A.shobha Rani

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALUR.

PRESENT: Smt.A.Shobha Rani.,B.A.M.L., Junior Civil Judge, Alur.

Saturday, this the 30 th day of May, 2015.

O.S.No. 72/2007

Between :

1. Golla Lakshmamma, W/o. Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 60 years, Ryot, R/o. Salakalakonda Village, Adoni Mandal.

2. Golla Urukunda Reddy, S/o. Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 35 years, Ryot, R/o. Salakalakonda Village, Adoni Mandal.

3. Golla Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 34 years, Ryot, R/o. Salakalakonda Village, Adoni Mandal.

4. Golla Narsi Reddy, S/o. Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 32 years, Ryot, R/o. Salakalakonda Village, Adoni Mandal.

5. Golla Anjinamma, D/o. Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Lingampally Village, Holagunda Mandal.

6. GollaMohanamma, D/o. Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 28 years, R/o. Peddahothur Village.

7. Golla Nagalakshmi, D/o. Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 26 years, R/o. Salakalakonda Village, Adoni Mandal.

8. Golla Kistamma, D/o. Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 24 years, R/o. Salakalakonda Village, Adoni Mandal.

….Plaintiffs

And

Golla Rajamma, W/o. Golla Urukundappa, Hindu, Aged about 50 years, Ryot, R/o. Thangaradona Village, Aspari Mandal.… Defendant

This suit coming on 20-04-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. G.C.Ranganna, Advocate for the plaintiffs, and of Sri.

B.Harisarvothama Reddy, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for declaration of plaintiffs title and for delivery of possession of plaint schedule property from the defendant by due process of law and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:- 2

The plaintiff submits that the husband of 1st plaintiff by name

Chinna Venkata Reddy, S/o. Narasimha Reddy of Salakalakonda village was purchased the plaint schedule property in a Court auction which held by this

Hon’ble Court in E.P.11/1995 in OS.No.59/1993 dated 19-12-1995 for a valid

consideration of Rs.17,100/- who is the highest bidder in execution of a decree in OS.No.59/1993 and the said sale has been duly confirmed on 11- 03-1996. After confirmation of sale the Hon’ble Court executed a sale certificate in favour of late Chinna Venkata Reddy on 11-03-1996. After the issuance of sale certificate, the said late Chinna Venkata Reddy filed a petition for delivery of possession of plaint schedule property in EA.141/1996 in OS.No.59/2003 and the petition was allowed ordered delivery of possession to the Chinna Venkata Reddy. As per the delivery order the said

Chinna Venkata Reddy proceeded through Court Amin to take delivery of the plaint schedule property. At that time the defendant intentionally and knowingly obstructed the said Chinna Venkata Reddy and also locked the

Chinna Venkata Reddy. To that effect while return back with Court Amin filed the petition for break open the locks and also grant police aid. The Hon’ble

Court granted police aid and also permitted to break open the door of the plaint schedule property. Then with the assistance of police aid break open the lock and taken deliver possession of the suit property. Taking advantage of death of husband of 1st plaintiff the defendant along with other supporters high-handedly and forcibly without any manner of right break open the lock and trespassed into the plaint schedule house. After came to know the entered into the suit schedule house by julum, the plaintiffs demanded the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule house. But the defendant bluntly refused to vacate the same. The said late Chinna Venkata Reddy died about three months back leaving behind the plaintiffs 1 to 8 as his legal heirs. The plaintiff no.1 is the wife and plaintiffs 2 to 8 are sons and daughters and late

Golla Chinna Venkata Reddy. On 07-04-2007 the 1st plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant demanding to vacate the plaint schedule property and notice was served to the defendant and the same is replied by 3 defendant. After the death of late Chinna Venkata Reddy the plaintiffs 1 to 8 are became the absolute owners. The defendant has no right or title over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs have got right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property since the date of death of late Chinna

Venkata Reddy. Hence the suit is filed for declaration of title and possession over the suit schedule property.

3. The averments of the written statement of defendant are as follows:

The defendant denies all the allegations mentioned in the plaint and submits that he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as an absolute owner. The said late Chinna Venkata Reddy took possession of the plaint schedule property. But admitted that the plaintiff issued a notice on 07-04-2007 and denied that he replied the same. The late

Chinna Venkata Reddy never came to plaint schedule property and took possession. The plaintiffs are not entitled to any declaration and ask for possession. Hence prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration of title to the plaint schedule property and for delivery of possession of the same to the plaintiffs as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5. On behalf of plaintiffs P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to

A.7 were marked. On behalf of defendant D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no exhibits were marked.

