is barred by limitation and seized. So, from the admissions of DW.1 it is clear that she is not ready within the stipulated time to perform her part of agreement though the initial burden lies on her to perform the same. So, the question of cancellation of agreement does not arise even as per the terms of Ex.A1 and the agreement was not specifically cancelled.

24.Apart from that, the 1st defendant herself expressed her intention to proceed for registration in her pleadings as well as in her notice and reply notice. In Ex.B1, the 1st defendant categorically mentioned that she is ready to execute regular sale deed after receipt of balance of sale consideration from the 21 plaintiff within 15 days failing which the agreement will be treated as forfeited by which date, the suit was pending. She also expressed her readiness in her pleadings as well as in her evidence. The DW.1 categorically deposed during her cross- examination that she is ready to enforce Ex.A1 if the plaintiff paid the amount as per the agreement. The amount paid by the plaintiff as on the date of Ex.A1 is with her. Further she admits that the plaint schedule property is in her possession and enjoyment even today. So, from the admission of DW.1 the agreement is in force and she is ready to execute agreement when the plaintiff pays the balance of sale consideration. The plaintiff also expressed his readiness and willingness to obtain sale deed from the defendants after payment of balance sale consideration. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the 1st defendant failed to perform her part of contract and the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale against the 1st defendant as prayed for.

25.In absence of payment of proof of Rs.21,60,000/- by the plaintiff firm to the defendants 2 and 3, the plaintiff has to pay the balance amount of Rs.34,48,500/-. In view of admission of

DW.1, she is ready to execute the sale deed after receipt of balance sale consideration including Rs.21,60,000/-. Further, the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property since the date of agreement and the amount i.e.

Rs.46,45,500/- paid by the plaintiff as on the date of agreement is 22 still with the 1st defendant and in view of non-performance of her part of contract, the 1st defendant is not entitled for interest over the balance amount. There is no such term in Ex.A1 with regard to balance amount or with regard to the advance amount already paid by the plaintiff. There is no interest clause mentioned in

Ex.A1, in case the payment is delayed. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale from the 1st defendant after payment of balance amount of

Rs.34,48,500/-. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

ISSUE NO.4:-

26.In view of finding on the above issues, it is clear that the plaintiff is not entitled for refund of advance amount from the 1st defendant as prayed for.

ISSUE NO.5:-

27. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff’s firm and against the defendants as follows:-

i) The plaintiff is directed to deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs.34,48,500/- (Rupees thirty four lakhs, forty eight thousand and five hundred only) under Ex.A1 i.e., agreement of sale dated 21.9.2016 within one month from the date of this judgment into the court so as to enable the defendants to receive the same.

23 ii). The 1st defendant is directed to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property in pursuance of Ex.A1 i.e., agreement of sale

dated 21.9.2016 within two months from the date of decree and

judgment, at the expenses of the plaintiff; and iii). If the 1st defendant failed to execute the sale deed within the prescribed time, the plaintiff is entitled to get the document executed by following due procedure.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him and

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court, on this the 13th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-A. Naga

Sailaja,

XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA AT NUZVID.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:DEFENDANTS:

PW.1: T. Subbarao.DW.1: L. Hymavathi. PW.2: M. Sudhakara Rao.DW.2: G. Basavamma. DW.3: L.Suresh Babu.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF.

Ex.A1: Original Un-possessory Agreement of Sale

dated 21.9.2016 executed by the 1st defendant in favour

of plaintiff.

Ex.A2: Statement of account copy dt.31.8.2019 issued by HDFC Bank, Vijayawada.

Ex.A3: Registered sale deed dt.15.4.1996 executed by T.Kutumba Rao in favour of 1st defendant.

Ex.A4: Office copy of notice dt.5.9.2019 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants.

Ex.A5: Postal receipts dt.5.9.2019.

Ex.A6: Unserved notice of 1st defendant.

Ex.A7: Unserved notice of 2nd defendant.

Ex.A8: Unserved notice of 3rd defendant.

Ex.A9: Mee-seva copy of acknowledgement of registration of firms dt.25.9.2014.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1: Office copy of legal notice got issued by the defendants to the plaintiff with postal receipt dt.20.9.2019.

Ex.B2: Postal acknowledgement.

Ex.B3: Reply notice got issued by the plaintiff to defendants counsel dt.10.10.2019.

Ex.B4: Office copy of registered notice got issued by defendants to the plaintiff along with postal receipt dt.4.11.2019.

Ex.B5: Postal acknowledgement.

Ex.B6: Money order receipt No.009053728568578050 dt.4.11.2019.

Ex.B7: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing D.No.2755/2016 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff dt.21.9.2016.

Sd/-A. Naga

Sailaja,

XV ADJ, NZD.

MVOP/14/2022

Gaddam Papa vs Bomma Venkata Sai Kumar

01 Apr 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL -CUM- XV-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE :: KRISHNA

DISTRICT AT NUZVID.

Present: Smt.A. Naga Sailaja,

Chairman-cum-XV-Addl. District Judge, Nuzvid.

Wednesday, on this the 1 st day of April, 2026.

M.V.O.P.No.14/2022.

Between:

1).Gaddam Papa, W/o.late.Abbulu, 55 years, Housewife.

2).Gaddam Srinivasa Rao, S/o.late.Abbulu, 35 years, Private Employee.

3).Godi Manga Devi, W/o.Srinivas, D/o.late.Abbulu, 39 years, cultivation.

All are R/o.1-3/24-20/1, Arvind St., Mayuri Apts., Vidyadarapuram, Vijayawada-12.

...Petitioners.

AND 1).Bomma Venkata Sai Kumar, S/o.Vedaiah, Major, Driver of Car AP 39 GK 7809, Bapuji Colony, Sullurupet, Nellore Dist., AP- 524411.

2).Gonupaka Vajramma, D/o.Baskar, owner of Car AP 39 GK 7809, Doruvu Katta, Siddavaram P.O., Kota, Nellore Dist., AP.524411.

3).IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager-Legal, 40-153, Annapurna Buildings, M.G. Road, Near Benz Centre, Vijayawada-520 010. …Respondents.

This Petition came before me on 24.3.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Umamaheswara Rao, Advocate for Petitioners, and of Sri G. Neelambaram, Advocate for 2

Respondents 1 and 2, and of Sri V. Raja Kumar, Advocate for 3rd respondent, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as M.V. Act for brevity) read with Rule 455 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor

Vehicle Rules, 1989, claiming compensation amount of

Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) against the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization for causing death of Gaddam

Abbulu (hereinafter referred as the deceased) in a motor accident occurred on 4.3.2022 at about 5.30 a.m. near Sentiny Hospital,

Vijayawada, within the limits of Machavaram P.S. in

Cr.No.91/2022, due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing

No.AP 39 GK 7809 (hereinafter called as the offending vehicle) driven by its driver and for costs.

2. The averments of the petition in brief are as follows:

The deceased Gaddam Abbulu was working as

Sanitary Maistry in Municipal Corporation, and drawing monthly salary of Rs.80,000/- per month. On 4.3.2022 the deceased

Abbulu was going to duty on his Hero Honda Activa bearing

No.AP 39 CL 3324 to pursue his morning duty works and when he reached near Sentini Hospital, Vijayawada at about 5.30 a.m., one Maruti Ertiga car bearing No.AP 39 GK 7809 i.e. the offending vehicle driven by the 1st respondent came in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn or any sort of signal 3 dashed the deceased vehicle causing fatal injuries to the deceased. The witnesses and other staff, who are on duty shifted the injured to GGH, Vijayawada and while undergoing treatment he died on the same day at about 6.15 am. A case was registered on the information given by the daughter of the deceased in Cr.No.91/2022 under Sec.304-A of IPC of

Machavaram P.S. On the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners, who are wife, son and daughter of the deceased subjected to great loss which cannot be countenanced in terms of money.

The 1st respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. As such, all the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly, severally and vicariously liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Therefore filed this petition seeking compensation for Rs.50,00,000/- from the respondents, and for costs. Hence, the petition.

3.After receipt of notice, the 2nd respondent filed her written statement, which was adopted by the 1st respondent by filing a memo. The 2nd respondent submits that she is the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. car bearing No.AP 39 GK 7809 and the same was insured with the 3rd respondent and the said policy was in force as on the date of the accident. The 1st respondent is having valid and effective diving license to drive such vehicle and the 3rd respondent is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, prays to dismiss the petition against her.

4.The 3rd respondent filed their written statement and admits the accident and also admits the insurance of offending vehicle with them and admits that the insurance was in force by 4 the date of accident. They submit that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased as he drove his vehicle without helmet and violated Section 129 of M.V. Act.

The accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased.

The petitioners failed to implead the insured and insurer of the motorcycle of the deceased bearing No.AP 39 CL 3325. There is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the compensation sought by the petitioners is highly excessive. The petitioners are not entitled to claim interest on pecuniary damages. The petitioners have to prove the age and income of the deceased. The 1st respondent has no valid and effective driving license and the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as the claim is barred by limitation. The petitioners did not comply the mandatory provisions of the Act and the petition is devoid of merits. Therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, this tribunal framed the following issues for trial.

1) Whether the deceased/Gaddam Abbulu, S/o.Thathaiah, was met with an accident on 4.3.2022 at 3.30 a.m. at Ramavarappadu and died on 4.3.2022 while undergoing treatment due to hit by Maruthi Ertiga Car bearing No.AP 39 GK 7809 driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner or not?

2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

6.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the

Petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and got marked Exs.P1 to

P6 and Exs.X1 and X2.

7.Per contra, on behalf of respondents, the respondents 1 and 2 reported no evidence. On behalf of 3rd respondent, RW.1 is examined and got marked Ex.R1.

8.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record.

9.The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are the wife and children of the deceased and they suffered mentally due to the untimely death of the deceased.

The deceased was working in Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada as Sanitary Maistry and drawing monthly salary of Rs.80,000/-.

The accident was happened on the negligent driving of 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle which was insured with the 3rd respondent are liable to pay the compensation. The documents marked by the petitioners i.e. FIR, inquest report and postmortem report show that the deceased died due to accident and the registration of crime against the 1st respondent as well as MVI Report as well as the evidence of eye witness i.e. PW.3, it is clear that the accident occurred in view of rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent.

