Smt. A.swarnalatha

C.C. No.753 of 2017 12th May, 2023

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: AT MIRYALGUDA.

Present: SMT. A.SWARNALATHA

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Miryalaguda

Dated this the 12th day of May, 2023

C.C.No. 753 of 2017

[Cr.No.07 of 2017, PS. Miryalguda II Town]

Between:

The State, Police, through S.I of Police, PS. Miryalguda II Town.

.... Complainant

A n d

1.Gunda Subba Rao S/o. Narayana, Age: 56 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 4-560, Tripuraram Village and Mandal.

2.Gunda Vinod S/o. Subba Rao, Age: 27 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 4- 560, Tripuraram Village and Mandal. …. Accused

O0O

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Krishna Prasanna, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of K. Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for accused no.1 and 2; upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01)The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalguda II Town P.S., laid charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 for the offences U/Secs.420, 406 of IPC and

Sec. 4,5,8,9, 11, 12 and 13 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 in Crime No. 07/2017 with a prayer to punish the accused for the alleged offences.

2.1) The Brief facts of the prosecution case is that:

On 13-01-2017 at 18.00 hrs, Miryalguda II Town P.S. received a Court referred case in which defacto complainant Bachu Satyam/PW-1 stated that he is a retired employee as depot Manager in F.C.I department in the year 2013 and accused persons are well known to him. Further stated that accused 1

C.C. No.753 of 2017 12th May, 2023 no.1 holds a good name in the business community in the area of

Miryalaguda. Accused no.1 is running chit fund business since last several years. PW.1 subscribed chits running by accused no.1 and he is paying the chit amount as paid by the PW.1. In the year, 2013 accused no.1 and 2 approached and requested him to join as a member in their chit for Rs.

5,00,000/- and the installments shall be 25 months for a payment of Rs.

20,000/- per each month. Accordingly chit commenced on 15.02.2013 and ended by 15.02.2015. The total Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid by the PW.1 and accused added bonus/commission on each installment, but said amount was not paid by the accused to PW.1. Even after one month of end of due period i.e., 15.02.2015. PW.1 tried to get solve the said issue with the mediation of well wishers and aid of known persons to both parties but in vain.

2.2) PW.1 vexed with the attitude of accused no.1 and 2, gave a complaint to

Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda district on 25.10.2015 who forwarded the complaint to the DSP, Miryalguda to take action as per law. PW.1 submitted a complaint to DSP, Miryalguda on 30.01.2016 to take action as per law in turn said DSP sent the same by directing the S.I of police, Tripuraram to solve the issue by calling both parties and if not solved register a case. But since several months there is no action taken by the said S.I on which PW.1 got issued a legal notice on 16.10.2016 demanding accused no.1 and 2 to pay amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest from the due date 15.02.2015 @ 2% per month through registered post which was refused by accused no.1. Basing on the above complaint, PW.3/Inspector of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.07/2017 and investigated into. On completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

03) This court took cognizance for the offences U/Secs. 420, 406 of IPC and

Sec. 4,5,8,9, 11, 12 and 13 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 against accused no.1 and 2. 2

C.C. No.753 of 2017 12th May, 2023

04) On appearance of the accused no.1 and 2, the relevant copies of documents are furnished required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

05) On appearance and consideration, accused no.1 and 2 were examined

U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and framed Charges U/Sec.240 Cr.P.C for the offences

U/Secs.420, 406 of IPC and Sec. 76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 against accused no.1 and 2, read over to them in Telugu. Having understood the same they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06) The prosecution to prove its case has examined PW.1 to PW.3 and exhibited P1 to P3. On the other hand none were examined and no exhibits got marked on behalf of the accused no.1 and 2. The details of which are mentioned in Appendix of evidence.

07) After closure of prosecution evidence, accused no.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence appeared against them. For which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their behalf.

08) Heard the Learned APP., and the Learned Defense counsel. Perused the material on record.

09) Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond

reasonable doubt to convict Accused for the charges

punishable U/Secs. 420, 406 of IPC and Sec. 76 of Chit

Funds Act, 1982 ?”

10) POINT: (a) It is the case of prosecution that accused no.1 and 2 cheated PW.1 and made criminal breach of trust by inducing PW.1 to join in their chit. Accordingly PW.1 joined Rs 5,00,000/- chit and paid all installments but accused no.1 did not pay the chit amount to PW.1 on completion of chit installment even though he waited for some time. 3

C.C. No.753 of 2017 12th May, 2023

11) To prove its case prosecution has examined PW1 who testified that accused no.1 is running Chit fund business since 8 years and accused no.1 and 2 requested PW.1 in the month of January, 2013 to join chit worth of Rs.

5,00,000/- commenced from February, 2013 for an installment of Rs.

20,000/- p.m for total 25 months. Accordingly PW.1 joined and paid the Chit amounts upto 21 months and remaining four months he unabled to pay due to his ill health and the chit was completed by February, 2015. After completion of the chit, accused no.1 and 2 told him to wait for one month for payment of entire chit amount. On that PW.1 waited and approached them and asked for his chit amount. But accused no.1 and 2 both requested PW.1 to wait for another 5 or 6 months for payment. After lapse of six months PW.1 along with LW.2/Vinay Reddy asked accused for the chit amount, on which accused stated that they do not have the amount and do what PW.1 would like to. Then PW.1 addressed a letter to S.I, Nalgonda and D.S.P, Miryalguda for non payment of his amount by accused persons. The DSP entrusted the matter to the then S.I of police, Tripuraram who failed to register the case as such PW.1 approached the Hon’ble Court and filed a private complaint. Further deposed that the original chit pass book was taken away by accused no.1 and 2 in the last installment of the chit to verify whether PW.1 is due any installments or not and kept with them and not returned by them even PW.1 requested to return the chit pass book of PW.1.

12) PW.1 during the cross examination deposed that he do not know when he filed the complaint but it is in the month of July, 2017 and he did not mention in his complaint that the accused is doing chit Fund business with license. He do not remember whether he mentioned in complaint that he had paid the entire amount towards chit, but sated before his counsel that he paid for only 21 months and actual chit is for 25 months. Further deposed that he has no other job except the government job and no pension is received by 4

C.C. No.753 of 2017 12th May, 2023 him. PW.1 has no idea when police examined him but along with him none were examined. LW.2 and his parents are well known to PW.1. Accused no.1 and 2 are no way connected with or having acquaintance with LW.2. PW.1 do not remember whether he mentioned in his complaint regarding his inability to pay last four installments due to ill-health. PW.1 stated that he mentioned in Ex.P1 that when he went to accused to collect the chit amount they asked him to wait 5 or 6 months and when again he went to accused along with

LW.2 and asked for payment of his chit amount they told that they did not have amount, do as he like. On that PW.1 given report to S.I of police,

Nalgonda and DSP, Miryalguda to get his payment and DSP entrusted the same to the then S.I. Tripuraram who failed to register the case.

13) He further deposed that he mentioned in his complaint that the original chit pass book was taken away by the accused to verify whether he is due any installments or not and kept with them who did not return even after requesting. However PW.1 nowhere mentioned neither in Ex.P1 nor in his earlier statement to Police that he went near the accused by accompanying

LW.2 to ask chit amount paid by him. He did not file any documents before the court that the accused is running chit business since last 8 years and he failed to file other chit members list before the court and not even chose to bring one of subscribers as witness to elicit that he joined in Rs.5,00,000/- chit in accused chit business. Further PW.1 did not show that he retired in the year, 2013 and that he is having capacity to pay the chit installments and accused running chit business and for the first time witness deposed that he paid 21 installments only before the court. There are improvements in his evidence which are contradicting.

14) PW.2 testified that he do not know anything about the case facts and turned hostile. During the cross examination by the learned APP also he have 5

C.C. No.753 of 2017 12th May, 2023 given complete go-bye to his earlier statement under Ex.P2 and nothing was elicited against accused no.1 and 2 regarding they indebted chit amount to

PW.1 and that his evidence is not supported the case of prosecution. Further

LW.2/P.Vinay Reddy not turn up to depose evidence before the court even granting sufficient opportunity. Thus, to avoid unnecessary delay in disposal of this matter his evidence is closed.

15) PW.3/Investigating Officer testified that on 13.01.2017 at 6.00 P.M he received a complaint from the Hon’ble JFCM court, Miryalguda basing on the contents of said complaint he registered a case in Cr. No. 07 of 2017 for the offences u/sec. 420,406 of IPC, sec. 4,5,8,9,11,12 and 13 of Chit Fund Act, 1982 and issued F.I.R accordingly. PW3 sent the original FIR to court and took up investigation. During the course of investigation PW.3 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at Miryalaguda II Town police station. On the following day i.e., 14.01.2017 he examined and recorded the statement of

LW2/P. Vinay Reddy at police station. On the same day he visited the municipal complex of Miryalguda and there he examined and recorded the statement of PW2. Thereafter on 26.04.2017 he served 41-A Cr.P.C notice on the accused No.1 and 2 on such notice they were complied with as such he served notices u./sec. 41 A (3) on 29.04.2017. On completion of investigation he field charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2. PW2 stated before him as in EX. P2. Original FIR is marked as Ex. P3.