6. Issue No.1: To prove this issue the burden is on the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff no.3 is examined as PW-1 and deposed that his father late

Chinna Venkata Reddy purchased the plaint schedule property in a Court 4 auction which held by this Hon’ble Court in EP.11/1995 in OS.No. 59/1993,

dated 19-12-1995 for a valid consideration of Rs.17,100/- who is the highest

bidder in execution of decree in OS.No.59/1993 and the said sale has been duly confirmed on 11-03-1996. After the issuance of sale certificate the said late Chinna Venkata Reddy filed a petition for delivery possession of the plaint schedule property in EA.141/1996 in OS.No.59/1993 and the petition was allowed and ordered delivered possession to the said late Chinna

Venkata Reddy proceeded a Court Amin to take delivery of the plaint schedule property. At that time the defendant intentionally and knowingly obstructed to the said Chinna Venkata Reddy and also locked the plaint schedule property. Then Chinna Venkata Reddy with the assistance of police aid and door break open the lock and taken delivery possession of the suit property. After the death of his father the defendant again trespassed into the plaint schedule property. On 07-04-2007 he issued a notice to the defendant demanding to vacate the plaint schedule property and same is replied by defendant. Through PW-1 Ex.A1 to A7 are marked. The Ex.A1 is the sale certificate issued in the name of his father. The Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 07-04-2007. The Ex.A3 is the acknowledgment

dated 10-04-2007. The Ex.A4 is the reply notice from the defendant. The

Ex.A5 is the register of suit extract in OS.No.59/1993. The Ex.A6 and A7 are the challans pertaining to house tax of plaint schedule property. In the cross examination PW-1 admitted that at present the defendant is residing in plaint schedule property. The defendant is the younger sister of his mother. He is residing at Salakalakonda. On perusal of chief and cross examination of PW-1 it is clear that he is the 3rd plaintiff in the above suit and his father purchased plaint schedule property in a Court auction and later he issued notice to defendant and same is replied by defendant and also filed register of extract in OS.No.59/1993.

7. To support the contention of PW-1 he examined another witness i.e., PW-2 who is the third party of the suit deposed that he know the father 5 of 2nd plaintiff by name Venkata Reddy and on the date of delivery he was also present and taken delivery of plaint schedule property through the police aid and delivery was recorded by the Court Amin and the defendant have no right or title over the plaint schedule property at any time. PW-2 in his cross examination admitted that he know one Venkata Reddy who is the husband of 1st plaintiff expired about five years back and for the last four years the defendant is residing in plaint schedule property. The learned defendant counsel suggested that he was not present at the time of plaint schedule property was delivered to Venkata Reddy through police aid, but

PW-2 denied.

8. On perusal of Ex.A1, certified copy of sale certificate in

EP.11/1995 in OS.No.59/1993 showing that one Chinna Venkata Reddy who is

the auction purchaser of plaint schedule property. The Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice showing that the plaintiff no.1 issued a notice to defendant no.1 demanding the plaint schedule property and further stated that the defendant encroached into the plaint schedule property taking advantage of death of her husband. The Ex.A4 is the reply notice issued by the defendant. On perusal of Ex.A4 the defendant stated that there is no need for her to encroach into the plaint schedule property and she is the absolute owner of the said property under Pasupu Kunkuma. The Ex.A5 is the register of suit extract in OS.No.59/1993 categorically shows that one Chinna

Venkata Reddy filed the suit against Smt. Golla Enkamma and the same is decreed for an amount of Rs.13,500/- on 18-06-1993. The Ex.A6 and A7 are the house tax receipts pertaining to the plaint schedule property. From the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and Ex.A1 to A7 established that one Chinna

Venkata Reddy purchased the plaint schedule property in a Court auction and the plaintiffs no.1 to 8 are the legal heirs of later Chinna Venkata Reddy.

9. When the evidence of defendant is perused, the defendant himself examined as DW-1 and she reiterated all the contents mentioned in the written statement in the chief examination stated that she was not aware 6 that the husband of 1st plaintiff by name Chinna Venkata Reddy purchased the plaint schedule property in a Court auction in EP.11/1995 in

OS.No.96/1993 dated 19-12-1995 and she also denied that the later Chinna

Venkata Reddy permitted to break open the door of plaint schedule property and taken delivery of plaint schedule property and also denied that she received notice and the same is replied. DW-1 in her cross examination admitted that the plaintiff is her sister and plaintiff no.2 to 8 are children of plaintiff. The name of husband of plaintiff no.1 i.e., Chinna Venkata Reddy.