From Ex.X2, it is clear that the deceased was working as Sanitary

Maistry in Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada by the date of accident and his pay slip i.e. Ex.X2, it is clear that the deceased was drawing Rs.82,119/- of gross salary and net salary of

Rs.76,321/- per month. The respondents did not choose to deny the employment as well as the age of the deceased and it is established that the accident occurred in view of negligent driving of 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

6 10.Per contra, the respondents 1 and 2 did not submit arguments. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent argued that the petitioners have to establish the age and employment of the deceased. Further, it is clear from Ex.P1 that the accident occurred in view of contributory negligence of the deceased and the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of the accident.

In view of violations though the insurance is in force, they are not liable to pay the compensation and the compensation claimed is highly excessive and the petitioners are not entitled for interest as prayed for. Therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

ISSUE NO.1:- 11.It is the case of the petitioners, that the deceased used to work in Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada as Sanitary

Maistry and by the date of accident he used to draw Rs.80,000/- salary per month and he met with an accident on 4.3.2022 at 5.30 a.m. while pursuing his duty near Sentini Hospital, Vijayawada and he received fatal injuries and admitted in GGH, Vijayawada and died on the same day at 6.15 a.m. while undergoing treatment. The said accident was occurred in view of rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent who drove the offending vehicle without blowing horn and at a high speed hits the vehicle of the deceased, resulting the death of the deceased. The case was registered on the complaint given by the daughter of the deceased against the 1strespondent on 4.3.2022 as

Cr.No.91/2002 under Sec.304-A of IPC of Machavaram P.S. The 1st respondent is the driver and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the said offending vehicle which was insured with the 3rd respondent and the insurance was in force. Therefore, the 7 petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled for compensation from the respondents.

12.Per contra, the respondents 1 and 2 admit the accident and contended that the said accident did not occur in view of rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent and the 1st respondent is having valid driving license and having experience in driving. Since the offence vehicle is insured with the 3rd respondent and the said insurance was in force at the time of the accident, the 3rd respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The 3rd respondent admits the accident but took the plea of contributory negligence and denied the employment as well as salary particulars of the deceased and also contended that the 1st respondent has no valid driving license and the accident occurred in view of contributory negligence of the deceased. No notice of the accident from the concerned police station under Section 158(6) of M.V. Act to them within 30 days from the date of registration of FIR. There is no liability against them and the compensation as well as interest claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and the petitioners are not entitled to claim interest as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court.

13.To substantiate their contention, the 1st petitioner herself is examined as PW.1 and reiterated the contents of the petition in lieu of her examination in chief and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. Ex.P1 is the attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.91/2022 of

Machavaram P.S. Ex.P2 is the attested copy of inquest report dt.4.3.2022. Ex.P3 is the attested copy of postmortem report dt.4.3.2022. Ex.P4 is the attested copy of MVI Report dt.10.3.2022. Ex.P5 is the attested copy of charge sheet in

C.C.No.4399/2022 relating to Cr.No.91/2022. Ex.P6 is the 8 original death certificate dt.17.3.2022.

14.In support of their contention, the petitioners also got examined one Devarakonda Raja Sekhar, who is working as

Junior Assistant in Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, who was summoned by the petitioners and gave evidence as PW.2. The authorization given to him to give evidence is marked through him as Ex.X1. The salary slip of the deceased for the month of

February, 2022 is marked through him as Ex.X2. During cross- examination of the PW.2, it is elicited that the deceased is having

Service Register and except the pay slip of the deceased for the month of February, 2022, they did not produce the other record.

15.Thota Nancharaiah, who is third party to the petition is examined as PW.3. He deposed during his chief- examination that the deceased was working as Sanitary Maistry at the time of the accident and on 4.3.2022 as usual the deceased was coming on his scooty to attend the duty and when he reached near Sentini Hospital, Vijayawada at about 5.30 a.m.

high way, towards Ramavarappadu Ring, the crime vehicle i.e.

Car bearing No.AP 39 GK 7809 came in a rash and negligent manner and hits the scooty of the deceased and the deceased fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his body particularly on head, then himself along with other workers shifted the injured to GGH, Vijayawada and he died while undergoing treatment in view of the injuries received in the accident.

16.Per contra, no evidence is adduced by the respondents 1 and 2. On behalf of 3rd respondent, G. Chandra

Sekhar, who is the Senior Manager of 3rd respondent company is examined as RW.1 and the copy of insurance policy is marked through him as Ex.R1.

9 17.On careful scrutiny of the above oral and documentary evidence on record, it is clear that on 4.3.2022, the deceased while going to his work and when he reached near the

Sentini Hospital, Vijayawada at 5.30 a.m., the 1st respondent who is the driver of the offending vehicle came besides him without blowing horn in a high speed and hits the scooty, resulting the accident and the deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries including head injury and he was shifted to GGH,

Vijayawada by the workers and he died at 6.15 a.m. while undergoing treatment from the injuries received in the said accident. So, there is no dispute with regard to the place of accident and the death of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased died due to injuries received in the said accident.

18.From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, it is clear that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of 1st respondent and the same was not rebutted by the respondents. Though the 3rd respondent contended that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence and the deceased was not wearing helmet by the time of the accident, but did not elicit anything from out of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 which is useful for their contention. Further, it is elicited from the evidence of PW.3 that he has seen the 1st respondent at the time of accident. It is also clear from Exs.P1 and P5 that a case was registered against the 1st respondent and charge sheet was also filed against him in the court under Section 304-A of IPC. The number of the offending vehicle is mentioned in Ex.P1. So, it is clear that the 1st respondent was driving the said vehicle by the time of the accident. The respondents 1 and 2 also did not choose to deny that the 1st respondent is not driver of the offending vehicle at the 10 time of the accident and the 2nd respondent is not the owner of the said vehicle. The respondents 1 and 2 did not choose to deny the accident and did not choose to adduce evidence and even did not choose to cross-examine the P.Ws.1 to 3. It is an admitted fact that the 1st respondent is the rider of the offending vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The police filed charge sheet against the 1st respondent under Ex.P5 and the vehicle involved in the said accident is the offending vehicle.

19.In a decision “Kaushmumma Begum and others

Vs. New Indian Assurance Company Limited” reported in 2001

ACJ 421 (SC) it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the issue of wrong act or omission on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to the property would made the petition maintainable under Sections 166 and 140 of the Act.

20.Further, no strict proof of accident is required and the production of charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence to prove the negligence for the purpose of claim under Section 166 of M.V. act as held in “New India Assurance Company Limited

Vs. Pazhamiammal and others” as reported in 2012 ALT 137.

21.From the contents of Exs.P1 and P5, it is clear that a case was registered against the 1st respondent under Section 304-A of IPC. From Exs.P2 and P3, it is clear that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the road accident. Therefore, it is clear that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent. Further, from the evidence of PW.3, he has seen the 1st respondent at the accident spot and the accident 11 occurred due to negligent driving of the 1st respondent. The said fact was not denied by the 1st respondent and he did not choose to enter into the witness box and he even did not choose to cross- examine the PW.3. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident and the accident occurred in view of rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

ISSUE NO.2:- 22.Admittedly, the 1st petitioner is the wife and the petitioners 2 and 3 are children of the deceased. According to the petitioners, the deceased was working as Sanitary Maistry in

Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada and used to get salary of

Rs.80,000/- per month. In view of the death of the deceased, who is the sole earning member, the 1st petitioner being the wife, 2nd petitioner being son, who is unemployee, though the 3rd petitioner is married, they are all dependents and unable to maintain themselves and they are entitled for compensation from the respondents.

23.It is known principle that the object of compensation is to place the claimants or legal heirs of the deceased in the motor accident to the extent possible in the same original position. The loss of limb or life can hardly be weighed in golden scales. Bodily injury may lead to loss of earning capacity, depriving mental pleasure, causing physical hardship, diminishing marriage prospects, curtailing social movements, reducing recognition and impairing of normal expectation of life.

Compensation in terms of money can never place the victim to 12 the pre-accident position and status. Compensation should be reasonable, fair and practical. But it should not be a windfall or bonanza nor a source of profit. There cannot be a straight jacket formula or mathematical equation, it should be assessed by rational approach, and not be an outcome of whims and wild guesses as reported in “Kerala Transport Corporation Vs.

Susma Thomas” in 1994 (2) SCC 176.

24.Even as per Section 166(1)(c ) of M.V. Act, in case of death all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased become entitled to compensation and any such legal representative can file a claim petition. The relationship of the petitioners with the deceased is not disputed by the respondents.

Admittedly, the 1st petitioner is the wife and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. In the case of death of a person in a motor vehicle accident, compensation can be claimed only by the legal representatives/ dependants. So, it is held that the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled to claim compensation being the legal representatives of the deceased. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioners.

ISSUE No.3:-

QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:- 25.Since the Act is a beneficial legislation, the tribunal should adopt a pragmatic approach. The Tribunals are expected to award just compensation as held by Their Lordships in “K. Raghu Babu Vs. C.Veera Sekhar” reported in 2011(2)

ALD 763.

13 26.Coming to the compensation, by virtue of the judgment of Apex Court in “Smt.Sarala Varma and others Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation and another” reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104, basically three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death.

1).Age of the deceased.

2).Income of the deceased.

3).Number of dependants.

27.The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are – 1).Additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; 2).the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; 3).The multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.

AGE OF THE DECEASED:- 28.Coming to the age of the deceased, the petitioners are contending that the deceased is aged about 60 years at the time of accident. The 3rd respondent contended that no age proof is placed before the Tribunal by the petitioners to show the age of the deceased. It is also elicited from PW.2 that the

Service Register of the deceased was not produced before the court to ascertain the age of the deceased. But in the absence of proof of age of the deceased, the age mentioned in the postmortem report i.e. Ex.P3 is to be considered. It is clear from Exs.P2 and P3 i.e. the inquest report and postmortem report, the age of the deceased is 59. So, the age of the 14 deceased is considered as 59.

INCOME OF THE DECEASED:- 29. As per the version of the petitioners, the deceased was working as Sanitary Maistry in Municipal Corporation,

Vijayawada and earning Rs.80,000/- per month. To prove the same, the petitioners got summoned and examined the PW.2 and got marked Ex.X2, which is the pay slip of the deceased for the month of February, 2022. There is no dispute with regard to the employment of the deceased and from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as well as from Ex.X2, it is clear that the deceased was working as Sanitary Maistry in Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada and he had drawn an amount of Rs.82,119/- per month towards his salary for the month of February, 2022. The respondents 1 and 2 did not choose to deny the employment as well as salary of the deceased and also did not choose to cross-examine the

PW.2. The 3rd respondent cross-examined the PW.2, it is elicited that the deductions in the salary varies from month to month and the deductions to be excluded. But as per the gist laid down in

Yesudas and others Vs. G.Krishna Murthy, reported in 2014

LS (DB) Karnataka, gross salary to be considered but not the net amount and the income means including perks.