16) During cross examination PW.3 deposed that on 13.01.2017 he received a complaint from the Hon’ble court under Ex. P1. He sent Ex. P3 to the court on 14.01.2017 but he do not remember when Ex. P3 reached to the court. On confrontation of FIR PW.3 stated it was reached to the court on 17.01.2017.

PW.3 not obtained signature of the PW.1 at column No.14 of Ex. P3 so also not mentioned the time at column No. 15 therein. Witness admitted that at 6

C.C. No.753 of 2017 12th May, 2023 column No.6 of the private complaint is mentioned as Thripuraram police station. Witness added that it comes into their jurisdiction. It is further admitted that at column No. 3 of the private complaint the transaction made with accused No.1 and the default made by him will not fall in their jurisdiction.

17) PW.3 further stated that he had not enquired regarding the private complaint made by PW1 firstly to Tripuraram PS then to S.P of Nalgonda and

DSP of Miryalaguda in that aspect. He had not examined any other chit members as alleged by the PW1 run by accused No.1 and also not examined the registrar of chits whether the accused are holding license. He had not collected any original chit receipts or books alleged to be run by accused no.1.

Witness added that he has collected the Xerox copies shown by PW1. Further he did not enquire with the details of retirement particulars of PW1 employment. PW.3 admitted that it is not fall in his jurisdiction and there is a delay of 2 years in lodging private complaint which was referred by the court to investigate the case.

18) The evolution of evidence placed before the court is manifest that prosecution failed to establish the case on hand even the charges of chit funds

Act, 1982. As PW.3 categorically admitted that he did not enquire the case whether accused possessed any license to run chit business and to enquire with other subscribers with that aspect. Further the inducement made by accused no.1 and 2 also not elicited to attract the ingredients of cheating

U/Sec. 420 of IPC and PW.1 also even not choose to file earlier chits books to prove accused running chit business as he admittedly deposed previous also he subscribed chits run by accused persons. Furthermore PW.1 deposed that when accused threatened on demand made by him to repay chit amount after waiting six months, then he complained to DSP, Miryalguda and not to concern 7

C.C. No.753 of 2017 12th May, 2023 police station and why he straight away made complaint to DSP, Miryalguda is not explained by the prosecution.

19) Furthermore, the Lr. APP during the arguments submitted that accused no.1 and 2 are running chit business at Tripuraram and offence was occurred in Tripuraram police station jurisdiction. But police Miryalguda II Town registered Ex.P3 and filed charge sheet which was came to know when counsel for accused elicited this fact during cross examination of PW.3. But the prosecution has not taken any steps before closing its evidence and submitted it as objection during arguments. To this aspect it is pertinent to mention that accused no.1 and 2 came to the house of PW.1 at Miryalguda where he is residing and requested him to join in chit of Rs. 5,00,000/- going to be started on 15.02.2013 as PW.1 is having good relation with accused persons since last few years had joined in their chits previous also where initially PW.1 is not having knowledge of going to be cheated in the hands of accused. Therefore dishonest inducement was committed by accused persons at PW.1 house itself at Miryalguda which was not known to PW.1 and he joined in said new chit. As such because of accused inducement only PW.1 invested his money in chit run by accused persons as per allegation of Sec. 420 IPC.

Later on completion of chit installments and when accused dodged matter in repayment of chit amount paid by PW.1 then he came to know that accused persons cheated him. Neither the complainant nor the prosecution raised this objection including the accused till arguments.

20) FurtherSec. 180 of Cr.P.C also says the same that “when an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence the first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within in whose local jurisdiction either act was done”. Further, Sec. 462 of Cr.P.C also 8

C.C. No.753 of 2017 12th May, 2023 says that “No finding, sentence or order of any criminal court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions divisions, district, sub-division or other local area, unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice”. Therefore on considering the above discussion and provisions of the code this court proceeded further by discarding the prosecution submission made at the stage of fog end. At this juncture, this court relied on a case law which says “Trial in wrong place is not vitiated when the accused is not prejudiced” as held by the Hon’ble Apex court in AIR. 1966. SC. 128. Mangal das Raghavji Ruparel and Anr. Vs. State of

Maharashtra.

21) However, the present case is criminal breach of trust and cheating committed by accused as alleged by prosecution as well as offences U/Sec.

4,5,8,9,11 & 12 and 13 of Chit Funds Act. But the prosecution is utterly failed to prove its case for non filing licence to run chit business by accused no.1 and 2 as alleged and other relevant documents to ascertain that PW1 joined in chits even earlier to present disputed chit to prove that accused running chit business and thereby they have induced PW.1 deceitfully to join PW.1 in their new chit worth of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Furthermore PW1 deposed omissions that he paid only 21 months chit installments only instead of 25 months which is an omission and he suppressed said factum and made improvements by deposing he along with LW.2 went to accused for asking his chit amount but accused dragged in repay of chit amount to PW.1 further there is no other independent witnesses evidence to corroborate the case of prosecution except

PW.1 and PW.3/investigation officer whose evidence is nothing but procedural aspect that too defective investigation.

9

C.C. No.753 of 2017 12th May, 2023

22) Therefore, in view of the above discussion there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the accused no.1 and 2 and it is well settled principle that penal statues should be strictly construed when prosecution proves the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt, which is lacking in the present case on hand. As the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused, they are liable to be acquitted.

23) IN THE RESULT, the accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.420, 406 of IPCand they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Further accused no.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offence U/Sec.

76 of Chit Funds Act, 1982 and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds and the sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the unmarked case property if any is dealt as per procedure after lapse of appeal period.

(Typed to dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of May, 2023.)

Prl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda.

10

C.C. No.753 of 2017 12th May, 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE:

PW1: Bachu Satyam (Complainant/Victim) None

PW2: P. Venkata Chary (Circumstantial witness)

PW3: B. Saieashwar Goud (I.O & filed Charge sheet)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Private Complaint lodged by PW1.

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2.

Ex.P3: Original F.I.R

FOR DEFENSE:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

-NIL-

Prl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda.

11

C.C. No.723 of 2022 31st May, 2023

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: AT MIRYALGUDA.

Present: SMT. A.SWARNALATHA

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Miryalaguda

Dated this the 31st day of May, 2023

C.C.No. 723 of 2022

[Cr.No.98 of 2022, PS. Miryalguda II Town]

Between:

The State, Police, through S.I of Police, PS. Miryalguda II Town.

.... Complainant

A n d

Vemuri Krishna @ Chekuri Sreekanth Chowdari S/o. Ramaiah @ Venkata Rama Rao Chowdari, Age:54 years, Occ: Coolie, N/o. Kattakommagudem Village of Chilkur Mandal, Suryapeta District, Telangana State, H.No. 461/5, BSNL Exchange area, Kambampadu of Krishna District, 521402, present at Malkapur village of Jaggaiahpeta Mandal of NTR District. …. Accused O0O

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Krishna Prasanna, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.V. Pavan Kumar, Counsel for sole accused; upon hearing on both sides, 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, Miryalguda II Town P.S., laid charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence U/Sec.379 of IPC in Crime No.

68/2022 with a prayer to punish the sole accused for the alleged offence.

2) The Brief facts of the prosecution case is that:

On 19.04.2022 at 14.00 hrs, Miryalguda II Town P.S. received a Telugu complaint from defacto complainant Vankudothu Rambabu/PW-1 stating that he used to come to Mereddy Ramachandra Reddy Library at NSP Camp,

Miryalguda town daily from his village on his motor cycle bearing No.TS 05

ES 8422 for preparing competitive exams of Telangana state. On 17.04.2022 morning as usual he came to library on his bike at 10.00 hours and parked 1

C.C. No.723 of 2022 31st May, 2023 in front of library. After some time at 11.30 hours he came out and observed that some unknown offenders committed theft of his motor cycle which is worth of Rs.20,000/- and decamped with booty. As such the PW1 made complaint. Basing on the above complaint, the PW.4/S.I. of Police registered a case in Cr.No.68/2022 and investigated into. On completion of investigation PW.4 filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3)This court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec. 379 of I.P.C. against sole accused. On appearance of the accused, the relevant copies of documents are furnished required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The sole accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and framed Charges U/Sec.240

Cr.P.C for the offence U/S.379 of I.P.C. against accused, read over to him in

Telugu. Having understood the same he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4) The prosecution to prove its case has examined PW.1 to PW.4 and exhibited P1 to P7. The details of which are mentioned in Appendix of evidence. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence appeared against him for which accused denied the same and reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

5) The defense of the accused is the one of total denial.