One Enkamma is her mother. About eight years back her mother died and she do not know whether her mother obtained loan from Chinna Venkata

Reddy and she do not know that Chinna Venkata Reddy purchased the plaint schedule property in Court and obtained sale certificate. She cannot say her door number i.e., plaint schedule property. She did not file any document to show that the plaint schedule property belongs to her and at present she is residing in plaint schedule property and further DW-1 admitted that one

Chinna Venkata Reddy who is the husband of 1st plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property in a Court auction. The learned plaintiff counsel suggested that Chinna Venkata Reddy taken delivery of plaint schedule property from her by taking police aid, but DW-1 denied and further admitted that about twelve years back the said Chinna Venkata Reddy died. On perusal of chief and cross examination of DW-1, DW-1 categorically admitted that one Chinna

Venkata Reddy purchased the plaint schedule property in a Court auction and said Chinna Venkata Reddy died about twelve years back and at present she is residing in plaint schedule property and she did not file any document to show that plaint schedule property belongs to her. Hence based on the admissions of DW-1 the defendant residing in plaint schedule property without having any right or title of plaint schedule property and not filed any single piece of paper to show her title and possession of plaint schedule property and she further admitted that the plaintiff no.1 to 8 are the legal heirs of late Chinna Venkata Reddy.

7

10. On the other hand the defendant examined DW-2 who is her son deposed on the same lines of DW-1. In the cross examination DW-2 admitted that the present case is filed for recovery of amount by his senior paternal father about eight years back and he do not know the recovery of amount. He did not file any record to show that the plaint schedule property belongs to him. The 1st plaintiff is wife of his senior paternal father and plaintiffs no.2 to 8 are the sons and daughters of his senior paternal father.

On perusal of chief and cross examination of DW-2 it is clear that the defendant not filed any document showing the title and possession of plaint schedule property.

11. From the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and Ex.A1 to A7 the plaintiff established the title over the plant schedule property and defendant not filed any document showing his title of the plaint schedule property. DW-1 and DW-2 categorically admitted that the plaintiffs no.1 to 8 are the legal heirs of later

Chinna Venkata Reddy and they have not filed any document to show their title over the plaint schedule property. A person who seeks declaration of title must show as how the said person got the title to the properties. Through

Ex.A1 to 7 the plaintiff established his title as such the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of title of plaint schedule property and he is also entitled for recovery of plaint schedule property. The issues are answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

12. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings in issue No.1 and 2 the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property.

In the result, the suit is decreed declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule property. The defendant is directed to deliver the possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs within one month from the date of decree and in case the defendant fails to deliver the possession of the plaint schedule property, the plaintiffs are at liberty to 8 take the delivery of the plaint schedule property through process of the

Court.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30th day of May, 2015.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

P.W.1 : G.Narasimha Reddy D.W.1 : Golla Rajamma P.W.2 : P.Thippa Reddy D.W.2 : Golla Gopal

Documents MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1 : Sale certificate issued in the name of plaintiff father Ex.A.2 : Office copy of Advocate notice Ex.A.3 : Acknowledgment Ex.A.4 : Reply notice Ex.A.5 : Certified copy of register of suit extract Ex.A.6 : Challan dated 26-02-2001 Ex.A.7 : Challan dated 20-09-2000

For Defendant : NIL

JCJ, Alur.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALUR.

PRESENT: Smt.A.Shobha Rani.,B.A.M.L., Junior Civil Judge, Alur.

Saturday, this the 30 th day of May, 2015.

O.S.No. 72/2007

Between :

1.Golla Lakshmamma, W/o. Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 60 years, Ryot, R/o. Salakalakonda Village, Adoni Mandal.

2.Golla Urukunda Reddy, S/o. Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 35 years, Ryot, R/o. Salakalakonda Village, Adoni Mandal.

3.Golla Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 34 years, Ryot, R/o. Salakalakonda Village, Adoni Mandal.

4.Golla Narsi Reddy, S/o. Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 32 years, Ryot, R/o. Salakalakonda Village, Adoni Mandal.

5.Golla Anjinamma, D/o. Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Lingampally Village, Holagunda Mandal.

6.GollaMohanamma, D/o. Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 28 years, R/o. Peddahothur Village.

7.Golla Nagalakshmi, D/o. Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 26 years, R/o. Salakalakonda Village, Adoni Mandal.