30.Based on the established principles and recent

Supreme Court Judgments, the EPF and ESI should be included while determining the salary for fixing compensation in motor vehicle offence cases. The income considered for calculating the compensation should be the gross salary but not the net salary. So, it is clear that the Gross salary of the deceased is

Rs.82,119/- per month and the same can be considered. So, 15 this court deems it just and necessary to fix the income of the deceased is Rs.82,119/- per month as reasonable.

NUMBER OF DEPENDANTS:

31.In the case of Pranay Sethi, it is categorically held that when the dependants are 2 to 3, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The dependants are 4 to 6, 1/4 th is to be deducted and 1/5th where the dependants exceeds 6. Admittedly, the petitioners 1 to 3 are the wife and parents of the deceased. So, it is held that the petitioners 1 to 3 are the dependants and the number of dependants are 3. Therefore, the personal expenses of the deceased to be deducted from out of the income of the deceased is 1/3 rd.

MULTIPLIER:

32.Coming to the multiplier, as per the Sarala Varma’s case, the multiplier applies for the age group between 56 to 60 is ‘9’. Admittedly, the age of the deceased is 59. So, the multiplier applies is ‘9’.

FUTURE PROSPECTS:- 33.It is held in “National Insurance Company Limited

Vs. Pranay Sethi and others” reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680, while determining the income, an addition of 50% of annual salary to the income of the deceased, towards future prospects, where the deceased had permanent job and was below the age of 40.

The addition should be 30% if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between 50 – 60, the addition should be 15%.

In the above citation, it was also held further that, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warranted where the deceased was below the age of 40 years, an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation.

34.In the present case, the deceased is a permanent employee and aged between 56 to 60, so, an addition of 15% is to be added out of the established income. So, the petitioners are entitled for future prospects at the rate of 15% established income as the deceased is 59 years.

35.It was also held in the said citation that the reasonable figures of conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses should be Rs.15,000/-,

Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively and the said amounts should enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

36.In the present case, the income of the deceased was fixed for Rs.82,119/- per month. The deceased is aged 59 years, an addition of 15% is to be added i.e. Rs.82,119/- +

Rs.12,318/- = Rs.94,437/- per month. So, the annual income comes to Rs.94,437/- X 12 = Rs.11,33,244/-.

Since the dependants are three in number, an amount of 1/3rd is to be deducted from out of the annual income i.e. Rs.11,33,244/-. So, it comes to Rs.3,77,748/-. Then, the net income remains Rs.7,55,496/- per annum after deducting the 17 personal expenditure of the deceased. The annual income of the deceased after deducting the personal expenses comes to

Rs.7,55,496/-. Coming to the multiplier, as per the decision of

Sarala Varma’s case, the multiplier applies for the age group of 56 to 60 years is 9. So, it comes to Rs.7,55,496/- x 9 =

Rs.67,99,464.00.

So, as per the gist laid down in Pranay Sethi and others a reasonable figures on conventional heads namely loss of earnings, loss of consortium, and future expenses should be

Rs.15,000/- + Rs.40,000/- + Rs.15,000/- = Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement for every 3 years. As per the case law in Shri

Ram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bhagat Singh

Rawat and others, the petitioners are entitled for convention heads only Rs.70,000/- for all and not for each. So, as per the gist, the conventional heads Rs.70,000/- is to be enhanced for every three years, but not Rs.70,000/- each. So, the future prospects entitled by the claimants would be Rs.18,000/- +

Rs.48,000/- + Rs.18,000/- = Rs.84,000/-. So, it comes to

Rs.84,000/- for 6 years. Thus, the total income comes to

Rs.67,99,464/- + Rs.84,000/- = Rs.68,83,464/-.

37.From the above, it is clear that the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the following heads:

Payment towards Loss of earnings, future earnings, loss of dependency, love and affection and mental agony is -

Rs.67,99,464.00

Loss of conventional heads- Rs. 84,000.00 ----------------------- Total:Rs.68,83,464.00 -----------------------

So, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of 18

Rs.68,83,464/- (Rupees sixty eight lakhs, eighty three thousand, four hundred and sixty four only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. which is more than their claim.

38.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and others, it is held that in the matter of compensation the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded, despite the claimant having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. In New India Assurance Company Limited, Hyderabad

Vs. Surya Pratap Singh and others, reported in 2010 (6) ALD 586 and in Ibrahim Vs. Raju and others reported in 2011 ACJ 2845 (DB), wherein it was held that the tribunal can grant compensation and more claim can be awarded that actually sought. Therefore, though the claimants sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at lesser value of

Rs.50,00,000/-, the actual amount due and payable to be awarded is Rs.68,83,464/-. In view of the above judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court, this Tribunal can award just compensation

even if it is exceeds the amount claimed by the claimants, subject to payment of court fee.

39.The 1st respondent being the driver and the 2nd respondent being owner of the offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent being insurer of the offending vehicle are having joint and several liability to pay the compensation awarded to the petitioners. As per the discussion in Issue No.1, the accident was occurred in view of the negligent driving of the 1st respondent. From Ex.R1, it is clear that the offending vehicle is insured with the 3rd respondent and the insurance is in force by the date of accident. So, the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

40. In the result, the petition is allowed in favour of the petitioners 1 to 3 and against the respondents 1 to 3 with proportionate costs by awarding compensation amount of

Rs.68,83,464/- (Rupees sixty eight lakhs, eighty three thousand, four hundred and sixty four only) to the petitioners with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit.

(a) The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.68,83,464/- (Rupees sixty eight lakhs, eighty three thousand, four hundred and sixty four only) along with interest to the petitioners.

(b) The 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the same within two months from the date of this order.

(c ) Out of the compensation amount granted, the 1st petitioner being the wife of the deceased is entitled to compensation amount of Rs.38,83,464/- (Rupees thirty eight lakhs, eighty three thousand, four hundred and sixty four only) and the 1st petitioner entitled to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount and the remaining 50% shall be deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of 2 years, after depositing the amount by the 3rd respondent.

(d) The petitioners 2 and 3, who are the children of the deceased, are entitled to compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) each and the petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to withdraw 50% each of the deposited amount and the remaining 50% each shall be deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of 2 years, after depositing the amount by the 3rd 20 respondent.

(e) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.15,000/-.

(f) The compensation granted by the tribunal is more than the compensation claimed by the petitioners, hence, the petitioners are directed to pay court fee on the excess amount of

Rs.18,83,464/- within ten days from the date of this order.

(g) The office is directed to draft the decree, after paying the court fee by the petitioners on excess granted amount of

Rs.18,83,464/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 1st day of April, 2026.

Sd/-A. Naga Sailaja,

Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal- cum-XV Addl. District Judge, Krishna at Nuzvid.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONERS:

PW.1: G. Papa. PW.2: D.Raja Sekhar. PW.3: T.Nancharaiah.

RESPONDENTS:

RW.1: G. Chandra Sekhar.

:DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:

Ex.P1: Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.91/2022 of Machavaram P.S., dt.4.3.2022.

Ex.P2: Attested copy of inquest report dt.4.3.2022.

Ex.P3: Attested copy of postmortem report dt.4.3.2022.

Ex.P4: Attested copy of MVI Report dt.10.3.2022.

Ex.P5: Attested copy charge sheet in C.C.No.4399/2022 relating to Cr.No.91/2022 of Machavaram PS.

Ex.P6: Original death certificate.

:DOCUMENTS MARKED THROUGH WITNESSES:

Ex.X1: Authorization of PW.2.

Ex.X2: Pay slip for the month of February, 2022.

RESPONDENTS:-

Ex.R1: Attested copy of insurance policy of offending vehicle.

Sd/-A. Naga Sailaja,

Chairman,

MACT-cum-XV ADJ.

SC/109/2019 Acquitted

The State Sub Inspector of Police, Agiripalli P.S vs Patan Saleem Basha

21 Apr 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE :: KRISHNA DISTRICT AT NUZVID.

PRESENT:- SMT.A.NAGA SAILAJA,

XV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NUZVID.

Tuesday, on this the 21 st day of April, 2026.

SESSIONS CASE NO.109/2019 .

(This case was split up from S.C.No.148/2012)

(PRC.NO.19/2019 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.JMFC, NUZVID)

Committed by:ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, NUZVID.

Name and Description of theAlavala Babji @ Babi, s/o.Narasimhamurthy, Accused aged 30 years, R/o.Guntur.

Prosecution conducted bySri V. Raja Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySarvasri B. Srinivasa Rao & D. Suresh, Advocates for Accused No.3.

Offence charged byU/s.302 & 120-B r/w.34 of IPC.

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence of order In the result, the Accused No.3 is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/s.302 and 120-B r/w.34 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The MO.1/Telephone Index Book, MO.2/Iron Knife, 2 and MO.3/Two Karrala Sanchulu, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Nuzvid is hereby directed to release the A3 if he is not required in any other case.

This case is coming up before me on 17.4.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Raja Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Complainant, and of Sarvasri B. Srinivasa Rao & D. Suresh, Advocates for Accused No.3, and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration, and upon perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction Circle has filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 to 5 in

Cr.No.20/2009 of Agiripalli P.S. for the offences U/s.302 and 120-

B r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as ‘IPC’ for brevity). Subsequently, the present S.C.No.109/2019 was split up from S.C.No.148/2012 due to pendency of N.B.W. against the Accused No.3.

3 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows:-

Naraharasetty Satyanarayana, S/o.Nageswara

Rao, Native of Kankipadu village, residing at Kukatpalli,

Hyderabad is the deceased in this case.

A1 and A4 are residents of Singarayakonda of

Prakasam District. A2, A3 and A5 are residents of Guntur

District. A1 to A4 are close associates of A5 and they are doing different coolie works and they are in the habit of playing skill games like ring games, gundata, three cards show in Tirunallu and Festivals to earn money from the public.

In Thotapalli village there is a famous temple of

Goddess ‘Duggirala Balaravamma’ and every year Tirunallu was organized for 3 days. Likewise, in the year 2009, the said

Tirunallu is scheduled from 7.2.2009 to 9.2.2009. In the said 3 days, heavy crowd is gathered to pay their vows to goddess, in that occasion temporary shopping malls, cultural programs were organized in the premises of Temple.

