A Thousheed Hussain Fac

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : KALYANDURG

Present : Sri A. THOUSHEED HUSSAIN

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ananthapuramu, FAC Kalyandurg

Monday, the 9 th day of December, 2019

C.C.No. 269 of 2019

(Crime Number 90/2018 of Kalyandurg Town Police station)

Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Kalyandurg Town Police station. .. Complainant

And

1. Shikari Maddileti Chowhan @ Madna @ Parsu, Aged 30 years S/o Shikari Sardar,

R/o Bhagya Nagar Colony, Benchi Kottala, Guntakal town... Accused

2. Shikari Sandhu @ Sapru, aged 35 years S/o Shikari Pedda Gopal, H.S.No.6/1096, Bhagya Nagar, Benchi Kottala, Guntakal Town.

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri H.Ramanjineyulu, Advocate for accused and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1] The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalyandurg town Police station, laid charge sheet against accused in Crime No.90/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code.

2]The facts of the case is as follows :-

On the night of 05.09.2018 in the house of PW.2 Kotakonda

Palegari Krishna Raju bearing D.No.8-378-A, Mudigallu Road, Jayanagar,

Kalyandurg town the accused Nos.1, 2 gained entry by broke open the door lock of house of PW.2 and committed theft of gold ornaments half thula and silver ornaments 1 KG and 11 thulas all worth about Rs.28,000/- from the iron safe and fled away with the booty. On the complaint of PW.1 Amaravathi Usha

Lakshmi who is daughter of PW.2, PW.5 S.Jamal Basha Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.90/2018 U/s.457, 380 of IPC.

2

During the course of investigation PW.4 Y.Pavan Kumar Reddy, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Clues Team, Ananthapuramu visited the scene of offence and lifted the chance prints at the scene. On 29.10.2018 PW.5 arrested the accused Nos.1, 2 at Hanuman Junction, Guntakal town and recovered stolen ornaments 1.Silver ewer (Chembu) weighing about 310 grams, 2.One silver plate weighing about 368 grams, 3.One pair of silver Kamakshi Deepaalu weighing about 30 grams, 4. One pair of Saada Deepaalu weighing about 25 grams, 5.One pair of screw deepaalu weighing about 36 grams, 6.One pair of silver Kunkuma bowl weighing about 64 grams, 7.One gold muthyala danda weighing about 16 grams from the possession of accused Nos.1, 2 under cover of mahazarnama in the presence of PW.3 K.Narasimhulu, LW.8 V.Nagaraju and produced the accused before the court for judicial remand. On 30.10.2018

PW.6 P.Jayapal, VRO conducted test identification parade with PW.2 in which

PW.2 identified his stolen ornaments and prepared mahazar. After completion of investigation PW.5 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.457, 380 or 411 of I.P.C..

3]The cognizance of case against accused for offences punishable under Section 457 and 380 or 411 of Indian penal Code. 4]On production of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code. 5]The accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code in Telugu, for which he denied. After hearing both sides and on perusing the entire case record, charges for the offences punishable under

Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code and an alternative charge for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused. The said charges were read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and also claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6]During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 besides M.Os.1 to 7. The learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Lws.2, 3 and 6.

3 7]After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which he denied and reported that there is no defence evidence.

8] Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. Perused the entire record.

9]Now, the points for determination are as follows:

1. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused

had committed lurking house trespass or house breaking, in order to

commit theft in the house of PW.2 and thereby committed an offence

punishable under section 457 of Indian Penal Code beyond the

reasonable doubt ?

2. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused

had dishonestly taken away the movable property i.e. M.O1 to 7 from

the house of PW.2 without his consent for unlawful gain or to cause

loss to PW.2 and thereby committed an offence punishable under

section 380 of Indian Penal Code beyond the reasonable doubt ?

OR

3. Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused

for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code

beyond the reasonable doubt ?

10]In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 to PW.6 out of 11 listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P10 besides MO.1 to 7. Among them, PW.1 is the defacto-complainant in this case,

PW.2 is the father of PW.1 and owner of M.Os.1 to 7, PW.3 is a mediator for arrest of accused and seizure of stolen property, PW.4 is Sub-Inspector of

Police who visited the scene of offence and collected finger prints, PW.5 is Sub-

Inspector of Police who arrested the accused and investigated the case, PW.6 is the Village Revenue Officer who conducted test identification of property.