6) Heard both sides.

7) Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond

reasonable doubt to convict Accused for the charge

punishable U/Sec. 379 of IPC.?”

8) Answer to the point is; that the sole accused has committed theft of motor cycle of PW.1 bearing no.

TS-05-ES-8422 and absconded. PW1 testified that on 17-04-2022 he parked 2

C.C. No.723 of 2022 31st May, 2023 his bike in front of Library at Miryalaguda at 10.00 AM and after completion of work when he came out at about 11.30 PM found his bike missing which worth’s Rs. 20,000/- and he does not know who committed theft. After due search on 19.04.2022 he lodged Ex. P1 to police Miryalaguda II Town. Later,

Police informed him about the recovery of bike and he took interim custody of the same vide Crl.M.P 187/2022, dt. 14.06.2022. Accused did not choose to cross examine PW.1.

9)PW.2 testified that on 19-04-2022 police II town Miryalaguda conducted a panchanama in his presence and in the presence of

LW.4/Dhanavath Balakrishna at library situated at NSP Camp, MLA quarters at Miryalaguda with regard to missing of bike of PW.1 which was committed theft on 17.04.2022 and police drawn a sketch map also in his presence.

However during the cross examination PW.2 deposed that he did not receive any summons to act as panch witness for said panchanama, but on the request of police he acted as panch which was conducted at 03.00 pm on the said day. He has no idea about the bike number of the vehicle. On the said day he went to scene of offence as usual to attend his work. He denied the suggestion that at the request of police he put his signatures on some empty papers as he was attending school van driver. Hence prosecution not bothered to remove cloud that witness is not a school driver or he was not present at any work place rather the scene of offence to show witness attended panchanama since his occupation is school bus driver.

10) PW.3 testified that on 01.06.2022 at Miryalguda fly over when he was proceeding, Police called him and requested to act as witness for panchanama and he went there with regard to bike theft committed by accused. The police conducted a panchanama in his presence at about 06.00 am and the first panchanama was conducted at Miryalguda fly over and the 3

C.C. No.723 of 2022 31st May, 2023 second panchanama at SS parking place situated at Miryalguda and police recovered 23 bikes at the instance of accused confession.Along with him,

Lw.6 was also present and witnessed the same and after recording the panchanama he along with LW.6 appended their signatures.

11) During the cross examination PW.3 deposed that on the date of panchanama, he was proceeding towards library at 6.00 a.m from his house.

The said fly over is about 3 kms distance to his house along with him LW6 also proceeding to fly over. While conducting Ex.P3 and 4 there were about 5 police persons present, but he cannot recollect them. The police person who called him to act as panch name is Saidi Reddy SI of police and in his presence only Ex.P3 and 4 were drafted by SI of police on the confession given by accused. After going through the Ex. P3 and 4, he put his signatures thereon. There are 3 police stations Suryapet, Khammam and

Mirylagdua mentioned in said panchanama. He has also no idea how many bikes in particular said police stations committed theft as per said panchanama but for completing the said panchanamas it took about 3 to 4 hours.

12) The distance between Miryalguda fly over to SS parking place is 1 ½ to 2 kms and they went to SS parking place in between 11 to 12 PM. He cannot remember how many persons were present at SS Parking place on that day he has not counted how many total bikes were parked at SS parking place.

Further, along with police persons and LW.6, PW.3 were went to SS parking place. He does not observe whether owner of the parking place was present by the time they reached there but when they went to parking place it was opened. He cannot say colours of seized 23 bikes under Ex.P4 some of them are Honda Shine and Honda Unicorn bikes. He does not know whether said bikes brought to police station as he left after recording PW3 and 4. It took one hour to complete the EX. P3 and 4 at SS parking place which is contra- 4

C.C. No.723 of 2022 31st May, 2023 dicting to his chief examination evidence. He cannot say the boundaries of

SS parking place. But he cannot say the said bike registration numbers and he does not know from whom and where the accused committed the theft of said bikes. If he really present during confession panchanama some thing would have to be depose about the places of offences or period of commis- sion when the accused committed theft of 23 bikes not all the details but to some extent which giving raise of doubt of this witness presence at record- ing confession panchanama which was not remained as rightfully argued by

Legal Aid counsel for accused.

13) PW.4 is Investigating officer. He testified that on 19.04.2022 about 2.00 PM he received a complaint from PW1 and registered the same as Cr.

No. 68 of 2022 for the offence u/sec. 379 of IPC and issued FIR, took up investigation and examined PW1 and recorded his statement in Part II CD.

Later he proceeded to scene of offence situated in from of library near municipal office in Miryalguda and examined LW2/V. Lalu and recorded his statement in part II CD and secured mediators D. Bala Krishna/PW.2 and recorded scene of offence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch map marked under Ex.P2. Thereafter, on 01.06.2022 while conducting vehicle checking at Hanumanpet fly over he arrested the accused person who was coming on a vehicle in a suspicious manner. On enquiry, he confessed his guilt in presence of punch witness Lw.6/R. Nageshwar Rao and PW.3.

PW.4/I.O has conducted confession panchanama and seized 23 bikes and then proceeded to SS parking area basing on his confession statement among which the present case property of CD unicorn motor cycle bearing no. TS 05 ES 8422 was seized and deposited the same into court. He produced accused for remand to the court for judicial custody. He had also recorded the statement of LW.3/3 Nagabhushanam at SS parking yard and on completion of entire investigation, he filed the charge sheet in this case.

5

C.C. No.723 of 2022 31st May, 2023

14) During the cross examination Pw.4 deposed that on 19.04.2022 Pw.1 lodged a complaint stating that some unknown person committed theft PW1 bike, but neither in Ex.P1 nor in 161 Cr.P.C statement he stated that he can identify the accused. He has not registered the FIR and it was computer entry on online and he cannot say how much time it took for registering FIR and recording statements of the witnesses and it took half an hour time for recording statement of Lw.2/Vankudothu Lalu at scene of offence. He along with his available staff proceeded to scene of incident. He admitted that there is no signatures of the witness on Ex.P2 at first page and Ex.P2 proceedings started at 14.50 hours and ended at 15.10 hours. He secured the presence of PW.2 and Lw.4 who were available at the incident. He admitted that the panch witnesses of Ex.P2 were came at his instructions to the incident as per panchanama contents and it took 20 minutes time to record the statement of Lw.3/J.Nagabhushanam at parking yard between 11.30 AM to 11.50 Am and at the time of conducting panchanama at parking yard Lw.3 only present.

15) He further deposed that at about 5.00 AM on 01.06.2022 they have started vehicle checking duty on the date of incident and along with him one head constable, two police constables were attended said checking duty.

They did not carry any vehicle checking instruments on the date of incident.

He secured the presence of panch witnesses while they were proceeding to the said place on the date of incident and about 1 hour after starting the vehicle checking duty, the panch witnesses came at scene of incident. He does not know the exact time, but half an hour after starting checking duty, the accused came at scene of incident. On the date of incident accused was proceeding on CBN Unicorn vehicle bearing No.TS 04 ER 3905. He denied the suggestion that one should cross over the SS parking yard to reach their patrolling spot on the date of incident and accused passed over said parking 6

C.C. No.723 of 2022 31st May, 2023 yard and came to scene of incident and as per the version of confession statement after para-23 one should pass over the SS parking yard from

Khammam Hospital to H.P petrol bunk, Miryalguda. Which show some contradictions regarding time taken for conducting scene of offence and tracing out list of 23 other theft vehicle information.

16) PW.4 admitted that at western side of scene of incident there is a

Hyderabad high way road and as per the version, after para-23 in confession statement and confession cum seizure panchanama the entire proceedings were conducted under fly over bridge Hanumanpet. The said panchanama proceeding were started at 6.00 am and concluded at 11.30 am and it was

dictated by him and typed by one of his constables. The total information

regarding the Crime Numbers and vehicle numbers were collected from online. On the date of Panchanama they proceeded to SS parking yard and reached at 10.30 am and he observed there were about 70 vehicles parked thereat. He has not taken any photographs of the same at parking yard and by the time he reached the parking yard and by the time he reached the parking yard, only owner was present. Pw.4 cannot say the above mentioned

CBN unicorn vehicle was related to which case it drove by the accused on the date of incident. He has produced the accused bike also before the court but no panchanama filed along with record to that effect. On which he came on the date of incident and they caught him. Further PW.4 admitted that if the said vehicle is also included with the seizure vehicles it come to 24 vehicles in total vehicles. He denied the suggestion that he caught hold the

Crime vehicle and the said panchanama was also made at the scene of incident in the present case etc. Here arise a doubt that if really PW4 conducted panchanama then why these discrepancies in evidence between

PW2, 3 and PW4. There is no answer to this question from prosecution.