The deceased and accused who are in the habit of organizing skill games i.e. ring games, throw balls and other games used to visit the places where heavy crowd is gathered to earn money. Similarly, on 31.12.2008, A1 to A5 organizing skill games and lottery games at Marripalem village of Chattisgarph with the partnership of the deceased, LW.10 and others. But the 4 deceased cheated the accused without showing the account properly, caused loss of about Rs.4 lakhs to the accused. Then, there is an altercation took place in between them. The deceased threatened that he will lodge a case against them to the police. Then, all the accused grew wild upon the deceased and decided to eliminate the deceased and waiting for an opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. A5 threatened the deceased and LW.10 over phone twice and thrice that they will see their end.

On 5.2.2009, the deceased usually came from

Hyderabad and decided to organize the lottery games and skill games at Thotapalli Tirunallu of Agiripalli Mandal with L.Ws.8, 9 and 11 from 7.2.2009 to 9.2.2009. The accused also came to the Tirunallu and noticed the deceased at Tirunallu and informed the same to the A5. Then, A5 hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased and arranged some amount to A1 to A4 to purchase a sharp knife to kill the deceased. A3 purchased a sharp knife in

Guntur and A1 to A4 came to Thotapalli village on 9.2.2009 by kept the said knife in a “Karrala Sanchi” and scuffled with the deceased in the mango garden according to their plan. A1 meet the deceased at 9.00 p.m. in Thotapalli village and while chit- chatting, A1 insisted the deceased to consume alcohol in the house premises of LW.3. There A1 and the deceased consumed alcohol. Later, A1 scuffled with the deceased intentionally in execution of their plan that the deceased cheated in Chattisgarh to a tune of Rs.4 lakhs. Wordy duel is gone into rampage. A1 called A2 to A4, they came and saw the altercation between 5 them. Initially, A4 beat the deceased with hands. Then A2 picked up sharp knife from the bag and thrown it to A1, then A1 hacked the deceased with the said knife, then the deceased tried to stop and rescued himself by raising his hand, resulting the right hand was cut. Later A3 collected the said knife from A1 and hacked the neck of deceased while A1, A2 and A4 caught hold the hands and legs of the deceased. A1 sat on the chest of deceased. A2 and A4 caught hold the hands and legs, then A3 hacked the neck of the deceased and the deceased died on the spot. Later, A1 to A4 informed the death intimation to A5 over phone. A5 feels very happy and instructed A1 to A4 to escape from the spot. Then A1 to A4 are escaped from the scene of offence and A3 throw away the knife with bag in the nearby ground nut fields.

On 10.2.2009 on came to know the occurrence, the

LW.1 lodged a written complaint before LW.19/HC-345 of

Agiripalli P.S., who inturn registered a case in Cr.No.20/2009 under Section 302 of IPC of Agiripalli P.S. and submitted express

FIR to all concerned.

LW.20/the Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction circle took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the LW.20 examined L.Ws.1 to 11 and recorded their statements, prepared rough sketch, got drafted scene observation report through mediators/L.Ws.12 and 13, got photographed the scene and seized blood stained earth and controlled earth and a pocket from the scene of offence under the cover of observation report 6 and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased

before the inquest panchayatdars and later, sent the body for

postmortem examination. On 10.3.2009, the LW.20 arrested the A5 before the mediators/L.Ws.14 and 15 and remanded to judicial custody. On 12.3.2009, the LW.20 arrested A1 and A2 and recovered the crime weapon and bags from the nearby fields under the cover of mediators report. Meanwhile, A3 and A4 surrendered before the Court. Later, the LW.20 sent control earth, blood stained earth, crime weapon and Karrala Sanchi to

RFSL, Vijayawada through SDPO, Nuzvid.

The LW.17/the Medical Officer conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem report.

The LW.18/JFCM, Tiruvuru conducted Test

Identification of accused and issued proceedings and recording of

Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statements of L.Ws.8 to 11.

After receipt of RFSL Report, postmortem certificate and after completion of investigation, the LW.20 filed charge sheet against the A1 to A5 under Sections 302 and 120-B r/w.34 of IPC.

3. Basing on the charge sheet, the Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid taken up the case on file against

the Accused U/s.302 and 120-B r/w.34 of IPC vide PRC

No.19/2019. Copies of documents were furnished to them

U/s.207 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, 7

Krishna Division at Machilipatnam U/s.209 Cr.P.C, as the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of 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 the learned counsel for the Accused, the Accused was examined U/s.228 (2) Cr.P.C. and charges U/s.302 and 120-B r/w.34 of IPC were framed against the Accused Nos.1 to 5 and its contents were read-over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.Later, due to pendency of NBW against the A3, this case was split up from S.C.No.148/2012 and numbered as

S.C.No.109/2019 as per the order dt.22.7.2019 of the Prl. District

Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam and made over to this court for disposal according to law.

6.During pendency of NBW against the A3, this court started enquiry under Section 299 Cr.P.C. and later, on 23.2.2026, the police executed the warrant and arrested and produced A3 before this court and A3 was remanded to judicial custody.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 8 out of 20 listed witnesses and got marked

Exs.P1 to P19 besides M.Os.1 to 3.

8 8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused

No.3 was examined U/s.313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him, for which, he pleaded not guilty and reported no evidence on his behalf.

9. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record.

10.The learned Addl.PP argued that the dead body of the deceased was identified by the P.Ws.1 and 2. From the evidence of PW.8 the case is made out against the A3 and though none of the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution, from the sole evidence of CI of Police, the A3 can be convicted. The prosecution proved its case against A3.

Therefore, the A3 is liable for punishment for the charged offences.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the A3 argued that there is no evidence on record to show that the A3 committed the alleged offences. Though the prosecution got examined

P.Ws.1 to 8 witnesses out of 20 listed witnesses, none of the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. Further, the eye witnesses cited in the charge sheet i.e. L.Ws.8 and 9 are not examined by the prosecution. The complainant is not examined by the prosecution by stating that his whereabouts not known. There is no material on record to convict the A3 for the alleged offence. Therefore, prays to acquit the A3.

12.Now the points for determination are:

i).Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of A3 for the alleged offences U/s.302 and 120-B r/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

ii).To what relief?

POINT NOs.1 & 2:- 13. It is the case of prosecution that there are previous disputes between the deceased and the accused when they organized skill games and lottery games at Marripalem village of

Chattisgarph on 31.12.2008. The deceased cheated the accused without showing the accounts properly and caused loss of about Rs.4 lakhs. Since then, the accused are waiting for an opportunity to take revenge against the deceased and both the groups attented the Thotapalli Tirunallu to organize the lottery games and skill games and the accused conspired together and hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased, as such on 9.2.2009 all the accused attacked the deceased with a knife and killed him.

Thereby, the A3 is liable for punishment.

14.Per contra, the case of the A3 is of total denial. He denied the commission of alleged offence along with other accused.

10 15.It is the cardinal principal of Criminal Law, that the prosecution must prove the case against the accused i.e. A3 beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent and trustworthy evidence. The burden always rests on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

16.In order to prove the offence by the A3, the prosecution relied on the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19 besides M.Os.1 to 3. Though the prosecution cited 20 witnesses, they examined 8 out of the said listed witnesses. The LW.5 is examined as PW.1. The LW.4 is examined as PW.2. The L.Ws.12 and 13 are examined as

P.Ws.3 and 4 respectively. The LW.16 is examined as PW.5.

The L.Ws.14 and 15 are examined as P.Ws.6 and 7 respectively.

The LW.20 is examined as PW.8. The evidence of L.Ws.7 to 11, 18 and 19 is given up by the prosecution and the evidence of

L.Ws.2 and 3 is closed in view of their death and the evidence of

L.Ws.1, 6 and 17 is closed as their whereabouts are not known.

17.The prosecution got marked Exs.P1 to P19 besides

M.Os.1 to 3. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.3 on inquest report dt.10.2.2009. Ex.P2 is the signature of PW.4 on inquest report dt.10.2.2009. Ex.P3 is the signature of PW.4 on scene observation report dt.10.2.2009. Ex.P4 is the mediators report dt.10.3.2009. Ex.P5 is the mediators report dt.12.3.2009.

Ex.P6 is the true copy of LW.1 dt.10.2.2009. Ex.P7 is the attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.20/2009 of Agiripalli P.S.

dt.10.2.2009. Ex.P8 is the attested copy of Rough Sketch dt.10.2.2009. Ex.P9 is the attested copy of scene observation 11 report dt.10.2.2009. Ex.P10 is the attested copy of inquest report dt.10.2.2009. Ex.P11 is the attested copy of mediators report dt.12.3.2009 at 5.30 a.m. Ex.P12 is the attested copy of mediators report dt.12.3.2009 at 8.00 a.m. Ex.P13 is the attested copy of postmortem report dt.11.2.2009. Ex.P14 is the attested copy of letter of advice dt.6.4.2009. Ex.P15 is the attested copy of RFSL report dt.29.5.2009. Ex.P16 is the attested copy of Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement of LW.8. Ex.P17 is the attested copy of Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement of LW.9.

Ex.P18 is the attested copy of Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement of

LW.10. Ex.P19 is the attested copy of Sec.164 Cr.P.C.

statement of LW.11. MO.1 is Telephone Index Book, MO.2 is

Iron Knife and MO.3 is Two Karrala Sanchulu.

18.Nukala Krishna Balaji,who is resident of

Bapulapadu is examined as PW.1. He deposed that he is doing lorry business. The deceased Naraharasetti Satyanarayana is his distant relative. In the year 2009, the LW.7/N.Venkateswara

Rao telephoned him and informed that his relative N.

Satyanarayana died at Thotapalli and asked him to visit

Thotapalli. Immediately, he went to Thotapalli and saw the dead body but he cannot identify whether the said dead body belongs to N.Satyanarayana or not. The LW.7 informed the death of

Satyanarayana to his wife. The police examined him.

19.S. Lakshmana Rao, who is resident of Kankipadu is examined as PW.2. He deposed that he is working as agent in finance company. He knows the deceased N.Satyanarayana.

One Gangadhara Rao, who is the brother of the deceased 12 telephoned him and requested him to see the dead body at

Thotapalli village. Immediately, he went to Thotapalli and identified the dead body as N.Satyanarayana and informed the same to his brother. He also informed to police that the dead body belongs to N.Satyanarayana. The police examined him.