11]Ex.P1 is the report of PW.1, Ex.P-2 to P4 are Signatures of PW.3 in the mahazarnama dt.29-10-2018, Ex.P-5 is Finger of Accused No.1 identification report, Ex.P-6 is Compassion Chart, Ex.P-7 is First Information report , Ex.P-8 is Rough sketch, Ex.P-9 is Red marked portion of arrest, 4 seizure and confession in mahazarnama dt.29-10-2018, Ex.P-10 is Property test identification proceedings.

12]The stand of the accused is of total denial. They contended that the police foisted a false case against them for disposal of undetected cases.

No evidence was adduced on their behalf.

13]Point No.(i) & (ii):

On perusal of the evidence of PW.1 who is the defacto complainant and daughter of PW.2 in which the theft was committed. PW.1 A.Vishalakshmi deposed that in the month of September 2018 her parents i.e. PW.2, and LW.6

Krishna Bai went to Rajasthan for tour, after two days PW.2 informed her that

LW.2informed him that door locks of house of PW.2 were opened and requested her to verify the same. Accordingly PW.2 went to the house of PW.2 and found that some unknown offenders break opened the door locks and committed theft of 1.Silver ever, 2.One silver plate, 3.One pair of silver Kamakshi Deepalu, 4.One pair of Saada Deepalu, 5.One pair of screw deepalu, 6.One pair of silver kunkuma bowl and then she lodged complaint i.e3. Ex.P1 before police. PW.2

K.P.Krishna Raju father of PW.1 deposed that on 03.09.2018 he and his wife went to Rajasthan for tour after three days they were informed by LW.4 that some unknown offenders break opened the door locks and then he informed the same to his daughter PW.1. Accordingly PW.1 went to his house and found that some unknown offenders break opened the door locks and committed theft of 1.Silver ever (MO.1), 2.One silver plate (MO.2), 3.One pair of silver

Kamakshi Deepalu(MO.3), 4.One pair of Saada Deepalu (MO.4), 5.One pair of screw deepalu (MO.5), 6.One pair of silver kunkuma bowl (MO.6) and 7.One gold muthyala danda (MO.7). PW.2 further deposed that after some days police informed him that his stolen properties are recovered and then he identified MOs.1 to 7 and took for interim custody. So on perusal of evidence of PW.1 and 2 which clearly shows that he is not the direct witness to the theft and he do not identified the accused. On coming to the allegations levelled against accused that they had committed lurking house trespass during night 5 time and committed theft of MOs.1 to 7 from the house of PW.2, apparently, there is no whisper in the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 about the involvement of accused as thieves. The contents of Ex.P.1, complaint is also silent about the details of accused as thief. Thus, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to establish the connectivity of accused with the alleged theft by lurking the house trespass during night time. Further, the alleged recovery was not so immediate to the said commission of theft and it is not the stand of the prosecution that accused was found in possession of the stolen property near the scene of offence. Therefore, the court finds no evidence to hold that accused committed theft of MOs.1 to 7 by lurking house trespass in the night time by break opening the locks from the house of PW.2. Hence, the court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for offence punishable under sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code, beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered against the prosecution.

14]POINT No.(iii):

On perusal of the evidence of PW.3 who acted as mediator to the arrest and seizure of M.Os.1 to 7 from the possession of the accused. PW.3

K.Narasimhulu deposed that on 29.10.2018 at about 12 noon Sub-Inspector of

Police requested him to act as mediator and then he went to police station and the police produced accused Nos.1 and 2 in the police station itself and on his enquiry Sub-Inspector of Police informed that the accused committed offences in different places and shown gold ornaments in the police station alleged recovered from the accused and requested him to sign in mahazarnama and then he signed in the mahazarnama and he know the contents of the said mahazarnama. So the evidence of PW.3 is not helpful to prove that the police arrested the accused and seized MOs.1 to 7 from the possession of accused at

Hanuman Junction, Guntakal.