7

C.C. No.723 of 2022 31st May, 2023

17) In this case the learned APP given up the evidence of LW.2 /Vankudothu Lalu, LW.3/Jerripothula Nagabhushanam, LW.4/Danavath

Balakrishna. Though recall petition for Lw.3 was filed by learned APP and allowed, and despite of giving sufficient opportunity, police failed to produce

Lw.3 and filed report stating that LW.3 is not available at given address, hence his evidence is closed. The evidence of Lw.6/Ramavath Nageshwar rao also closed as he refused to attend the court.

18) The evidence put before this court show that the prosecution has admittedly proved the factum of theft of bike which was occurred in front of the Library at NSP camp, Miryalguda hence it was seized and the complainant/Pw.1 has taken interim custody of the same vide Crl.MP.No.

187/2022, dt.14.06.2022. Later, the accused was arrested by PW.4/

Investigating Officer of this case and he recorded confession cum seizure under Ex.P3 and 4 in presence of PW.3 and LW.6. On perusal of confession cum seizure panchanama, it clearly discloses the 23 FIRs were registered already which is an impossible task to identify the cases within one hour as per PW.4 evidence and mentioned the same in the said panchanama by the concerned police. Further, it is also not believable that accused only revealed the crime numbers along with bike numbers and places of offences. As per admission made by PW.3 he testified that for confession cum seizure it took three to four hours time, but PW.4 testified that the proceedings were started at 6.00 a.m and concluded at 11.30 a.m which is fatal on prosecution case in proving Ex.P3 & P4 conducted by PW.4 beyond all reasonable doubt.

19) No doubt PW.4 clearly established his case to some extent that basing on the Ex.P5 & 3 panchanamas he filed charge sheet against accused, seizure vehicles deposited into court and interim custody of case property 8

C.C. No.723 of 2022 31st May, 2023 was given to petitioner/owner but the prosecution has failed to prove that the said crime vehicle were recovered from the possession of the accused at

SS parking yard due to contradictory statements made by PW.2, 3 & 4 in their evidence with regard to variations of conducting scene of offence and seizure panchanamas. The mentioning of 23 vehicles bearing with numbers and crime numbers by accused gives raise another doubt. Therefore, the case of prosecution not supported that accused only the real culprit of the offence so levied against him and most important one that accused is not identified by none of the witnesses. In said circumstances the prosecution is utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 379 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

20) In view of the above discussion there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the sole accused and it is well settled principle that penal statues should be strictly construed when prosecution proves the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt, which is lacking in the present case on hand. As the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused.

21) IN THE RESULT, the sole accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.379 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C for the said offence.

The bail bonds of accused person and his sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

Further the case property which was given for interim custody to PW.1 vide

Crl.MP.No.187/2022, orders dated 14.06.2022 is made absolute after appeal

period is over.

(Typed to dictation by steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of May, 2023.)

Prl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda. 9

C.C. No.723 of 2022 31st May, 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE:

PW1: Vankudothu Rambabu (Complainant) None

PW2: Ramavath Hema Naik (Panch witness)

PW3: Dharavath Veera (Panch witness)

PW4: A. Saidi Reddy (I.O & filed Charge sheet)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Report given by PW1.

Ex.P2: Scene of offence panchanama and Rough Sketch.

EX.P3: Confession panchanama.

EX.P4: Seizure panchanama.

Ex.P5: Original F.I.R

Ex.P6: Relevant portion of Ex.P4 Sl.No. 17.

Ex.P7: 04 photographs of the vehicle

FOR DEFENSE:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

M.O.1: Honda Shine Bearing NO. TS 05 EX 8455

Prl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda.

10

OS.No.123 of 2016 31st October, 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALGUDA

Monday this 31st day of October, 2022

Present: Smt A.Swarnalatha, Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- JMFC, Miryalguda.

O.S.NO. 123 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

Smt.Beeravolu Vanaja W/o Madan Mohan Reddy, Age:51 years, OCc: Agriculture, R/o Pamulapadu village, Vemulapally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

. . .Plaintiff

AND 1 Yatham Yadagiri Reddy S/o Narsimha Reddy, Age: 55 years, Occ:Agriculture 2 Yatham Chandrakala W/o Yadagiri Reddy, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture and Household 3 Yatham Sujitha D/o Yadagiri Reddy, Age: 28 years, Occ: Employee

All R/o Pamulapadu village, Vemulapally Mandal, Nalgonda District

... Defendants

@@@

This suit is coming up before me today for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri.G.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for the Defendants No.1 to 3, after hearing and on perusing the material on record and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed seeking perpetual injection restraining the defendants and their heirs, servants, workmen, supporters, henchmen etc from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule property.

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

1

OS.No.123 of 2016 31st October, 2022

a). Plaintiff is owner of agricultural land in Sy.No.144/A to an extent of Ac.1.14 gts apart from other land situated in the revenue limits of

Pamulapahad (V) of Vemulapally mandal, Nalgonda District. It is averred that husband of the plaintiff late B.Madan Mohan Reddy succeeded suit schedule property from his ancestors. Ever since the plaintiff and her husband are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. After the death of husband of plaintiff, plaintiff acquired the same. It is averred that during the life time of husband of the plaintiff he availed crop loan by depositing the original pass book. The plaintiff made application to revenue authorities to mutate her name and it is pending.

b) It is averred that defendants No.1 and 2 are the husband and wife, defendant No.3 is their daughter who is having land on southern side of schedule land. Defendants No.1 to 3 without having any manner of right over schedule lands frequently causing obstructions by taking advantage of death of the plaintiff’s husband. In the last week of May2016 while plaintiff attending the agricultural operations, the defendants with their men came upon suit land and obstructed the peaceful possession of the plaintiff from agricultural operations and tried to encroach the suit schedule property for which the plaintiff somehow resisted their illegal acts with great difficulty with the help of neighboring land owners. Hence the suit.

3. The defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement. The defendant

No.3 adopted the same.

a) Defendants 1 to 3 denied all plaint averments by stating in fact there is no land to plaintiff as described in plaint schedule property and contested that the defendants are owners of land in Sy.No.144/AA and 144 having inherited from their forefathers. It is contested that neither the plaintiff nor her husband were in possession over alleged suit schedule property.

2

OS.No.123 of 2016 31st October, 2022

Instead Plaintiff is trying to grab their property by filing present suit against them by suppressing all real facts.

b) It is further averred that the defendants are co-owners and that prayed to no injunction be passed against co-owner or coparcener. It is contested that late Beeravolu Madan Mohan Reddy had two children as such plaintiff has no locus standi to file suit being only legal heir to him. It is further contested that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties and that liable to dismiss in toto. As a matter of fact the plaintiff did not whisper anything about acquisition of suit land by her husband as he has no land in Sy.No.144. Further contested that pahani for the year1999-1998 is over written by striking out the name of B.Krishna

Mohan Reddy, the name of plaintiff husband was written without following the proceedings of mutation. It is also contested that B .Madan Mohan

Reddy name was striked and Mohan Reddy name was written without valid document or mutation proceedings. As such contested that the name of plaintiff in said records are wrong entries and does not create any title to the person therein.

c) It is contested that there are no documents to show that how the ancestors of plaintiff husband acquired land in Sy.No.144 as he did not filed any succession proceedings to that effect. As a matter of fact revenue officials did not made any succession or mutation in the name of plaintiff till today. It is admitted that defendant No.1 is having her land to an extent of

AC.3.03 GTS IN Sy.No.144/AA and defendant No.3 is having Ac.2.10 gts land in Sy.No.144. But plaintiff is not in a possession of suit schedule property at any point of time. Only by creating documents and suppressing the real facts she got filed suit. In fact defendants are in possession since the date of their acquisition and prior to it also their ancestors are in possession of the same and that prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs in the interest of justice.

3

OS.No.123 of 2016 31st October, 2022

4. Basing on the above pleadings. My predecessor has settled the following issues.

1)Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants. If so to what relief?

5. During the trial plaintiff got examined PWs 1 & 2 and relied upon

Exs.A1 to A8. On the other hand, defendants got examined DWs 1 & 2 and relied upon Exs.B1 to B19.

6. Issues No.1 & 2: It is the case of the plaintiff that her husband was owner and enjoyed agricultural land in Sy.No.144/A to an extent of ac.1.14 gts till his death apart from other landed properties situated at Pamulapadu village. After his death being his wife and legal heir she acquired the same from her husband who acquired the suit schedule properties from his ancestors. On the other hand defendants case is defendants NO.1 and 2 are having their lands in Sy.NO.144/AA and 144 having acquired from their ancestors. Defendant No.3 land is adjacent to suit schedule property and defendantNo.1 property is situated far away to suit schedule property. The defendants are agnates to plaintiff. The plaintiff by over writings of her husband name in pahani patrikas claiming the schedule property as their property.