20. Mandava Surendra Kumar, who is resident of

Thotapalli village is examined as PW.3. He deposed that he did not act as mediator and the police obtained his signature and the signature of his brother i.e. LW.13 on the inquest report and scene observation report at the police station. His signature on inquest report dt.10.2.2009 is marked as Ex.P1.

21. Mandava Rama Krishna, who is resident of

Thotapalli village is examined as PW.4. He deposed that PW.3 is his brother. He deposed that he did not act as mediator and the police obtained his signature and the signature of his brother i.e. PW.3 on the inquest report and scene observation report at the police station. His signatures on inquest report dt.10.2.2009 and scene observation report dt.10.2.2009 are marked as Exs.P2 and P3 respectively.

22.Dulla Srinivasa Rao, who is photographer at

Agiripalli is examined as PW.5. He deposed that he is running a photo studio under the name and style of ‘Bharath Studio’ at

Agiripalli. He further deposed that in the year 2009 at the request of police, he visited the scene of offence and took the photographs and handed over the said photos to the police.

23.Padamata Srinivasa Rao, who is the then VRO of

Agiripalli village and incharge of Thotapalli village is examined as 13

PW.6. He deposed that on 10.3.2009 at 11.00 a.m. he along with CI of Agiripalli went to the house of A5 and the police arrested him in his presence and in the presence of

LW.15/Sk.Syed Baji. The police seized phone book, knife and two big shoppers from the custody of A5 under the cover of mediators report. The police drafted mediators report at the scene of offence and himself and LW.15 singed on it. The mediators report dt.10.3.2009 is marked through him as Ex.P4.

He further deposed that on 12.3.2009 at 11.00 a.m. he along with

CI of Agiripalli and LW.15 went to Gudivada Railway Station and the police arrested one person in their presence under the cover of mediators report and himself and LW.15 signed on it. The mediators report dt.12.3.2009 is marked through him as Ex.P5.

24.Shaik Syed Baji, who is the then VRA of Agiripalli is examined as PW.7. He deposed that in the year 2009 he along with PW.6 went to Agiripalli police station and the police had shown one knife and two big shoppers to them. The PW.6 drafted report at the police station and he along with PW.6 signed on the said report.

25.K. Bala Raju, who is the then CI of Police, Hanuman

Junction Circle is examined as PW.8. He deposed that on 10.2.2009, the LW.19/SHO, Agiripalli PS registered a case in

Cr.No.20/2009 under Sec.302 of IPC basing on the report of

LW.1. He took up investigation, examined L.Ws.1 to 3, 6 to 11 and P.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, got drafted the observation report through mediators P.Ws.3 an 4 and seized 14 blood stained earth, controlled earth and packet from the scene of offence under the cover of observation report. He conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of blood relatives and panchayatdars and sent the body for postmortem examination. On 10.3.2009, he arrested the A5 in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 7 and sent him for remand. On 12.3.2009, he arrested A1 and A2 in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 7 and recovered crime weapon and bags from nearby fields under the cover of mediators report and sent the material objects to RFSL,

Vijayawada through SDPO, Nuzvid. He got photographed the scene observation report through a private photographer. The

LW.18 conducted Test Identification Parade and recorded

Sec.164 Cr.P.C. statements of L.Ws.8 to 11. Meanwhile A3 and

A4 surrender before the trial court. After receipt of RFSL

Report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet into the court. He got marked the true copy of report given by

LW.1, dt.10.2.2009 as Ex.P6, attested copy of FIR in

Cr.No.20/2009 dt.10.2.2009 of Agiripalli P.S. as Ex.P7, attested copy of rough sketch dt.10.2.2009 as Ex.P8, attested copy of scene observation report dt.10.2.2009 as Ex.P9, attested copy of inquest report dt.10.2.2009 as Ex.P10, attested copy of mediators report dt.12.3.2009 at 5.30 a.m. as Ex.P11, attested copy of mediators report dt.12.3.2009 at 8.00 a.m. as Ex.P12, attested copy of postmortem report dt.11.2.2009 as Ex.P13, attested copy of letter of advice dt.6.4.2009 as Ex.P14, attested copy of RFSL report dt.29.5.2009 as Ex.P15, attested copy of Sec.164 Cr.P.C.

statement of LW.8 as Ex.P16, attested copy of Sec.164 Cr.P.C.

15 statement of LW.9 as Ex.P17, attested copy of Sec.164 Cr.P.C.

statement of LW.10 as Ex.P18 and attested copy of Sec.164

Cr.P.C. statement of LW.11 as Ex.P19 besides the Telephone

Index Book as MO.1, Iron knife as MO.2 and Two Karrala

Sanchulu as MO.3.

26.In the backdrop of above evidence, it has to be evaluated whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of the

Accused No.3 for the charged offences or not.

27.In order to establish the guilt of A3, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 9.2.2009 at about 9.00 p.m. the A3 along with other accused conspired together and committed murder of the deceased -

i).with the intention of causing his/her death; or ii).with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or iii).with the knowledge that he/she is likely to commit death of his/her act; or iv).with the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous but it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and committed such an act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

28.On culmination of above evidence, it is clear that the deceased died on 9.2.2009 at 9.00 p.m. and the dead body is unidentified. The LW.1 after came to know about the unidentified body, gave report to police. The case was registered by the policy basing on the report of LW.1. From the 16 evidence of PW.2, it is clear that the dead body belongs to the deceased i.e. Naraharasetty Satyanarayana. To connect the accused for the charged offences, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8. The role of P.Ws.1 and 2 is only with regard to identification of the dead body. The PW.1 failed to identify the body and the PW.2 identified the deceased. At the request of PW.7, the PW.1 went to the scene of offence but failed to identify the dead body. As per the evidence of PW.2, he visited the scene of offence at the request of LW.8 and identified the dead body.

29.The P.Ws.3 and 4 who are the mediators cum inquest panchayatdars categorically deposed that the police conducted inquest in their presence and the police obtained their signatures on the scene observation report as well as inquest report at the police station. From the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, it is clear that, the police obtained the signatures of P.Ws.3 and 4 at the police station and the police did not seize anything from the accused in their presence. Though the prosecution got marked the signatures of PW.3 on the inquest report as Ex.P1 and the signatures of PW.4 on the inquest report and scene observation report as Exs.P2 and P3. But as per the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 those documents were prepared by the police at the police station. So, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is no way helpful to the prosecution to connect the Accused No.3 for the alleged guilt.

30.The role of PW.5 is only with regard to taking of photographs of dead body and handing over the photos to the 17 police. The said photographs are not marked by the prosecution.

31.The P.Ws.6 and 7 who are the mediators in whose presence the A1, A2 and A5 were arrested and the crime weapon was seized by the prosecution as per its case. The PW.6 deposed during his chief-examination about the arrest of A5 and seizure of phone book, knife and two big shoppers from the custody of A5 and also deposed about the drafting of mediators report. But coming to the cross-examination, P.Ws.6 and 7 categorically deposed that the police drafted the mediators report at the police station. Even from the evidence of PW.6, the arrest of A5 and seizure of material objects is established. But the

P.Ws.6 and 7 did not state anything against the Accused No.3.

Further, as per their evidence the mediators report was drafted by the police at the police station.

32.The only evidence available on record is the evidence of PW.8 who is the Investigating Officer in this case.

He deposed that the SI of Police, Agiripalli P.S. registered the case basing on the report given by the LW.1 and he took up investigation and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 3, 6 to 11 and P.Ws.1 and 2. He also deposed about his visit to scene of offence, preparation of rough sketch, scene observation report and conducting of inquest and postmortem examination and further deposed about the arrest of A5 and conducting of Test

Identification Parade by the Magistrate and taking of photographs and filing of charge sheet. But the P.Ws.3, 4, 6 and 7 did not support the evidence of PW.8 in material aspects. There is no 18 support of independent witness to the evidence of PW.8. The

P.Ws.6 and 7 categorically stated that the police drafted the scene observation report, inquest report and mediators report at the police station. So, the evidence of PW.8 is not supported by the evidence of mediators as well as independent witnesses.

Further, the PW.8 categorically admitted during his cross- examination that he did not give written notice to the P.Ws.6 and 7 and he did not examine the owner of the garden where the dead body was found. So, there is no evidence on record to connect the Accused No.3 for the alleged offence. Further, the prosecution failed to examine the eye witnesses cited in the charge sheet i.e. L.Ws.8 and 9. Further, the defacto complainant is not examined and the person who conducted Test

Identification Parade is not examined and the Test Identification report is not marked. Even the photographs are not marked by the prosecution. None of the witnesses deposed about the role played by the Accused No.3 as mentioned in the charge sheet.

There is no sufficient material against the Accused No.3 from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The evidence placed on record by the prosecution remains inconsistent. The motive for commission of offence as well as the presence of A3 at the scene of offence is not established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The cause of death is not established by the prosecution and there is no medical evidence on record. The prosecution failed to establish that A3 conspired with A1, A2, A4 and A5 committed murder of deceased by hacking him with

MO.2. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution failed to 19 establish the guilt of the Accused No.3 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B r/w.34 of IPC. Accordingly, these points are answered in favour of the

Accused No.3 and against the prosecution.

POINT NO.3:-

33. In the result, the Accused No.3 is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/s.302 and 120-B r/w.34 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The

MO.1/Telephone Index Book, MO.2/Iron Knife, and MO.3/Two

Karrala Sanchulu, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Nuzvid is hereby directed to release the A3 if he is not required in any other case.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21st day of April, 2026.

Sd/-A. Naga Sailaja,

XV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KRISHNA DISTRICT, NUZVID.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

:WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1N. Krishna BalajiTo speak about the offence through defacto complainant and identified the body of the deceased. PW.2S.LakshmanaraoFriend of the deceased and came to know the offence through TV news channels and identified body of the deceased. PW.3M.Surendra KumarMediator and inquest panchayatdar. PW.4M.Rama KrishnaDo. PW.5D.Srinviasa Rao.To speak about the taking of photographs and handed over to LW.20. PW.6B.Srinivasarao.Mediator and to speak about the arrest of A1, A2 and A5 and seizure of crime weapon. PW.7Sk.Syed BajiDo. PW.8K.BalarajuTo speak about the investigation, arrest of A5, seizure of crime weapon, receipt of necessary documents and filing of charge sheet.

:WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Signature of PW.3 on inquest report PW.3 dt.10.2.2009. Ex.P2Signature of PW.4 on inquest report PW.4 dt.10.2.2009. Ex.P3Signature of PW.4 on scene observation PW.4 report dt.10.2.2009. Ex.P4Mediators report dt.10.3.2009.PW.6 Ex.P5Mediators report dt.12.3.2009.PW.6 Ex.P6True copy of report of LW.1, dt.10.2.2009PW.8 Ex.P7Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.20/2009 of PW.8 Agiripalli P.S. dt.10.2.2009 Ex.P8Attested copy of rough sketch dt.10.2.2009PW.8 Ex.P9Attested copy of scene observation report PW.8 dt.10.2.2009 Ex.P10Attested copy of inquest report PW.8 dt.10.2.2009. Ex.P11Attested copy of mediators report PW.8 dt.12.3.2009 at 5.30 a.m. Ex.P12Attested copy of mediators report PW.8 dt.12.3.2009 at 8.00 a.m. Ex.P13Attested copy of postmortem report PW.8 dt.11.2.2009 Ex.P14Attested copy of letter of advice PW.8 dt.6.4.2009 Ex.P15Attested copy of RFSL report dt.29.5.2009PW.8 Ex.P16Attested copy of Sec.164 Cr.P.C. PW.8 Statement of LW.8 Ex.P17Attested copy of Sec.164 Cr.P.C. PW.8 Statement of LW.9

Ex.P18Attested copy of Sec.164 Cr.P.C. PW.8 Statement of LW.10 Ex.P19Attested copy of Sec.164 Cr.P.C. PW.8 Statement of LW.11.

:DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:

22 -NIL- :MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

MO.1Telephone Index BookPW.8 MO.2Iron KnifePW.8 MO.3Two Karrala SanchuluPW.8

Sd/-A. Naga Sailaja,

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

CRLA/50/2020 Convicted

Abdul Warries vs Gujjarlapudi Babu Rao

08 Apr 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE :: KRISHNA DISTRICT AT NUZVID.

PRESENT:- Smt.A. NAGA SAILAJA,

XV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NUZVID.

Wednesday, on this the 8 th day of April, 2026.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.50/2020 IN C.C.NO.38/2016 OF THE

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MYLAVARAM.

Between: -

Abdul Warries, S/o.Rawoof, aged 46 years,

R/o.D.No.44-6-1, Sandhya Tea Centre, beside..Appellant/

Sub-Station, Padavalarevu, Vijayawada, KrishnaAccused. District.

And

1).Gujjarlapudi Babu Rao, S/o.Sambasiva Rao, aged 40 years, R/o.Gaddamanugu Village, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District.

.. Respondents.

2).The Public Prosecutor, XV-Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Krishna, Nuzvid.

This Criminal Appeal is coming on 2.4.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. J. Dixon, Advocate for Appellant, and of Sri D. Suresh, Advocate for 1st respondent, and upon considering the material papers on record, this Court delivered the following:

From what court the appeal isJudicial Magistrate of First Class, preferredMylavaram.

Number of the case in that courtC.C.No.38/2016 Description of the AppellantAbdul Warries, S/o.Rawoof, aged 46 years, R/o.D.No.44-6-1, Sandhya Tea Centre,besideSub-Station, Padavalarevu, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

Description of Respondents1).GujjarlapudiBabuRao, S/o.Sambasiva Rao, aged 40 years, R/o.Gaddamanugu Village, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District.

2).The Public Prosecutor, XV-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Nuzvid.

Judgment passed by lower court. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

3 Whether the Appeal is confirmed, In the result, the Criminal Appeal reversed or modified by theis dismissed. Judgment of conviction Appellate Courtand sentence passed by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mylavaram

against the Appellant/Accused in C.C.No.38/2016 dt.4.3.2020 is hereby confirmed.

Since the appellant is absent today, the trial court is directed to see that the sentence imposed against the accused shall be served by executing the warrant. The office is directed to send the record to trial court.

Date of PresentaFilingNoticeRespondentHearingJudgment tionissued byorderedto the Courtappear 16.3.2020 16.3.2020 17.3.2020 24.4.20202.4.2026 8.4.2026

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (3) of Criminal

Procedure Code by the appellant/Abdul Warries who is the accused in

C.C.No.38/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mylavaram.

2. The 1st respondent filed the complaint against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called as ‘the N.I. Act’ for brevity). The trial Court after conducting the trial of the case in

C.C.No.38/2016 found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act vide its judgment dt.4.3.2020. The accused was 4 convicted under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay fine of

Rs.2,000/-, in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

3. Aggrieved by the calendar and judgment of the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mylavaram dt.4.3.2020 the

appellant/accused preferred the present appeal.

4. The parties are hereinafter referred as they arrayed before the trial Court.

5. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as follows:

On 17.8.2011, the accused borrowed an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant for his business and family expenses and executed a demand pronote in favour of the complainant on the even date, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. on demand either to the complainant or to his order. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant for repayment of the amount, the accused had issued a cheque on 28.6.2013 bearing No.940940 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on

ING Vysya Bank Limited, M.G.Road Branch, Patamata, Vijayawada to the complainant towards part satisfaction of the debt due under the pronote. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment with his banker i.e. State Bank of Hyderabad, Mylavaram branch and the said cheque was dishonorued for the reason Account Blocked.

The same was informed to the complainant by his banker. The intimation was served to the accused on 17.7.2013. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 16.7.2013 5 through registered post with acknowledgement due demanding the accused for payment of the cheque amount. Knowing the contents of the said notice, the accused got returned the said notice and did not choose to discharge the debt due to the complainant. Thereby, the accused committed the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Having no option, the complainant approached the court and filed this complaint against the accused. Hence, the complaint.

6. The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mylavaram and copies of case documents were furnished

to him.

7. The Accused was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C. and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. During the course of trial, on behalf of complainant, the complainant himself is examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P5.

9. After completion of evidence of complainant, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence deposed against him, for which, he denied the same.

10. Per contra, on behalf of the accused, he himself is examined as DW.1 and also got examined one Thondepu Srinivasa Rao as

DW.2 and no documents are marked.

11. After considering the material available on record, the trial

Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of

N.I. Act, as such the accused was convicted under Section 255(2) of

Cr.P.C.

6 12. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred the appeal on the following grounds:

i).The judgment and conviction imposed by the trail Court is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

ii).The trial court erred in finding that the appellant is guilty of the alleged offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and punished him for simple imprisonment for two years and also sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.2,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 15 days.

iii). The trial court went wrong in giving finding of conviction by relying on Exs.P1 to P5 and ought to have disbelieved the evidence of

PW.1 and acquit the accused.

iv). The trial court ought to have seen that there is no legally enforceable debt between the complainant and the accused as the accused did not issue Exs.P1 and P2 to the complainant.

v). The trial court ought to have give weight to the evidence of

D.Ws.1 and 2 and ought to have acquit the accused.

vi). The complainant failed to examine any attestor or scribe of the pronote and failed to examine any of the witness on his behalf to prove the alleged debt.

vii). The examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and ought to have taken into consideration of the same.

viii). The sentence imposed by the trial court is harsh and high and failed to observe the provisions of N.I. Act. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mylavaram in

C.C.No.38/2016 dt.4.3.2020 and to return the fine amount.

7 13. No additional evidence is adduced on either side before the appellate court.

14. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the case record.

15. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court wrongly assessed the evidence on record and convicted the accused and the sentenced imposed by the trial court is harsh and the complainant failed to establish the issuing of Exs.P1 and P2 by the accused in his favour and there is no legally enforceable debt.

Therefore, prays to acquit the accused by allowing the appeal and to set aside the conviction judgment passed by the trial court.

16. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent argued that the trial court rightly assessed the evidence on record and convicted the accused. The trial court considered the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act and taken into consideration of statutory presumptions, convicted the accused and the accused is not entitled for setting aside the judgment of the trial court. Therefore, the appellant/accused is not entitled for setting aside the conviction passed against him by the trial court and the judgment of the trial court warrants no interference by this court.

17. Perused the material available on record.

18. Now the points for determination are:

i).Whether the complainant proved the offence under Section 138 of

N.I. Act against the accused which warranted conviction?

ii).Whether the judgment dt.4.3.2020 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mylavaram in C.C.No.38/2016, is sustainable

8 under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with, by the appellate court or not?

iii).To what relief?

POINT NOs.1 & 2:- 19. Since the complaint is filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant has to prove the following:

i).the existence of legally enforceable debt; ii).the issuing of cheque by the accused in discharge of such legally enforceable debt; iii).the presentation of cheque for collection with its period of validity; iv).the dishonor of cheque of one of the grounds which would attract the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act;

v).the issuance of statutory notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act; vi).presentation of complaint before the jurisdictional court within the period of limitation.

20. To substantiate his contention and to connect the accused for the guilt under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant himself is examined as PW.1 and reiterated the contents of the complaint in lieu of his examination in chief. In support of his contention, he got marked Exs.P1 to P5. Ex.P1 is the promissory note dt.17.8.2011 for

Rs.4,00,000/- executed by the accused in favour of the complainant.

Ex.P2 is the cheque bearing No.940940 dt.28.6.2013 for Rs.4,00,000/- 9 got issued by the accused to the complainant. Ex.P3 is the cheque return memo dt.3.7.2013 of State Bank of Hyderabad, Mylavaram

Branch. Ex.P4 is the office copy of legal notice dt.16.7.2013 got issued by the complainant to the accused. Ex.P5 is the returned postal cover dt.17.7.2013.

21. The PW.1 categorically deposed that the appellant/accused approached him on 17.8.2011 and borrowed an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- from him for his business and family expenses and got executed pronote in his favour on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. The said transaction took place in the presence of D.V.Ramesh Babu and M.Srinviasa Reddy who are the attestor and scribe of Ex.P1 respectively. Subsequently, inspite of his repeated demands, the accused failed to pay the same, and the accused issued Ex.P2 cheque in his favour for Rs.4,00,000/- on 28.6.2013 towards part satisfaction of the debt due to him. He presented the said cheque for collection in his bank i.e. State Bank of

Hyderabad, Mylavaram Branch and the same was returned as ‘Account Blocked’. Thereafter, the complainant got issued statutory notice to the accused and the accused got returned the same. Since there is no response from the accused, the complainant filed complaint against the accused.

22. In support of his contention, the PW.1 relied on Exs.P1 to

P6. From Ex.P1, it is clear that the accused borrowed an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- from the PW.1 and executed pronote in the presence of attestor i.e. D.V. Ramesh Babu and scribe i.e. M. Srinivasa Reddy.