8.Golla Kistamma, D/o. Late Chinna Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 24 years, R/o. Salakalakonda Village, Adoni Mandal. ….Plaintiffs

And

Golla Rajamma, W/o. Golla Urukundappa, Hindu, Aged about 50 years, Ryot, R/o. Thangaradona Village, Aspari Mandal.… Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for declaration of plaintiffs title and for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant by due process of law and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on 18-06-2007, filed on 12-07-2007, Jurisdiction value of Rs.23,355/- and a Court fee of Rs.1,546/- is paid U/Sec.24 (a) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

This suit coming on 20-04-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. G.C.Ranganna, Advocate for the plaintiffs, and of Sri. B.Harisarvothama Reddy, Advocate for defendant, and this court doth order and decreed as follows:

(1)That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed; (2)That the plaintiffs are declared as the owners of the plaint schedule property; (3)That the defendant is directed to deliver the possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within one month from the 10 date of decree and in case the defendant fails to deliver the possession of the plaint schedule property, the plaintiffs are at liberty to take the delivery of the plaint schedule property through process of the Court; and (4)That there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, on this the 30th Day of May,2015.

Junior Civil Judge, Alur.

Memo of Costs

For PlaintiffFor Defendants

1. Stamp on vakalath 2-00No C.M. & F.C. filed --

2. Stamp on plaint 1546-00--

3. Stamp on petition 10-00--

4. Stamp on process 300-00--

5. Advocate fee 2335-00-- ------------- Total4,193-00-- -------------

SCHEDULE

The suit house is situated in Registration District of Kurnool in Sub- Registration District of Aspari in the village limits of Thangaradona in Ward No.3 bearing Door No.62 with the following details:

Boundaries: East : Rastha Thalavaikili West : Vacant site of Seetharami Reddy North : Pedda Narasimhappa Vacant site and Doddi South : House of Naganna

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ALUR.

Present: Smt., A.Shobha Rani.,B.A.M.L., Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Alur.

Tuesday, this the 19 th day of May, 2015.

C.C.No. 160/2012 Between :

Sub-Inspector of Police,

Holagunda P.S. ….Complainant

And

Harijana Hussainappa, S/o. Sekappa, Age 49 years,

R/o. Gajjehalli Village, Holagunda Mandal. .….. Accused

This case coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for State and of Sri. G.C.Ranganna, Advocate

for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of police, Holagunda Police Station, filed a charge sheet against the accused in crime No.41/2012 for the offence U/Sec.

323 of IPC .

2. The brief facts of the charge sheet are that LW-1 is resident of

Gajjehalli village and blessed with two sons and eking livelihood by running floor mill and two years ago, complainant’s younger son was died and he buried him in the field adjacent to the graveyard and Government Revenue authority issued house plot to the accused and the tomb of the son of complainant is included in the house plot of the accused and the accused leveled the tomb present in his site and on knowing this on 24-06-2012, LW- 1 and LW-2 asked the accused at the bus stop that why he leveled the tomb and then the accused became angry and told him that it is his wish to do that and who is LW-1 to ask him and beat LW-1 with hands on the middle of the head and caused dumb injuries and meanwhile LW-3 and LW-4 2 intervened in the middle and separated them. Basing on the complaint of

L.W.1, L.W.8 registered a case in Cr.No.41/12 and investigated into the case.

LW-7 who treated LW-1 issued wound certificate and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. After completion of investigation LW-8, S.I. of police,

Holagunda P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. Cognizance of offence U/Sec. 323 of IPC taken against the accused.

4. When the accused appeared before the court he was furnished with copies of documents and examined u/sec. 251 of Cr.P.C. He denied the accusation.

5. On behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined, and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked. On behalf of defence no witness is examined but Ex.D1 was marked.

6. After the closure of prosecution the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, in which they once again denied the accusation.

7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt ?

8. The learned counsel of the prosecution argued that the evidence of PW-1 who is defacto complainant supported by the evidence of PW-2 to

PW-4 who are eye witnesses and their evidence was also supported by PW-5 who is the Medical Officer and the evidence of PW-6 who is Investigating

Officer was clearly established the guilt against the accused and hence prays to convict the accused for the offence under section 323 of IPC.

9. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that there are discrepancies in the evidence of PW-1 to PW-5. The evidence of

Investigating Officer is not in consonance with the story of the prosecution and hence prays to acquit the accused.

3

10. In this case the prosecution has cited as many as eight witnesses but examined only six witnesses as PWs. 1 to 6. Admittedly, PW-1 is the defacto complainant. PW-2 to PW-4 are the eye witnesses. PW-5 is the

Medical Officer. PW-6 is the Investigating Officer.