7. To substantiate her case plaintiff herself got examined as Pw1 and reiterated entire contents of the plaint and relied upon Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is pattas pass book of her husband showing the details that he is pattadar of suit schedule property along with other landed properties without any over writings or corrections. Ex.A7 attested copy of family member certificate shows that plaintiff is legal heir of her deceased husband along with her son and daughter as alleged. The Ex.A2 to A6 are CC of pahani patrikas 4

OS.No.123 of 2016 31st October, 2022

reflecting the names of deceased Madan Mohan Reddy to an extent of

Ac.1.14 gts land as pattadar and possessor. Among which Ex.A2 is latest pahani dt: 6-6-2016 showing the husband of the plaintiff as pattadar and possessor of suit schedule property in Sy.NO.144/A. On the other hand on scrutinising the exhibits filed on behalf of defendant which shows the name of the husband of the plaintiff in Exs.B1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13 to 15 CC of pahani patrikas as pattadar nod possessor of suit schedule property. However

Exs.B3, 6, 8, 9 to 12, 18 & 19 were reflecting the name of defendants as pattadar and possessor of their lands in Sy.No.144/AA and 144. However,

The contents under Ex.B7 document are faded and Ex.B8 &10 reflecting the names of both parties to their respective extents in Sy.Nos as stated by both parties i.e. 144/A, plaintiff husband name 144/AA and 144 defendants names.

8. Now coming to the evidence of witnesses, PW1 during her cross examination deposed that her husband owned Ac.0.10 gts of land but she do not know its survey number. Through her parents she acquired Ac.0.05 gts and another AC.0.05 gts purchased by plaintiff and her husband which is not the suit survey land. She does not know how her husband acquired suit schedule property. But suit was filed for land in Sy.No.144. It is also not known to her about total extent land in Sy.No.144 and who was the pattadar of said land which is not fatal on her case as she filed the documents to prove her case. As there is a chance that being house wife could not remember the numbers and extents of their properties when the husbands maintaining the same. However, PW1 admitted that one Yatham family holds Ac.6-03 gts land in Sy.No.144. Defendant No.1 has younger brother by name Veera Reddy and their grandfather name is Ram Reddy.

Said Ac.6.03 gts land was acquired by Narsimha Reddy and Veera Reddy but she do not know their shares of joint family. Her father-in-law Laxma

Reddy having land but the extent and how much he acquired his share in partition also she do not know which shows the partition was done between 5

OS.No.123 of 2016 31st October, 2022

the families of plaintiff and defendants as rightfully contested by the defendants.

9. Plaintiff clearly admitted that she do not have documents to show suit schedule property fell into her husband share. But it is not the case of title or ownership instead injunction simplicitor for which possession over the suit schedule property is important and to that effect plaintiff got filed the pahani patrikas as on the date of filing the suit apart from previous pahani patrikas. Before the death of her husband and after his death also plaintiff or her children do not partitioned suit schedule property among them. At one instance this witness answered to one question that she did not know whether she is in possession of suit schedule property including the land of defendant No.1 and his daughter No.3 which is also not fatal on the case of plaintiff as enough documents were got filed to establish her case.

Whenever any dispute comes between oral evidence and documentary evidence, the documentary evidence prevail over the oral evidence in civil cases. As such plaintiff clearly established her case.

10. PW2 also deposed during the cross examination that defendant No.1 grandfather name is Ram Reddy and he owned land inSy.No.144. Said Ram

Reddy acquired land from his ancestors. Plaintiffs husband is younger brother of defendant No.1. He acquired landed property from his ancestors and defendant acquired his property through his ancestors. Therefore both parties are having their landed properties and that it is false that neither the plaintiff nor her husband have no property as contested by debts.

11. On the other hand defendant No.1 deposed evidence that his property is situated far away to suit schedule property. But the defendant No.3 land is situated adjacent to suit schedule property. He admitted that plaintiff filed police case against him for causing interference into Suit Schedule Property which is still pending. Further admitted that Brothers of Madan Mohan

Reddy were partitioned their properties. But tried to avoid answer by stating 6

OS.No.123 of 2016 31st October, 2022

he do not know whether patta pass book filed by him is reflecting the name of husband of plaintiff and she is having land in suit survey number. His evidence is clear that brother of plaintiff husband partitioned their properties who are not alive at present and defendant No.3 has land adjacent to Suit

Schedule Property defendants documents reflecting plaintiff husband name.

Therefore interference of defendant is proved as DW1 clearly admitted that for his interference police case was registered by plaintiff and it is still pending, Further DW2 a third party also tried to support the case of

Defendant No.1 but not succeeded.

12. From the above evidence it is observed that plaintiff husband and the defendant No.1 acquired their landed properties through their common ancestors which was partitioned. The same is well established from the exhibits filed on both behalf to that effect as per sub division of Sy.No.144.

Brother of Madan Mohan Reddy were partitioned their properties and he is agnate to husband of plaintiff. Dw2 also admitted that he went along with his maternal aunt after his marriage to Pamulapahad and was brought up there. His native place is Naranayana gudem of Pamulapahad. He has residential house adjacent to suit schedule property and as per defendants document plaintiff husband name is reflecting along with defendants which shows both the parties are having their lands in Sy.No.144.

13. Further on perusal of DW1 evidence it is clear that both parties are having their landed properties in Sy.No.144 only which was acquired through their ancestors and all of them are agnates to each other. The exhibits relied by both parties are reflecting their names and with respect of their shares in said divisional Sy.NO.144 as reflecting in their documents.

14. Therefore, it is crystal clear that Suit schedule property is situated in

Sy.o.144/A though PW2 could not say Sy.No. of suit schedule property but documents are clearly showing and reflecting her husband name. As per

DW1 evidence when plaintiff husband and his brother partitioned their 7

OS.No.123 of 2016 31st October, 2022

properties having acquired through ancestors in Sy.No.144 only obviously both of them are having their properties and that it is clear that long back both parties portioned their property but defendant No.3 got her landed property adjacent to suit schedule property and after demise of plaintiff husband they have started disputes with regard to boundaries. Further one could understand that being lost of male person in the family plaintiff is not able to protect her land property from the eyes of agnates and that as defendants are interfering into the suit schedule property she came to the court seeking help. Therefore, the prima facie case is well established and balance of convenience is also well proved through the documents of defendants also apart from plaintiff documents. As such if defendants are not restrained there is every possibility of irreparable loss to plaintiff being helpless woman as she lost her male elder person in the house who during his life time maintained the agricultural properties and now plaintiff is unable to mention on her own. Therefore, the issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants and that suit is liable to be deemed.

15. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants, their heirs, servants, workmen, supporters, henchmen and etc., from causing any sort of interference with the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(Dictated to stenographer transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 31st day of October,2022.)

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: PW-1: Smt.Beeravolu Vanaja- 8

OS.No.123 of 2016 31st October, 2022

PW-2: B.Madan Mohan Reddy

For Defendants: DW-1: Y.Yadagiri Reddy DW-2: N.Ram Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 Title deed pass book of B.Madan Mohan Reddy

Ex.A2 CC of pahani for 1425 Falsi Ex.A3 CC of pahani for the years 1999-2000

Ex.A4 CC of pahani for the years 2004-2005 Ex.A5 CC of pahani for the years 2010-2011

Ex.A6 CC of pahani for the years 2013-2014 Ex.A7 Attested copy of family members certificate dt:30-11-2015

Ex.A8 Attested copy of death certificate dt: 04-11-2015

For Defendants:

Ex.B1 CC of pahani for the years 1991-1992

Ex.B2 CC of pahani for the years 1992-1993

Ex.B3 CC of pahani for the years 1993-1994

Ex.B4 CC of pahani for the years 1994-1995

Ex.B5 CC of pahani for the years 1996-1997 (2 pages)

Ex.B6 CC of pahani for the years 1997-1998 (2 pages)

Ex.B7 CC of pahani for the years 1998-1999

Ex.B8 CC of pahani for the years 2001-2002

Ex.B9 CC of pahani for the years 2003-2004

Ex.B10 CC of pahani for the years 2006-2007

Ex.B11CC of pahani for the years 2007-2008

Ex.B12CC of pahani for the years 2008-2009

Ex.B13CC of pahani for the years 2009-2010

Ex.B14CC of pahani for the years 2010-2011

Ex.B15CC of pahani for the years 2011-2012 (2 pages)

Ex.B16CC of pahani for the years 2012-2013

Ex.B17CC of pahani for the years 2013-2014 (2 pages) 9

OS.No.123 of 2016 31st October, 2022

Ex.B18CC of pahani for the years 1424 Fasli

Ex.B19 CC of pahani for the years1425 Fasli

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

IOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

10

CC.No.1426 of 2014 14th November, 2022

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: AT MIRYALAGUDA.

Present: SMT. A.SWARNALATHA

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Miryalaguda.