Subsequently, the complainant got issued Ex.P2 cheque towards discharge of debt under Ex.P1. From Ex.P3, it is clear that the PW.1 10 presented the said cheque in his bank i.e. State Bank of Hyderabad,

Mylavaram Branch and the same was returned as ‘Account Blocked’.

Thereafter, the PW.1 got issued a statutory notice to the accused under Ex.P4. From Ex.P4, it is clear that the complainant demanded the accused by way of statutory notice and from Ex.P5, it is clear that the said notice was returned. As per the evidence of

PW.1, the accused though having knowledge about the return of cheque willfully got returned the notice, thereby, cheated him and committed the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Thereby, the accused is liable for punishment.

23. Per contra, the accused himself is examined as DW.1. The accused denied the issuing of Exs.P1 and P2 in favour of complainant during his chief-examination. But coming to the cross-examination, he categorically admitted that he issued Ex.P2 in favour of PW.1 and further admitted after perusing Ex.P2 that the account number mentioned in Ex.P2 and the bank as well as the said cheque belongs to him. During his chief-examination, he denied the signatures on

Exs.P1 and P2. But coming to the cross-examination, he admitted his signature on Ex.P2. When once the DW.1 admits his signature on the said cheque and also his bank account, the burden lies on the accused to establish to whom he issued the said cheque and the transaction wherein he issued the said cheque and he failed to establish the same. The DW.2 who is the colleague of DW.1 deposed that himself and DW.1 worked as Cell phone Mechanics in

Saad Telephone Shop, Vijayawada of Yasin. At that time, their owner obtained 4 empty singed pronotes from the accused and two pronotes from him towards surety and the said Yasin might have given the 11 Ex.P2 cheque to the complainant. The said aspect was not deposed by the DW.1 either in his chief-examination or in cross-examination, but it was subsequently deposed by the DW.2. Though the DW.2 stated that the accused gave blank signed cheques to his owner.

Coming to the cross-examination, he categorically admitted that himself and the accused did not issue any legal notice to the owner for return of blank signed cheques and he did not know about the details of Ex.P2 cheque in this case and he did not know the Ex.P2 cheque belongs to which bank. Further, the DW.1 failed to establish how the

PW.1 came into custody of the signed cheque of his bank. Further, the DW.1 failed to disprove his signatures on Ex.P1.

24. When once the accused admits his signature, Section 20 of

N.I. Act will come into play, which says the person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount.

Provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.

25. There is no dispute by the accused with regard to the signatures on the cheque. So, it is clear that the accused so signing the cheque as well as pronote be liable upon such instrument in the capacity in which he signed the same to any holder in due course for such an amount. Admittedly, the complainant is a holder in due course and the accused admits his signatures and failed to explain in what manner the PW.1 became holder in due course of his cheque.

Thereby, it is held that Ex.P1 is genuine transaction and the accused 12 issued Ex.P2 cheque to the complainant in discharge of debt due under Ex.P1. .

26. Further, the said cheque was not encashed in view of ‘Account Blocked’ as per the endorsement given by the bank authorities. So, it is clear that the accused issued cheque in discharge of legally enforceable debt and the same was presented by the complainant for collection and not encashed.

27. The accused simply denied the Exs.P1 and P2 transactions.

Mere denial of existence of debt will not serve any purpose but accused may adduce evidence to rebut the presumption for which he fails. There is a mandate of presumption of consideration in terms of provisions of the Act. The onus shifts on to the accused in proof of issuance of cheque to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for discharge of any debt or liability in terms of Section 138 of the Act as held in “Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan and another” reported in AIR 2019 SC 1157.

28. Once the complainant proved that the said cheque was issued by the accused, Section 139 of the Act will come into play which creates a statutory presumption that the cheque received in the nature referred to Section 138 of N.I. Act is for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or liability and the said presumption is a rebuttable presumption as held in “Kumar Exports Vs. Shankar

Carpets” reported in 2009 (2) SCC 513.

138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account:- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole 13 or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment (for a term which may extend to two years), or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:-

(a)the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b)the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque (within 30 days) of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

(c)the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the chqque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

29. Section 138(a) of N.I. Act says that the cheque has been presented to the bank within the period of ‘6’ months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier.

14 30. Section 138(b) of N.I. Act says that the payee or holder in due course of cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of receipt of information by him from the bank regarding return of cheque.

31. Section 138(c ) of N.I. Act says that the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be to the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.

32. The complainant proved that the cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt and it was dishonoured. If these conditions proved, the complaint is maintainable.

33. Coming to the presentation of the complaint, as per Section 142 of N.I. Act, the complaint is to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arose as per Section 138(c ) of N.I. Act.

34. In the present case, the date of issuing of notice is on 16.7.2013 and the date of intimation is 17.7.2013 and the complaint is filed on 16.8.2013 i.e. within the period of limitation. Further the cause of action arose at Gaddamanugu village of G.Konduru Mandal i.e. within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mylavaram. So, considering the date of cheque, presentation, dishonor and issuing of notice by the complainant it can be held that the complainant had complied the statutory provisions as contemplated under Section 138 (a) to (c ) of N.I. Act.

35. Sec.142. Cognizance of offences:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,- 15

(a)No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque;

(b)Such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c ) of the proviso to Section 138;

(c)No Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a

judicial magistrate of the first class shall try any offence

punishable under Section 138.

36. Section 142(2) of N.I. Act deals with the jurisdiction which reads as follows:- (2) The offence under Section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction,-

(a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the amount, is situated; or

(b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated.

37. There is no evidence on record to hold that the accused did not execute Ex.P1 in favour of the complainant and further, it is clear that the accused issued Ex.P2 cheque in discharge of legally enforceable debt and the cheque was not encashed due to Account Blocked.

Considering the entire evidence on record and also considering the 16 scope of Sections 118, 138 and 139 of N.I. Act, it is held that the complainant satisfied the ingredients of the above sections and proved his case. The accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118 (a) of N.I. Act and Section 139 of N.I. Act. The trial court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence with statutory presumptions and also relied on case law in Nepc Micon Limited and others Vs. Magma Leasing Limited, wherein it was held that the “Account Closed” would amounts to returning the cheque unpaid.

Thereby, it is held that the accused is liable for punishment under

Section 138 of N.I. Act. The trial Court rightly assessed the factual and legal aspects at length and held that the accused is liable for punishment. There are no merits to set aside the judgment dt.4.3.2020 of the trial court and the judgment of the trial court is sustainable both on facts and law as well as presumptions.

38. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under

Section 138 of N.I. Act. The judgment of trial court warrants no interference by this Court. Therefore, it is held that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these points are answered against the appellant.

POINT NO.3:-

39. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mylavaram against the Appellant/Accused in

C.C.No.38/2016 dt.4.3.2020 is hereby confirmed.

17 Since the appellant is absent today, the trial court is directed to see that the sentence imposed against the accused shall be served by executing the warrant. The office is directed to send the record to trial court.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 8th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-A. Naga Sailaja,

XV ADDL. DISTRICT&SESSIONS JUDGE,

KRISHNA DISTRICT AT NUZVID.

Copy to:

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class’s Court, Mylavaram.

Sd/-A. Naga Sailaja,

XV-ADJ, NZD.