11. Now let me consider the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 one after the another. When the evidence of P.W.1 is perused he deposed that PW-2 is his son. He know PW-3, PW-4, LW-5 and LW-6. About two years ago his younger son was died and he buried him in the field adjacent to the grave yard. The government revenue authority issued house site plot to the accused and the tomb of his son is included in the house plot of accused. The accused leveled the tomb present in the site. On 24-06-2012 he and PW-2 went to see the tomb of his son and asked the accused at the bus-stop why he leveled the tomb and accused became angry and told him that it is his wish to do that and who is he to ask him and beat him with hands on the middle of his head and caused dumb injuries and also accused beat him with hands and legs and pulled his down and the same is witnessed by PW-2 to PW-4, LW-5 and

LW-6 and accused also threatened him not to prefer complaint. Hence complaint given by him on 25-06-2012 at about 10-00 PM. Ex.P1 is the complaint. PW-1 in his cross examination admitted that on 24-06-2012 accused filed a complaint against him and his son under sections 355, 506 r/w.34 IPC and section 3(i)(X) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 and same is registered. On the date of incident he went to hospital. Ex.P1 drafted by S.I.

on his instructions. At the time of incident several people were present at the scene of offence. The houses of Allasab and Sonti Vannur Sab are situated adjacent to the bus-stand and accused beat on the middle of his head on 20 times and caused injuries and several criminal cases are pending before this court against him. The case filed by accused under section SC& ST Act commenced for trial. The learned counsel of accused suggested that the

Ex.P1 registered on 24-06-2012 but not on 30-06-2012 and present case filed by him after lapse of five days. Through PW-1 Ex.D1 is marked. As per Ex.P1, 4

PW-1 stated that the tomb of his son located the patta land of accused. On perusal of chief and cross examination of PW-1, PW-1 in his chief stated that he buried his son in the field adjacent to the grave yard, but as per Ex.D1 he categorically admitted that the tomb of his son located in the accused field and further admitted that accused filed a case against him and his son under sections 355, 506 r/w 34 IPC and section 3(i)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, on 25-06-2012. As per Ex.P1 the date of incident is on 24-06-2012 but PW-1 preferred complaint on 25-06-2012 at about 10-00 PM and further PW-1 stated that accused beat on the middle of the head on 20 times. The PW-5 deposed that PW-1 received injury on right parietal region of head and he examined on 26-06-2012. Hence the evidence of PW-1 having inconsistencies and discrepancies and in view of Ex.D1 the evidence of PW-1 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

12. When the evidence of PW-2 who is the son of PW-1 is perused he deposed that about four years back his brother Lakshmikanth died and they buried him adjacent field of grave yard. On 24-06-2012 he and PW-1 went to bus stop and accused was present and at that time PW-1 asked the accused why he leveled the tomb. Then the accused become angry and told him that it is his wish and they used to ask him and beat PW-1 with hands on the middle of the head and caused dumb injuries. Later PW-3 and PW-4 intervened and separated PW-1 and accused. PW-2 in his cross examination admitted that on 30-06-2012 police examined him and he came to know that the deceased tomb is in accused field through elders of his village. The village burial ground is adjacent to the land of accused and accused filed a case against him and PW-1 under SC & ST Atrocities Act. Several persons were present at the time of incident. PW-1 not taken the treatment after the incident. PW-1 preferred complaint on the same day but PW-1 admitted in the cross examination that the date of incident is on 24-06-2012 but he preferred complaint on 25-06-2012 at about 10-00 PM. On perusal of chief and cross examination of PW-2 it is clear that the deceased tomb is in 5 accused field and accused filed a case against him and PW-1 under SC & ST

Atrocities Act and he do not know about the time of giving complaint by PW-

1. Hence the evidence of PW-2 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

13. When the evidence of PW-3 is perused he deposed that on 24- 06-2012 at about 08.00 AM the accused and PW1 quarrelled and accused beat PW1 with hands on the head of PW-1 and caused dumb injuries. Then he and PW-4 intervened and rescued PW1 from the hands of the accused and the accused and PW1 quarrelled with regard to the destroying the tomb of son of PW1 by accused. PW-3 in his cross examination admitted that at the time of incident he standing from a distance of 5 feet of PW-1. Accused beat two times to PW-1. The tomb of PW-1’s son located in government land. At the time of incident 15 to 20 people gathered in the scene of offence and the scene of offence is a busy locality. The learned counsel of accused suggested that he obtained the loan from PWf-1. Hence he is deposing falsely in order to help PW-1. Though PW-3 denied, PW-1 in his cross examination deposed that accused beat 20 times on the middle of his head. But whereas PW-3 who is an eye witness deposed that accused beat two times to PW-1 and he admitted that the tomb of PW-1’s son located in land and same is given to accused for construction of the house and further deposed that at the time of incident he is standing from five feet of PW-1. Hence there are several discrepancies in the evidence of PW-3. Hence the evidence of PW-3 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