Monday this 14th day of November, 2022

C.C.No.1426 of 2014

[Cr.No.140/2012, PS. Miryalaguda II Town]

Between

The State, Police, through S.I of Police,

PS. Miryalaguda II Town .... Complainant

A n d

1 Bantu Srinu, S/o. Yellaiah, Age: 44 years R/o. Ramachandragudem.

2 Bantu Ramaiah, S/o. Yellaiah, Age: 45 years, R/o. Ramachandragudem.

3 Kola Siadulu S/o. Latchaiah, age: 50 years Occ: Business R/o. Chaithanya nagar.

4 Bantu Saidulu S/o. Yellaiah age: 50 years Occ: Business, R/o. Shabunagar-Miryalaguda.

5 Appanaboina Venkanna S/o. Somaiah age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Yadgarpally Village.

6 Bantu Padma W/o. Late Saidulu age: 60 years Occ: House wife, R/o. Seetharampuram- Miryalaguda …. Accused

O0O

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Krishna Prasanna, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Ravinder Reddy, Counsel for the accused upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda II Town P.S. laid charge sheet against the above accused for the offences U/Secs.403,406,417,420 IPC in

Crime No.140/2012 with a prayer to punish the above accused for the alleged offences. 1

CC.No.1426 of 2014 14th November, 2022

02) The Brief facts of the prosecution case is that:

On 06.09.2012 the PW1 Bantu Nagaraju filed a private complaint stating that the complainant and deceased husband of accused No.6 namely late Bantu Saidulu are brothers. The accused No.1 to 4 are close relatives to complainant. During the life time of husband of Accused no. 6 there were disputes among family members regarding sell away of their joint family property to LW.11 an extent of Ac. 1-35 guntas in Sy. No. 902 situated at

By-pass road, Bangarigadda in respect of sharing of sale amount among them. For the above said settlement of dispute between the complainant and his brother the accused No.1 to 5 were acted as elders and LW11 paid a part of sale consideration amount of Rs. 9,48,500/- to accused No1. to 5 out of which they have paid sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to LW2 towards her share and accused No.1 to 5 retained the balance amount of Rs.54,98,500/- stating that they will hand it over the same to PW1 and his brother after disputes settled at once. Later, husband of accused no.6 was died and the complainant and LW2 requested accused no.6 to cooperate to recover the amount from accused no.1 to 5 but she did not come forward. On 20-08- 2010 complainant approached accused No.6 who disclosed that in the month of May, 2010 itself she along with other accused persons shared an amount of Rs. 4,48,500/- and she took her share amount and that denied to give any share to complainant out of the said amount. For which the complainant along with LW2 and PW2 approached accused on 20.08.2010 and demanded to pay their share amount. On that they have abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences. Which was made in collusion with accused no. 6 and accused no.1 to 5. There by accused persons cheated the complainant. As such, she complained to police.

2

CC.No.1426 of 2014 14th November, 2022

03)Basing on the private complaint, this court had referred the case to

SHO, Miryalaguda II Town for investigation under sec. 156 (3) and report.

After investigation LW10/Y. Mogilaiah, S.I of police, registered a case in

Cr.No.140/2012 for the offences U/Secs.403, 406, 417 & 506 of IPC and handed over the same to LW11/MD. Ahmed Pashawho investigated into and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

04. This court took cognizance for the offences U/Secs.403, 406, 417, 420 of IPC against accused No. 1 to 6.

05. On appearance of the accused, copies required under Section 207 of

Cr.P.C., were furnished and he was examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C and Charges

U/Secs. 403, 406, 417, 420 of IPC were framed against accused read over to them in Telugu, having understood the same they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. The prosecution to prove its case has examined PW's.1 to 5 and exhibited P1 and P2. On the other hand none were examined and no exhibits were marked on behalf of accused persons. The details of which are mentioned in Appendix of evidence.

07. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused no. 1 to 6 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence appeared against them for which they denied the same. When accused were called upon to enter upon their defense, they reported no defense evidence.

08. Heard the Ld. APP., and the Learned defense counsel. Perused the material on record.

09. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond

3

CC.No.1426 of 2014 14th November, 2022

reasonable doubt to convict the Accused for the charges

punishable U/Secs. 403, 406, 417, 420 of IPC ?” POINT:

10.It is the case of prosecution that complainant and accused persons are family members. When the husband of accused no.6 sold out joint family properties to LW11 the dispute arose for sharing of sale consideration among them. Accused no.1 to 6 in collusion with each other distributed sale amount among them leaving the complainant and cheated her.

11. The prosecution examined PW1 to 5 and relied upon Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 complaint and protest petition respectively. PW.1 the defacto complainant during his chief examination evidence deposed that after the death of his father, his mother sold away to an extent of Ac. 1.35 gts out of Ac.3.08 gts situated at By-pass road at Bangarigadda to LW9 and Sravan Kumar for consideration of Rs.49,50,000/- in the year 2009.Further out of said Ac.1.35 gts land Ac.0.28 gts of land was registered in the name of Sravan Kumar in the year, 2009 and he paid Rs. 40,00,000/-. The rest of the land was registered in the month of March, 2010 and he has paid remaining amount of Rs.9,50,000/-. As there are disputes with his brother said Sravan Kumar kept the Rs.9,50,000/- with accused no.1/Bantu Srinu and in presence of accused no. 2 to 6 and Lws4 to LW9 and the matter was placed before them for the settlement of amounts. Out of which Rs.5,00,000/- were given by the accused to his mother and rest of amount Rs. 4,50,000/- was decided to pay to this witness for Rs.3,80,000/- and Rs. 64,000/- to the elder brother of

Bantu Saidulu(A4) who was no more. But after one month of the said settlement accused no. 4 was died on 16.04.2010. He was not paid as settled on that he gave complaint to the police in the year, 2012 but in vain.

Therefore, he filed a private complaint which was referred to police for investigation into.Ex.P1 is Complaint.

4

CC.No.1426 of 2014 14th November, 2022

12. PW-2 during her chief examination evidence deposed that in the year, 2009 her brother in law, LW2(Bantu Laxmamma) and PW1 sold away an extent of Ac.1.35 gts land in Sy.No.902 situated at Bangarigadda Bypass road for a sale consideration of Rs.54,00,000/-. On that disputes arose in sharing of the same between their family members for a sum of

Rs.9,00,000/-. As such matter was placed before the elders i.e., accused no.1 to 6 who held a panchayath by saying Rs.3,00,000/- has to be given to

PW1 and after one month of finalization, her brother-in-law was died. When they asked the elders to give back the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- accused no. 6 not attended and the elders replied that they have no money in their hands and threatened them to kill if they again asked for said amount. On that PW2, PW1 and LW2 went to police station and gave report but in vain for which they have filed a private complaint.

13. PW-3 during his chief examination evidence deposed that in the year, 2010 deceased Bantu Saidulu called him and LWs 6 to 8 to support him for distributing the money received as consideration on sale of land to an extent of Ac.2.00 gts for Rs.50,00,000/-. Said amount was settled between Bantu

Saidulu, Bantu Laxmamma. The dispute arosed between Bantu Saidulu (A4) and PW1 (Bantu Nagaraju) for distribution of Rs. 9,00,000/- odd and that amount was kept with elders and they decided that Rs.3,60,000/- will go to

PW1 and Rs.60,000/- to deceased Bantu Saidulu. For which Bantu Saidulu demanded them for equal share of Rs.3,60,000/- and he also supported him due to which dispute not resolved and that same was kept with the accused no.1 to 5 and PW3, LW6 to LW8. Later he came to know PW1 has filed case against the accused persons and the wife of late Saidulu.

5

CC.No.1426 of 2014 14th November, 2022

14.PW-5 during his chief examination evidence deposed that the family members of PW1 and the deceased Bantu Saidulu, LW2(mother of PW1 and deceased) and Accused no.6 sold away their joint family property for

Rs.50,00,000/-. Out of which Rs.41,00,000/- was shared between PW1 and accused no. 4. Then disputes were arosed for the distribution of remaining

Rs.9,00,000/- for which a panchayath was held before him and accused no.1 to 6 who stood as elders. They have decided that Rs.3,80,400/- has to be given to PW1 and to give Rs. 5,00,000/- to the mother of PW1. The remaining amount of Rs.65,000/- to be given to Bantu Saidulu. But the said amount was not shared as decided and kept with the elders. After one month of panchayath Bantu Saidulu was died and the said amount was not given to anyone of the above till date.

15.PW1 to PW3 were cross examined by the counsel for accused at length. PW4 was turned hostile. Later, pending cross examination of PW5,

PW1 has filed memo of compromise and prayed this court to record his evidence by recalling once again. As there was no objection for Learned APP he was re-examined who deposed that this case is a counter case against

PW1 and accused and PW1 got compromised. As such PW1 has no objection to acquit the accused persons as the matter was compromised amicably out of court and deposed that her earlier evidence is false to that effect. As such it is held that the prosecution is failed to bring home the guilt of accused persons for the alleged charges against them and that they are liable to be acquitted as the offence so charged are compoundable in nature, prosecution also did not protest the PW.1 turning into hostile. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to state that the accused persons are liable to be acquitted.