15]PW.4 Y.Pavan Kumar Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that on 06.09.2018 at the request of PW.5 he visited the scene of offence, 6 examined entrance of house of PW.1 and all the articles in the house and found finger prints on one article i.e. one steel box which was fell down at one almirah which was break opened by the unknown offenders. He lifted the said finger prints from the steel box and took photographs and tallied the finger prints with the finger prints available in their office and it was tallied with the left index finger of accused No.1 and then he informed the same to PW.5 and also submitted identification report i.e. Ex.P5 and compassion chart i.e. Ex.P6.

PW.4 has not clearly stated about comparison of finger prints found at the scene of offence and could not explained when and where he obtained the finger prints of accused No.1 and kept the same in his office. Moreover PW.4 did not state the method of comparison of finger prints of accused No.1 with the finger prints taken from the scene of offence. So the evidence of PS.4 is not believable to prove that the involvement of accused in this case.

16]PW.6 P.Jayapal Village Revenue Officer who conducted test identification proceedings deposed that on 30.08.2018 at the request of police he conducted test identification parade of M.Os.1 to 7 in which PW.2 identified

MOs.1 to 7 as his property and then he prepared proceedings i.e. Ex.P10. so the evidence of PW.6 is not helpful to the prosecution to prove that the police seized M.Os.1 to 7 from the possession of accused. The only evidence left alone is the evidence of investigating officer i.e. PW.5. PW.5 S.Jamal Basha,

Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that on 06.09.2018 basing on the complaint of

PW.1 he registered a case in Cr.No.90/2018 U/sec.457, 380 or 411 IPC and requested PW.4 to take finger prints at the scene of offence, immediately he went to scene of offence and drawn rough sketch i.e. Ex.P8. PW.4 came to the scene of offence examined the same and obtained some finger prints on one steel box. PW.5 further deposed that on 29.10.2018 he arrested the accused at

Hanuman Junction, Guntakal and on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed that they have committed theft in the present case and also committed theft in different places. Then he seized M.Os.1 to 7 from the 7 possession of accused and arrested them under cover of mahazarnama in the presence of PW.3 and LW.8 and sent them to judicial remand and after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet. But PW.3 who was present at the time of alleged arrest and seizure of MOs.1 to 7 deposed that at the request of police he went to police station and the police shown the accused and M.Os.1 to 7 and then he put his signatures on mahazarnama. So the evidence of PW.5 that he seized the stolen property from the possession of accused in the presence of PW.3 is not believable. At this juncture it is relevant to note a decision made in 1994 (2) ALT (Crl. P.69 (AP) Botcha Raju VS

State Rep. By the Inspector of Police,Vizianagaram Rural Circle. Where in it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. In the present case on hand, except the evidence of PW.5 who is investigating officer, there is no evidence on behalf of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, which is not believable. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to attribute the charge U/s.411 of IPC against the accused, accordingly this point is answered against the prosecution.

17]In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 457, 380, 411 of Indian Penal Code.

Therefore, accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other cases. The M.Os.1 to 7 returned to PW.2 for interim custody as per orders in Cr.M.P.64/2019 dt.30.01.2019 shall stands good after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 9th day of December, 2019.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL.MAGISTATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU. FAC KALYANDURG

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

Prosecution Defence

PW-1: A.Vishalakshmi None PW-2: K.P.Krishna Raju PW-3: M.Narasimhulu PW-4: Y.Pavan Kumar Reddy PW-5: S.Jamal Basha PW-6: P.Jayapal.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P-1: Report of PW.1-NIL Ex.P-2: Signatures of PW.3 in the mahazarnama dt.29-10-2018 to P-4 Ex.P-5: Finger of Accused No.1 identification report, Ex.P-6: Compassion Chart Ex.P-7: First Information report Ex.P-8: Rough sketch Ex.P-9: Red marked portion of arrest, seizure and confession in mahazarnama dt.29-10-2018 Ex.P-10: Property test identification proceedings.

M.O’s. Marked

Prosecution Defence: -

M.O.1 : Silver ewer (Chembu) NIL M.O.2 : One silver plate M.O.3 : One pair of silver Kamakshi Deepaalu M.O.4 : One pair of screw deepaalu M.O.5 : One pair of screw deepaalu M.O.6 : One pair of Silver Kunkuma bowl, M.O.7 : One gold muthyala danda.