14. When the evidence of PW-4 who is an eye witness is perused he deposed that about 2 ½ years back about 08-00 AM PW1 and accused quarreled with each other and accused beat PW1 with hand on PW-1’s head and with regard to the destroying of PW1’s son tomb. Then he and PW-3 intervened and separated PW-1 and accused. PW-4 in his cross examination admitted that at the time of incident he was sitting in bus stand after taking tea and accused beat two or three times to PW-1. The galata took half an hour time. The scene of offence is a busy locality. PW-1 buried his son’s dead 6 body in burial ground, but PW-1 admitted that he buried his son’s dead body adjacent to the burial ground and accused beat him 20 times. But whereas

PW-4 deposed that PW-1 buried his son’s dead body in burial ground and accused beat PW-1 two or three times. Hence there are several discrepancies in the evidence of PW-4. Hence the evidence of PW-4 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

15. When the evidence of PW-5 who is Medical Officer is perused he deposed that on 26-06-2012 at about 12.15 AM he examined PW-1 and found

1) a contusion on the right parietal region of the head 4cmX4cm bluish red in colour and 2) pain and tenderness on the left parietal region of the head. He is of the opinion that the above injuries are simple in nature and were 12 to 24 hours old. He issued wound certificate to that effect. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate of PW-1. PW-5 in his cross examination admitted that the injuries is above 12 hours and the colour of injury is bluish red. When the evidence of

Medical Officer is that he treated PW-1 on 26-06-2012 at about 12-15 AM and when the evidence of PW-1 who is injured and Investigating Officer is that

PW-1 preferred complaint on 25-06-2012 at about 10-00 PM. A doubt arises which version has to be believed and particularly the evidence of PW-5 is that the injury is about 12 hours. PW-1 deposed that on 24-06-2012 at about 08-00 AM accused beat him and whereas PW-5 treated PW-1 on 26-06-2012.

When the evidence of PW-1 is taken into consideration the evidence of PW-5 has to be disbelieved and if the evidence of PW-5 is taken into consideration the evidence of PW-1 has to be disbelieved in view of major inconsistency.

On the other hand PW-1 has categorically admitted in his cross examination that accused beat on the middle of his head. But whereas Ex.P2 injury on the right parietal region of the head 4 X 4 cms bluish in red colour. Hence the injuries as deposed by PW-1 are perused he sustained injury on the middle of the head. Bu the injury as stated by PW-5 is perused that PW-1 having injury on right parietal region. Therefore, the injuries as stated by PW-1 and PW-5 7 are not similar and as such the evidence of PW-5 cannot be given much weight.

16. When the evidence of PW-6 who is Investigating Officer is perused he deposed that on 18-03-2012 PW-1 came to police station at about 10-00 PM and preferred a oral compliant and the same is reduced in writing by him. Ex.P3 is the FIR. Ex.P4 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. PW-6 in his cross examination admitted that the accused son filed a case against PW-1 in respect of same dispute with same allegations and accused son filed a case against PW-1 before filing complaint by PW-1. As per

Ex.P3 he received information on 30-06-2012. The scene of offence is a busy locality and he did not examine Chandranna, Gundamma, Khasim, Mission

Ramudu, Hussain Sab who are cited in rough sketch. The houses of PW-3,

PW-4, LW-5 and LW-6 houses are not near by the scene of offence and the disputed land belongs to the accused and a patta issued to the accused by the Government and he did not observe any tomb in disputed land. As per the investigation PW-1 not received any injury. The evidence of Investigating

Officer is only a piece of corroboration to the main evidence. When the evidence of PW-1 and pW-2 is perused it appears that the accused filed a case against PW-1 and PW-2 under SC & ST Act and PW-1 buried his son’s dead body in accused land which is adjacent to the burial ground and there are several discrepancies in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and the evidence of PW-5 who is Medical Officer is quite against the entire story of the prosecution.

17.From the foregoing discussion I hold that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 who are father and son were not supported by any independent witness and even the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is filled with exaggerations and discrepancies which were not explained properly by the Investigating

Officer and accordingly the accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt.

8

18. In the result, I found accused is not guilty for the offence U/sec.

323 of IPC and he is acquitted U/sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall be in force for six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 19th day May, 2015.

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Alur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Defence :

P.W.1 : Vadde HussainappaNil P.W.2 : V.Viswanath Raju P.W.3 : Allah Sab P.W.4 : Kuruva Linganna P.W.5 : Dr.Vishweshvaraiah P.W.6 : S.Lakshmi Narayana

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P.l : Complaint Ex.P.2 : Wound certificate Ex.P.3 : FIR Ex.P.4 : Rough sketch

For Defence :

Ex.D.1 : Underlined portion in the complaint

M.Os. Marked Nil.

JMFC,ALUR.