6

CC.No.1426 of 2014 14th November, 2022

16. IN THE RESULT, Accused 1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence

U/Secs.403, 406, 417 & 420 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused person and their sureties shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal period.

(Typed and corrected by me and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14thday of November, 2022.)

Prl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: Bantu Nagaraju, Complainant -None-

PW2: Bantu Renuka Wife of the complainant

PW3: M. Anjaneyulu, witness

PW4: Mandula Shankar, witness

PW5: Pedakanti Vijay, witness

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Complaint

Ex.P2: The protest petition.

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

-NIL-

Prl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda.

7

CC.No.1426 of 2014 14th November, 2022

8

CC.No.1426 of 2014 14th November, 2022

CALENDER EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OFFIRST

CLASS AT MIRYALAGUADA

C.C.No.1408 of 2015

1.NAME OF THE POLICE STATION : Miryalguda II Town PS

2.CRIME NUMBER : 155/2015

3.OFFENCE UNDER SECTION(S) : 354-A,323 and 506 of IPC.

4. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : 1Yelguri Mahesh Reddy S/o Narayana Reddy, Age: 31 years, Occ:Agriculture R/o Thopucherla village, Vemulapally Mandal, Nalgonda District 2Baireddy Saidi Reddy S/o Anji Reddy,Age:32 years, OCc: Agriculture, R/o Thoupcherla village, Vemulapally Mandal, Nalgonda District 3Baireddy Anji Reddy S/o Veera Reddy, Age: 57 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Thoupcherla village, Vemulapally Mandal, Nalgonda District

5.DATE OF: A) OCCURRENCE : 26-09-2015 B) COMPLAINT : 26-09-2015 C) APPREHENSION : u/s 41-A Cr.P.C D) RELEASED ON BAIL : --- E) COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL : 30-11-2018 F) CLOSE OF TRIAL : 21-10-2022 G) SENTENCE OR ORDER : 28-10-2022

6.FINDING OF THE COURT:Found not guilty

7. RESULT: IN THE RESULT, Accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence U/Secs.354-A,323 and 506 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused person and their sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of three months.

8. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY : The case is taken on file on 09-11-2015. On 16-04-2016 the accused appeared before the Court and copies of documents furnished to them. On 26-05-2017 the accused were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. On 30-11-2018, 28-12- 2020 and17-10-2022 PW1 was examined. On 25-10-2021, 20-12-2021 PW2 was examined. On25-10-2021, 30-08-2022 and 23-09-2022 PWs 3 to 5 were examined. On 21-10-2022 PW6 was examined. On 21-10-2022 prosecution evidence closed. On 27- 10-2022 accused 1 to 3 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and heard arguments. Judgment

pronounced on 28-10-2022. Hence the delay.

PRL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

Miryalaguda. Disc.No. Dated: Submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. Judge, Nalgonda.

9

CC.No.1426 of 2014 14th November, 2022

The evidence of PW1 is that about four years back PW1 and his elder brother who is no more sold away agriculture land Ac. 01.35 gts in Sy No.

930 situated at bangarigadda to one LW11 Maruthi Rao for sale consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/-. There were some disputes arose in between PW1 and his elder brother due to that they kept an amount of Rs.

9,48,000/- out of 40,00,000/- and the remaining amount they distributed equally. Out of Rs. 9,48,000/- Accused No.1 to 6 paid Rs. 5,00,000/- paid to

PW1’s mother and remaining balance amount kept with A1 to A6 promissing that they shall pay the same to them after settlement. In the mean time while during this course his brother expired due to ill health. Prior to the death of his brother he demanded A1 to A6 for payment of amount which are lying with them, but they failed to pay the same to them. After the death of his brother, PW1 and his mother along withLW.2 to 7 went to A1 to A6 and demanded them for payment of balance amount but A1 to A6 are mis- utilized the deposited amount and they did not returned to them. As such it is clear that A1 to A6 cheated PW1 and his brother and mis-utilised the deposited amount.

in the year 2009 after the death of Pw1’s father, his mother LW2 Bantu and in her re-cross examination by the counsel for accused, whereas she completely given a go-bye to her earlier evidence and stated that accused never harassed and never bet her and they never followed her and she did not written the complaint Ex.P1 and she only appended her signature on

Ex.P1 complaint at the instance of her husband PW2.

10

OS.No.212 of 2015 31stOctober, 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MIRYALGUDA

Monday, this 31st day of October, 2022

Present: Smt A. Swarnalatha, Prl. Junior Civil Judge - cum - JMFC, Miryalguda.

O.S.NO. 212 OF 2015

B E T W E E N:

Errabothu Janaki W/o. Malla Reddy, Age: 36 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.7- 88/1, Saraswathinagar, Miryalaguda town and mandal, Nalgonda District.

. . .Plaintiff

A N D

1 Katragadda Raja Gopala Rao S/o Venkata Ratnam, Age: 66 years, Occ: Agriculture & Politics 2 Challabatla Krishna Reddy S/o Saidi Reddy, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture

Both R/o Shettiaplem village, Vemulapally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

. . . Defendants

This suit is coming up before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P.Ravindra Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri.G.Penta Reddy,

Advocate for the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 set exparte, after hearing and on perusing the material on record and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This suit is filed seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen, farm servants, relatives etc., from causing any sort of interference with the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are:

a) The plaintiff is owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of

Ac.2.15 gts in Sy.No.79/AA3 and Ac.2.15 in Sy.No.79/AA5 total admeasuring

Ac.4.30 gts situated at Mundlapahad revenue village, Vemulapally Mandal, 1

OS.No.212 of 2015 31stOctober, 2022

Nalgonda District having got purchased under the registered sale deed vide document No.7307/2013 dt: 21-11-2013 and 7627/13 dt: 09-12-2013. Having purchased from her own brothers by names Ch.Venkat Reddy and Ch. Janaki Reddy

S/o Krishna Reddy, the plaintiff got mutated her name in revenue records. Father of vendor of plaintiff purchased an extent of land Ac.4.00 gts in Sy.No.79 under registered sale deed No.1179/1985 and Ac.0.30 gts vide registered document

No.2432/1991 on behalf of his sons being minors at that time, totaling to Ac.4.30 gts in suit survey number.

b) It is further averred that actually the total land in Sy.No.79 is Ac.14.11 gts out of which defendant No.1 and his wife had purchased Ac.4.30 gts from their vendor Bayamma under registered sale deed document No.1964/2973. Later he sold away to an extent of Ac.3.25 gts of land to one Ch.Krishna Reddy S/o Veera

Reddy under registered document No.594/1979. There is a NSP canal at eastern boundary of the defendant No.1 property and the said NSP canal is situated at western boundary of the plaintiff’s property. The said canal is covered under an extent of Ac.1.10 gts. As such defendant No.1 has no land in Sy.No.79. In the same manner the defendant No.2 also has no property in Sy.No.79 as the father of the defendant No.2 had sold away his entire extent of land Ac.7.05 gts. But both defendants colluded together with an intent to grab some portion of the suit schedule property with false claims trying to interfere the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule property.

c) Further it is averred that one month back defendants continued their interference with false claim. Unfortunately the revenue officials failed to delete the name of defendant No.1 and his name wrongly appearing in pahani patrikas. By taking undue advantage of the same with false claim the defendants 1 and 2 colluded with each other and tried to occupy some portion of western side of suit schedule property. Further about 20 days back also by unlawfully came upon the suit schedule property along with their followers defendants made interference.

However, the plaintiff and her husband resisted their acts with timely help of her 2

OS.No.212 of 2015 31stOctober, 2022

well wishers and land owners. Again defendant No.2 tried to interfere into schedule property. However, plaintiff resisted the same and reported the matter to police

Vemulapally in writing. But police did not take petition by stating it is a civil dispute.

Once again defendant No.1 at about 3 days back came upon suit schedule property with his followers and tried to lay a bund in the western portion of schedule property and the plaintiff resisted the same with great difficulty. Hence, the suit.

3. Initially summons served on defendants 1 & 2 personally. Defendant No.1 got filed Vakalat but defendant No.2 intentionally did not appear before this court and got exparte on 27-08-2015.