Order Record 2,657 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OP/141/2023	Janni Appa Rao vs Janni Jahnsi Rani	24 Apr 2026	Order	—
OP/187/2025	Dubbaku Rama Rao vs NIL	23 Apr 2026	Order	—
G.W.O.P/1/2022	Matte Balaiah vs Devarapu Keerthi	22 Apr 2026	Order	—
SC/109/2019	The State Sub Inspector of Police, Agiripalli P.S vs Patan Saleem Basha	21 Apr 2026	Judgment	Acquitted
A.R.B.O.P/146/2018	INTERNATIONAL PAPER APPM LTD., vs Arbitrator and Joint Collector	21 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/11/2025	Tirumalsetti Ramanjaneyulu vs Patibandla Rama Koteswara Rao	17 Apr 2026	Order	—
G.W.O.P/78/2025	Kuppireddy Subba Reddy vs NIL	17 Apr 2026	Order	—
G.W.O.P/57/2021	Banavathu Pushpaleela Bai vs Banavathu Sankara Rao	16 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/20/2019	Sri Tankasala Constructions and Real Estates Enikepadu vs Lanka Hymavathi	13 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
MVOP/4/2020	Kambhampati Rajanna vs Yerramsetti Butchi Babu	09 Apr 2026	Order	—
ARBEP/685/2023	M/s Shriram Transport Finance company Limited, Hanuman Junction Branch vs Muppa Giri Babu	09 Apr 2026	Order	—
CRLA/50/2020	Abdul Warries vs Gujjarlapudi Babu Rao	08 Apr 2026	Judgment	Convicted
EP/270/2021	Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Nuzvid Branch. vs Aswini Ganta	07 Apr 2026	Order	—
OP/208/2023	Molugumati Rama Krishna vs Molugumati/Koleti Mahalakshmi	07 Apr 2026	Order	—
OP/245/2025	Jalasutram Kiran Kumar vs Jalasutram Yesu Raju alias Amulya	07 Apr 2026	Order	—
ARBEP/1265/2023	Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited (Formerly known as Equitas Finance Limited) vs Battula Babu	07 Apr 2026	Order	—
OP/170/2021	Paragati Naga Raju vs Paragati Sireesha	06 Apr 2026	Order	—
AS/27/2019	P.Sambasiva Rao vs P.Nageswara Rao (died)	02 Apr 2026	Judgment	Compromised
OP/1/2024	Kotteti Naga Rani @ Rachaprolu Naga Rani vs Kotteti Kiran Babu	02 Apr 2026	Order	—
OP/228/2022	Dondapati Sundaraiah vs Dondapati Ashajyothi	02 Apr 2026	Order	—
ARBEP/696/2024	M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co.Ltd. Chennai vs Nukala Rajesh	02 Apr 2026	Order	—
ARBEP/1514/2024	M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., Chennai vs Chintala Kalyan	02 Apr 2026	Order	—
MVOP/13/2022	Arepalli Laakshmi Prasanna vs G.V.Satyanarayana	01 Apr 2026	Order	—
MVOP/14/2022	Gaddam Papa vs Bomma Venkata Sai Kumar	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OP/89/2024	Devarapalli Purna Chanadrarao vs Devarapalli (Pulapaaka) Jhansirani	30 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/77/2018	Garimella Annapurna vs Yepuri Lakshmi Tulasamma	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
MVOP/16/2021	Vallepu Venkata Ratnam vs Alavala Apparao	26 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/161/2025	Bhattumarthi Keerthi alisa Balavanthapu Keerthi vs NIL	26 Mar 2026	Order	—
SC/198/2024	Sub Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural Police Station. vs Mediboyina Gangadhara Rao	26 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
SC/115/2022	State, Sub-Inspector of Police, Reddigudem P.S. vs Chokkam Prasanna Kumar @ Prasad	25 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
EP/319/2021	Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Nuzvid Branch. vs Surendra Kumar Garikapati	24 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/143/2021	Chatla Navakanth vs Chatla Ramadevi	24 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/162/2025	Pendem Varun Kousalya Ratnakara Rao vs Pendem Karuna Sai	24 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/51/2015	Madala Lakshmi Ganesh vs Madala Satyanarayana	24 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
ARBEP/106/2024	M/s. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited, Vijayawada. vs Yalamarthi Prasad	24 Mar 2026	Order	—
ARBEP/676/2024	M/s. Sriram Finance Limited. (M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.) vs Kosuri Koteswara Rao	24 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/29/2026	Darla Vinodh Kumar vs Darla Sharki alias Mathe Sharki	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
ARBEP/911/2024	M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Regd. Office No.21, Patullos road, Chennai -600 002, Branch office @ Vij vs Mrs. M.Sunitha	18 Mar 2026	Order	—
ARBEP/967/2023	M/S.Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.Ltd., Vijayawada vs Gawarraju Ramulu	17 Mar 2026	Order	—
AS/30/2023	Nuvvula Basava Rao vs Alapati Prameela	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
EP/3/2022	Jangala Sivalinga Prasad vs Valasala Uma Maheswara Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
EP/347/2021	Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Nuzvid Branch. vs Gannaparapu Koteswara Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
EP/633/2021	Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Tiruvuru Branch. vs Kothapalli Yohan	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
EP/801/2021	Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Tiruvuru Branch. vs Kanchi Srinivasa Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
MVOP/1/2024	Kesavarapu Kanaka Durga vs Podabukkala Venkatesh	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
MVOP/14/2024	Yerragunta @ Gorre Nagamani vs N. Pardha Saradhi	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
MVOP/19/2025	Katumala Ajith (Minor) vs Dharmendra Kumar Gupta	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
MVOP/24/2024	Tulluru Venkatravamma vs Palagani Srihari Prakash	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
MVOP/27/2024	Songa Anil vs Sola Vaddikasulu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
MVOP/33/2023	Pamarthi Lakshmi Durga Phanindra Kumar vs Mareedu Srinivasarao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
MVOP/37/2022	Yalamarthi Ravi vs Marella Satya Venkata Ganga Raju	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/23/2025	Meka Venkata Naga venugopala Appa Rao vs Yarlagadda Venkata Brahmendra Vara Prasad	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/44/2024	Jangala Murali Krishna vs Dupaguntla Kishore	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CRLA/115/2022	Sangadala Nirmala vs Gogineni Padma Sri	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CRLA/115/2023	Annabathula Swapna vs Annabathula Hari Krishna	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CRLA/249/2025	Bolligorla Pulla Rao vs Bejawada Rama Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CRLRP/27/2025	Paragati Nagaraju vs Paragati Sireesha	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CRLRP/47/2025	Perambaduri Rambabu vs Perambaduri Dhana Lakshmi	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CRLRP/49/2025	Komaravalli Vinod Babu vs Komaravalli Divya	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
G.W.O.P/67/2025	Komaravalli Vinod Babu vs Komaravalli Divya	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
G.W.O.P/86/2025	Darla Vinodh Kumar vs Darla Sharki alias Mathe Sharki	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
ARBEP/985/2021	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Nuzvid Branch vs Veerla. Venkata Lakshmi	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
ARBEP/1181/2023	M/s. Shriram Finance Limited, Vijayawada. vs Dupagunta Kishore	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OP/221/2025	Kokkeragadda Varalaxmi alias Darla Varalaxmi vs Kokkeragadda Babu Rao	13 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/16/2023	Kunda Venkateshwara Rao, Rep by his Speicial Power of Attorney Holder, Kunda Naveen Kumar. vs Cheedalla Gopinath, Trading as Aditya Rice Enterprises.	13 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
EP/8/2018	Uppu Madhu vs Pattipati Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu	12 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/169/2025	Songa Vamsi Babu vs NIL	12 Mar 2026	Order	—
SC/181/2024	Vs	12 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CRLA/2/2021	Gogulamudi Krishna Reddy vs Gogulamudi Babul Reddy	09 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
AS/2/2020	Matti Nageswara Rao vs Dutta Basanancharamma	06 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CRLA/24/2020	Maragani Vijaya Kumar vs Sub Inspecotor of Police, Nuzvid Circle	05 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CRLA/5/2021	Ande Suneetha vs Chalavadi Satyavani	03 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OP/100/2025	Barre Mary jasmine alias Gummalla Mary Jasmine vs Gummalla Narendra Banerjee	02 Mar 2026	Order	—
G.W.O.P/25/2025	Golla Sai Krishna vs Golla alias Pinniboyina Doopi Sri Lakshmi	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
SC/125/2018	The State Inspector of Police, vs Buska Naga Babu @ Nagaiah	24 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
ARBEP/631/2024	M/s. Sriram Finance Limited. (M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.) vs Mendem madhu	24 Feb 2026	Order	—
AS/18/2019	Pagutla Yesobu @ Babu Rao vs Pulipaka Bujjamma	20 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
OP/195/2025	Yadala Pushapa Latha alias Dara Pushapa Latha vs Yadala DIleep Kumar	18 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/124/2025	Molugumati Kannayya Babu vs Molugumati Anusha	17 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/9/2018	Pinniboina Guravaih vs Pinniboina Samba Siva Rao and 4 others	17 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CMA/8/2022	Sunkara Seetharamaswamy vs Kankanalla Sailaja	16 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/153/2025	Inteti Manoj vs Nil	16 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/14/2014	Komaragiri Durga Venkata Kakshmi Narasimha Prasad vs Vutukuri Vaisali and 2 others	16 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
AS/5/2023	Tirumala yasoda Rani vs Bayana Veera Venkata Rama Krishna	13 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
OP/121/2025	Dola Koteswara Rao alias Yohanu vs Dola Varshitha alias Vajram	13 Feb 2026	Order	—
A.R.B.O.P/205/2019	Avirneni Prapurnachand vs Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,	12 Feb 2026	Order	—
CRLA/143/2024	Akkineni Benarjee vs The State of A.P. Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Town Police Station,	11 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CRLRP/38/2023	Jakkam Yesupadam vs Jakkam Jhansi	10 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
ARBEP/894/2025	IREP Credit Capital Prvt. Ltd., Nuzvid vs Sivajee Sadam	10 Feb 2026	Order	—
CRLA/19/2020	Donthuboyina Kesavulu vs The Station House Officer, Gampalagudem P.S	06 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
ARBEP/1092/2024	Shriram Finance Limited (Formerly known as M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited), Vijayawad -V, vs Seelam Bhanu Mangeshkar	04 Feb 2026	Order	—
ARBEP/224/2022	Manappuram Finance Limited, Vijayawada vs Nagarani Inkollu	03 Feb 2026	Order	—
ARBEP/548/2023	Shriram Finance Limited, Hanuman Junction vs Sali Nagendra Rao, Pedapadu Mandal	03 Feb 2026	Order	—
CRLA/95/2020	Midde Satyanarayana vs The Station House Officer, Vissannapet P.S	02 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/133/2025	Podapati Ratna Kumari Alias Marsakatla Ratna Kumari vs Marsakatla Nanny Vinay	30 Jan 2026	Order	—
AS/38/2019	Vemulakonda Narasimha Rao vs Battiprolu China Kotaiah	28 Jan 2026	Judgment	—
AS/48/2018	Rayala Venkateswara Rao vs Kalapala Krishna Kumari	28 Jan 2026	Order	—
ARBEP/717/2022	Shriram Transport Finance Co.,Ltd, Rep.by Asst Credit Manager D.Venkata Basava Taraka Sivanarayana vs Amballa Butchibabu	28 Jan 2026	Order	—
MVOP/16/2023	Pilli Satyavathi vs Settipalli Vamsi Kumar	27 Jan 2026	Order	—
OP/140/2025	Boddu Nagabhushanam vs Nil	27 Jan 2026	Order	—

Showing 100 of 2,657 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2026		24
Mar 2026		49
Feb 2026		21
Jan 2026		23
Dec 2025		51
Nov 2025		26
Oct 2025		20
Sep 2025		46
Aug 2025		46
Jul 2025		61
Jun 2025		29
May 2025		24

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt A NAGA SAILAJA handled?

Smt A NAGA SAILAJA has handled 2825 court orders since 2008 at XV-ADJ Court Complex Nuzvid. The average disposal rate is 13 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt A NAGA SAILAJA hear?

Based on available records, Smt A NAGA SAILAJA primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Appeals, Criminal Cases) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) at XV-ADJ Court Complex Nuzvid.

Where is Smt A NAGA SAILAJA currently posted?

Smt A NAGA SAILAJA is posted as XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE at XV-ADJ Court Complex Nuzvid, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt A NAGA SAILAJA available online?

Yes. 8 judgments by Smt A NAGA SAILAJA are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt A NAGA SAILAJA dispose cases?

Smt A NAGA SAILAJA disposes approximately 13 cases per month, based on 2825 orders handled over their tenure at XV-ADJ Court Complex Nuzvid.

Since when is Smt A NAGA SAILAJA serving?

Smt A NAGA SAILAJA has been serving at XV-ADJ Court Complex Nuzvid since 2008.

Case Types

OS 46%

ARBEP 14%

EP 11%

AS 9%

OP 9%

MVOP 5%

CRLA 4%

CC 3%

Posting History

Nov 2022 — Apr 2026

XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE · 1,750 orders
Sep 2008 — Apr 2014

Ist Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam · 1,075 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Convicted 1

Compromised 1

Other Judges at this Court

Sri Sk Peda Khasim

Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid

2,043 orders

Smt Dandi Satyavathi

XV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

0 orders

Smt.M.Siva Parvathi

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Nuzvid

434 orders

Smt O.Anusha

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid

663 orders

Smt K.sravani

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid

557 orders

← View all judges at XV-ADJ Court Complex Nuzvid