// True copy //

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Alur.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ALUR.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT IN C.C.No. 160/2012

1. Date of Offence: 24-06-2012

2. Date of report/complaint: 30-06-2012

3. Date of apprehension of appearance: 13-07-2012 of accused

4. Date of release of accused on bail: 13-07-2012

5. Date of commencement of trial: 17-12-2013

6. Date of close of trial: 08-04-2015

7. Date of Judgment: 19-05-2015

8. Complainant: Sub- Inspector of Police, Holagunda PS (Cr.No.41/2012)

9. Description of Accused:

Harijana Hussainappa, S/o. Sekappa, Age 49 years, R/o. Gajjehalli Village, Holagunda Mandal.

10. Offence: u/s 323 of IPC

11. Plea of Accused: Not guilty

12. Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or Order: In the result, I found accused is not guilty for the offence U/sec. 323 of IPC and he is acquitted U/sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall be in force for six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

14. Fine amount: ---

15. Explanation for the delay: This case was taken on file on 01-09- 2012. On 03-09-2012 copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On 11-09-2012 accused is examined under section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code and he pleaded not guilty. From 17-12-2013 to 08-04-2015, PW-1 to PW-6 are examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P4 are marked and prosecution side evidence closed. On 01-05- 2015, the accused is examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to which he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf and posted for arguments. On 08-05-2015, arguments heard on both sides and posted for judgment. On 19-05-2015, judgment pronounced vide separate judgment. Hence the delay.

Sd/- A.Shobha Rani

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, ALUR. Copy Submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool. // True copy //

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Alur.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALUR.

PRESENT: Smt. A.Shobha Rani.,B.A.M.L., Junior Civil Judge, Alur.

Saturday, the 30 th day of May, 2015.

O.S.No. 27/2013

Between :

Bhogam Parvathamma, W/o. B.Siddappa, Hindu, Aged 28 years, Housewife, R/o. Chinna Hoturu Village, Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District. ….Plaintiff

And

Mallapuram Hanumanthappa, S/o. M.Machanna, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Business, R/o. Peddahoturu Village, Alur Mandal, Kurnool District. ..… Defendant

This suit coming on 29-04-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Mahadevudu, Advocate for the plaintiff, and of Sri

K.Ravi, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.47,560/- being the principal and interest due under a promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for

Rs.29,000/- dated 13-06-2010.

2. The averments of the plaintiff are as follows:-

The plaintiff submits that on 13-06-2010 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.29,000/- from him and executed a demand promissory note on the same day agreeing to repay the same to him or his order with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and he made repeated demands to the defendant but defendant not paid any amount to him.

Then he issued legal notice on 13-02-2013 to the defendant. Even though he received notice he could not paid any amount to him and he 2 is entitled to recover the entire amount due under the pronote debt

dated 13-06-2010 and original postal receipt is misplaced in the office

and interest is claimed as per the Contract Act and the defendant is a business man. Hence the present suit is filed.

3. The averments of the written statement are as follows:-

The defendant subsequently denies all the allegations made in the plaint and submits that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed the suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff particularly on 13-06-2010 and there is no necessity for him to borrow the amount from the plaintiff and plaintiff forged the signature of him in the alleged suit pronote and the same is created for the purpose of filing of this suit.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

3. To what relief?

5. On behalf of plaintiff P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and

Ex.A.1 and A.2 were marked. On behalf of defendant, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and no document were marked.

6. Issue No.1 : To prove this issue the burden is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1 and reiterated all the contents mentioned in the plaint. She further deposed that one

Anjinaiah, Golla Siddappa attested the promissory note and one Ranga

Reddy scribed the same. Through her Ex.A1 and A2 are marked. The

Ex.A1 is the promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff was marked. The Ex.A2is the legal notice. In the cross examination she 3 admitted that since four years she know the defendant. She brought printed pronote and revenue stamps from Chinna Hotur. Though the defendant is an agriculturist and doing construction work. The cross examination of PW-1 his chief examination was not impeached.

7. When the evidence of PW-2 who is the attestor is perused he deposed that on 13-06-2010 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.29,000/- from the plaintiff and he and Golla Siddappa are the attestors and one Ranga Reddy is the scribe of Ex.A1. The defendant after going through the contents subscribed and put his left thumb impression on Ex.A1 and then he and Siddappa also attested the same and plaintiff gave Rs.29,000/- to the defendant. In the cross examination

PW-2 admitted that at the time of execution of Ex.A1, he, plaintiff, Ranga

Reddy and one Siddappa were present. Two revenue stamps affixed in

Ex.A1 by Ranga Reddy. PW-2 almost supported the version of PW-1.