4. a) Defendant No.1 filed written statement by denying entire plaint averments in toto and contested that originally total land in Sy.No.79 is Ac.14.11 gts out of which Ac.7.05 gts land was purchased by Ch. Kannaiah and the remaining Ac.7.05 gts land was purchased by Ch.Saidaiah. Out of Ac.7.05 gts land of the Ch.Kannaiah this defendant No.1 had purchased an extent of Ac.4.30 gts land under registered sale deed and the NSP R4 canal excavated his land making it into two bits.

b) Further it is submitted that out of said Ac.4.30 gts defendant No.1 sold away Ac.3.25 gts land to one Ch.Krishna Reddy and the remaining land belongs to this defendant on western side of NSP canal and it is contested that plaintiff and her brother created documents with wrong boundaries and tried to occupy the land of defendant which is situated on western side of canal is contrary to her registered document. As such it is contended that there is a location dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the same shall be decided by qualified surveyor demarcating the sy.no.79. Further, it is contended that the plaint is not maintainable as plaintiff suppressed the real facts and came to the court without clean hands as this defendant is having land on western side of NSP canal in sy.no.79 of Mundlapahad village. Therefore, there is no equitable relief of perpetual injunction as plaintiff not having right trying to occupy the land of the 3

OS.No.212 of 2015 31stOctober, 2022

defendants and that prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs in the interest of justice.

5. During the trial Pw1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A15 were got marked on behalf of plaintiff. On other hand none were examined and no documents were got marked on behalf of the defendants.

6. Heard and Perused the material on record.

7. My predecessor has settled the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

8) Issues No.1 and 2: a) It is the case of plaintiff that she has purchased suit schedule property under two documents under Ex.A3 & A4 to an extent of Ac.4.30 gts land in Sy.No.79 having purchased from her brothers in turn whose father purchased the same on their name under Ex.A5 & A6. But the defendant No.1 and 2 colluded with each other and trying to occupy the western side boundary of plaintiff. On the other hand defendant No.1 case is that he has purchased land to an extent of Ac.4.30 gts from one Kannaiah under registered sale deed No.1964/1973 out of which he sold away Ac.3.25 gts of land to Ch.Krishna

Reddy. But there is no documents to consider the above contentions of the defendant No.1. However Ex.A8 & A7 is crystal clear that defendant No.1 purchased Ac.4.30 gts land out of which he sold away Ac.3.25 gts land to the father of the plaintiff and her vendors none other the brothers.

b) To substantiate her case plaintiff herself got examined as PW1 and reiterated entire contents of the plaint and relied upon Ex.A1 to A15. Ex.A1 and A2 are pattadar pass book and title deeds. Ex.A3 and A4 are the registered sale deeds 4

OS.No.212 of 2015 31stOctober, 2022

in the name of plaintiff showing that she purchased suit land from her brothers.

Ex.A5 and A6 registered sale deeds in the name of Krishna Reddy S/o Veeraiah showing that he purchased two bits land to an extent of Ac.4.30 gts having purchased from Saidaiah. Ex.A7 in the name of defendant No.1 C.C. of registered sale deed shows he purchased Ac.4.30 gts land from one Bayamma. Ex.A8 C.C of registered sale deed in the name of Ch.Krishna Reddy S/o Veera Redy none other the father of plaintiff and her vendors shows that he had purchased Ac.3.25 gts land from defendant No.1. Ex.A9, Ex.A13 & A14 are pahani pathrikas for Fasli years 1425 reflecting the plaintiff name and her father for suit schedule properties.

However the E.C under Ex.A15 dt: 23-07-2015 is reflecting the transactions made through registered sale deed under Ex.A5 & Ex.A6.

c) During the cross examination of PW1 she deposed that NSP canal is flowing from the land of defendant No.1 about Ac.1.10 gts land having acquired the said land from defendant No.1. Further the defendant No.1 sold away his land to an extent of Ac.3.25 gts to the father of plaintiff. The PW2 also during the cross examination deposed that defendant No.1 purchased his land from Ch.Kannaiah to an extent of Ac.4.30 gts and he sold away the same later. Further defendant No.2 purchased Ac.3.25 gts land from defendant No.1 out of said Ac.4.30 gts land. In the middle of defendant No.1 land NSP canal is flowing. The above evidence during the cross examination proving the case of plaintiff and nothing in favour of defendant was elected. However there are inconsistent statements made by PW1 during her cross examination with regard to suit schedule property situated towards the west side of NSP canal and the remaining land of defendant No.1 situated towards west side of NSP canal. Again also stated that defendant Nol.1 is having land towards west side of NSP canal. To this aspect when oral and documentary evidence differ then the documentary evidence would prevail over the oral evidence in civil disputes as such plaintiff case is said to be clear.

d) It is an admitted fact that the defendant No.1 had sold away Ac.3.25 gts land to Krishna Reddy out of his Ac.4.30 gts having purchased from

Ch.Kannaiah out of Ac.7.05 gts land in Sy.No.79. Whereas the remaining Ac.7.05 5

OS.No.212 of 2015 31stOctober, 2022

gts land belongs to Ch.Saidaiah as per D1 contention and D1 himself clearly admitted that NSP canal is flowing in the middle of his land for which one could understand some extent of land was affected to that purpose. As such there is no remaining land in his hand. But contesting that Krishna Reddy purchased the land having NSP canal but not in his land. For this aspect the documents filed by plaintiff is clear that there is no NSP canal in his land while comparing the both parties version. Therefore it is crystal clear that out of Ac.14.11 gts land Ac.7.05 gts when purchased by Ch.Kannaiah from whom D1 purchased his Ac.430 gts land and admitted that there is a NSP canal flowing in the middle of his land, obviously the remaining Ac.7.05 gts land on eastern side of Ch.Saidiah from whom the plaintiff purchased is having no NSP canal in it. Therefore the western side of suit schedule property only there is a NSP canal as per the given boundaries of suit schedule property and it is well proved by both oral and documentary evidence along with admitted facts made by the defendant No.1.

e) Furthermore, it is clear that admittedly the total land in Sy.No.79 is

Ac.14.11 gts as per both parties version and defendant No.1 purchased Ac.4.30 gts under Ex.A8 and NSP canal was dug in middle of his land out of said Ac.4.30 gts land. The father of plaintiff purchased Ac.3.25 gts land abutting to NSP canal from defendant No.1 under Ex.A7. Therefore the remaining land of defendant No.1 is situated west side of NSP canal. As such there is no land left to defendant No.1 after laying the NSP canal for which Ac.1.10 gts was affected as per defendant No.1 admission that said NSP canal is flowing in the middle of his land to an extent of

Ac.4.30 gts and he had sold away Ac.3.25 gts land to father of plaintiff and canal dug effecting his land to extent of Ac.1.10 gts as para 7 of written statement. Then how the remaining land is available in his hand is in question. To this aspect defendant No.1 did not choose to come into witness box and prove his contentions and did not file any documents to that effect.

f) Therefore no doubt the defendant No.1 purchased Ac.4.30 gts under

Ex.A8 but later he had sold out an extent of Ac.3.25 gts under Ex.A7 when he is admitting there is flow of NSP canal in the middle of his land effecting some extent 6

OS.No.212 of 2015 31stOctober, 2022

of land then how the defendant without having remaining land in his hand claiming to be his property situated eastern side of NSP canal in suit schedule property is known to him only. It is clear that defendant No.1 without having land trying to encroach the land of plaintiff and that interference into suit schedule property is established.

9. In view of the above discussion and facts and circumstances of the case along with Ex.A15 there is a prima facie case and balance of convenience proved by the plaintiff in her favour and if the acts of defendant No.1 not restrained there is every possibility of dispossession of plaintiff from suit schedule property as D1 though admitted his land was effected with NSP canal having purchased west side of total extent of land in Sy.No.79 trying to encroach the eastern side of schedule property. Therefore issues No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff and that she is entitled to decree as prayed for.

10. Issue No.3: To what releif?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants, their henchmen, farm servants, relatives etc., from causing any sort of interference with the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(Dictated to Steno transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 31st day of October, 2022)

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW-1: Errabothu Janaki -None- PW-2: Ch.Ram Reddy 7

OS.No.212 of 2015 31stOctober, 2022

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 Pattadar pass book of plaintiff

Ex.A2 Title deed of plaintiff

Ex.A3 Sale deed bearing document No.7307/2013 dt: 21-11-2013

Ex.A4 Sale deed bearing document No.7627/2013 dt: 19-12-2013

Ex.A5 Sale deed bearing document No.1179/1985 dt: 09-04-1985

Ex.A6 Sale deed bearing document No.2432/1991dt: 10-09-1991

Ex.A7 CC of Sale deed bearing document No.594/1979: 18-04-1979

Ex.A8 CC of Sale deed bearing document No.1964/1973 dt:03-09-1973

Ex.A9 CC of pahani for 1427 fasli

Ex.A10 CC of pahani for 1999-2000 (2) pages

Ex.A11CC of pahani for 2004-2005 (2) pages

Ex.A12CC of pahani for 2011-2012 (2) pages

Ex.A13CC of pahani for 1425 Fasli in respect of lad in Sy.No79/A4

Ex.A14CC of pahani for 1425 Fasli in respect of lad in Sy.No79/AA5

Ex.A15E.C dt: 23-07-2015

For Defendants:

-NIL-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda.

8