8. When the evidence of PW-3 who is another attestor is perused he deposed that on 13-06-2010 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.29,000/- from the plaintiff and he and B.Anjinaiah are the attestors and one Ranga Reddy is the scribe of Ex.A1. The defendant after going through the contents subscribed and put his left thumb impression on Ex.A1 and then he and B.Anjinaiah also attested the same and plaintiff gave Rs.29,000/- to the defendant. In the cross examination

PW-3 categorically admitted that at the time of execution of Ex.A1 he,

PW-1, PW-2 and defendant were present. The denomination of Ex.A1 is

Rs.100/-. At the request of defendant he signed in Ex.A1 and defendant put his thumb impression in Ex.A1 in two places. PW-3 also supported the version of PW-1.

9. When the evidence of PW-4 who is scribe is perused he deposed that on 13-06-2010 he, PW-2 and PW-3 sitting on a pial and 4 defendant requested them to accompany him to the house of the plaintiff. Then he and Siddappa accompanied the defendant to the house of the plaintiff and Ex.A1 was written by him and defendant put left thumb impression on Ex.A1. Then plaintiff gave Rs.29,000/- to the defendant. PW-4 in his cross examination admitted that the defendant used to do vadde work in his village. He scribed the Ex.A1 on the instructions of defendant. From the evidence of this witness in his cross examination, the veracity of witness in chief examination has not been shattered. In these circumstances the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 coupled with Ex.A1 clearly shows that consideration was passed to the defendant. Once execution is proved as per section 118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act the promissory note is nothing for consideration. Hence the plaintiff has successfully established Ex.A1 and A2.

10. Now the burden is on the defendant to rebut the same.

The defendant himself examined as DW-1. When the evidence of DW-1 is perused he deposed that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and the plaintiff is a stranger to him and plaintiff forged the thumb impression and filed this suit with an intention to get wrongful gain. DW-1 in his cross examination admitted that he is working as

Mason and earning Rs.400/- per day and having eight acres of land.

11. When the evidence of DW-2 is perused he deposed on the same lines of DW-1. DW-2 in his cross examination admitted that at the request of defendant he is deposing as a witness and he was not present at the time of execution of Ex.A1. Hence the evidence of DW-2 is not helpful to the defendant.

12. From the foregoing discussion the plaintiff has established his case and accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

5

13. ISSUE No.2 : In this case the plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of Ex.A.1 and he proved the contents of Ex.A.1 through the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4. Once the execution is proved the defendant is liable to pay the debt under Ex.A1. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

14. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 and 2 the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit debt. In the result the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.47,560/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.29,000/-

Dictated by Personnel Assistant, transcribed by him corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of May, 2015.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ALUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

P.W.1 : Bhogam Parvathamma D.W.1 : M.Hanumanthappa

P.W.2 : B.AnjanaiahD.W.2 : Anand

P.W.3 : Golla Siddappa

P.W.4 : K.Ranga Reddy 6

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff : For Defendant

Ex.A.1 : Promissory note for Rs.29,000/- executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A.2 : Office copy of Lawyer’s notice dated 26-02-2013

JCJ, Alur.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ALUR.

PRESENT: Smt. A.Shobha Rani.,B.A.M.L., Junior Civil Judge, Alur.

Saturday, the 30 th day of May, 2015.

O.S.No. 27/2013

Between :

Bhogam Parvathamma, W/o. B.Siddappa, Hindu, Aged 28 years, Housewife, R/o. Chinna Hoturu Village, Aspari Mandal, Kurnool District. ….Plaintiff

And

Mallapuram Hanumanthappa, S/o. M.Machanna, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Business, R/o. Peddahoturu Village, Alur Mandal, Kurnool District. ..… Defendant

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.47,560/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 13-06-2010 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.29,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. Interest is claimed at the contract rates as the defendant is doing business. In spite of issuance of legal notice on 13-02-2013, the defendant fails to pay the amount.

Plaint presented on 19-03-2013, filed on 20-03-2013, Jurisdiction value of Rs.47,560/- and a Court fee of Rs.2,326/- is paid U/Sec.20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

This suit coming on 29-04-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Mahadevudu, Advocate for the plaintiff, and of Sri K.Ravi, Advocate for defendant, and this court doth order and decreed as follows:

(1)That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed; (2)That the defendant do pay a sum of Rs.47,560/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.29,000/-; and (3)That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,120/- being the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, on this the 30th Day of May, 2015.

Junior Civil Judge, Alur.

Memo of Costs

For PlaintiffFor Defendant 8

1. Stamp on vakalath 2-00No C.M. & F.C. filed --

2. Stamp on plaint 2326-00--

3. Stamp on process 65-00--

4. Advocate fee 2727-00--

----------------

Total5,120-00-- --------------

J.C.J., Alur.