J.C.J/J.F.C.M.

9 // True copy //

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg 10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg

Date of OffenceReportApprehensionReleased onCommence-Close ofSentence of Accusedbailment of trialtrial 05-9-2018--- 06.9.201829-10-201805.7.2019 23.09.201909.12.2019

Judgment in C.C.No.269/2019 on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg

Complainant :: Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalyandurg town P.S. Cr.No:90/2018

Sl. Name of theAgeHusband’s CallingReligionResidenceMandal No.AccusedName 1Shikari 30 Shikari CoolieHinduGuntakalGuntakal Maddileti yearsSardar Chowhan @ Madna @ Parsu 2Shikari 35 Shikari CoolieHinduGuntakalGuntakal Sandhu @ yearsPedda SarpuGopal

Offence :- U/sec.457, 380, 411 of Indian Penal Code.

Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty. Finding :-

Sentence:- In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 457, 380, 411 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other cases. The M.Os.1 to 7 returned to PW.2 for interim custody as per orders in Cr.M.P.64/2019 dt.30.01.2019 shall stands good after expiry of appeal time.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL.MAGISTATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU. FAC KALYANDURG

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

Dis No. Dt.

// True copy // 11

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: KALYANDURG

Present : Sri A. Thousheed Hussain,

Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, FAC Kalyandurg

Monday, the 18th day of November, 2019

O.S.No.142/2011

Between Udyala Venkatesulu S/o late Gangi Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Hindu, cultivation, R/o Mamaduru Village, Bramhasamudram mandal. …. Plaintiff

AND

Gundla Nagaraju S/o Govindappa, Aged about 35 years, Hindu, Trader, R/o Mamaduru Village, Bramhasamudram mandal.

....Defendant

This suit coming on 04-11-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri M.Venkatesulu, Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1)The suit is filed for recovery of sum of Rs.81,030/- with costs and with future interest at 24% p.a against the defendant basing on the promissory note dated 08.02.2009 for an amount of Rs.50,000/-.

2)The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint as follows :-

The defendant herein borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the promissory note dated 08.02.2009 in favour of the plaintiff with interest at 24%p.a. Inspite of repeated demands and legal notice, the defendant not paid any sum either towards principal or interest due under the promissory note and failed to discharge the debt. Hence the plaintiff was constrained the present suit.

3)After receiving the summons, the defendant filed the written statement, denied the averments of the plaint and submitted that he never borrowed amount from the plaintiff and did not execute any promissory note in favour of plaintiff and the suit promissory is rank forged and concocted one 2 and the defendant specifically denied the signature in the suit pronote and passing of cash consideration and the defendant issued proper reply notice to the legal notice of the plaintiff and the suit is bared by limitation and thus prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4)Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1) Whether the suit pronote note is true, valid and supported by consideration?

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

3) To what relief ?

5)During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to A4 and also examined scribe as PW.2 on his behalf. On the other hand, defendant himself examined as DW.1 and no exhibits were marked on his behalf. Further the Scientific Officer, Telangana State Forensic

Science Laboratories, Hyderabad is examined as CW.1 and got marked Ex.C1.

6)Heard both sides.

7)ISSUE NO.1 :-

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed the amount and executed Ex.A.1 in his favour. Whereas, the contention of the defendant is that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed Ex.A.1 in favour of plaintiff and that the plaintiff forged the signature of defendant and created the Ex.A.1 and filed this false suit against him.

Since the defendant is denying the allegations of plaintiff, initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant.

To prove the contention of plaintiff, he got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 Suit promissory note dt.08.02.2009, Ex.A.2 Office copy of legal notice dated 01.08.2011 and Ex.A.3 Postal receipt, Ex.A4 is postal acknowledgment. In support of his case the plaintiff also examined the scribe of Ex.A1 as PW.2. PW.2 deposed that on 08.02.2009 the defendant borrowed

Rs.50,000/- and executed Ex.A1 and he scribed Ex.A1, at the time of 3 execution of Ex.A1 plaintiff, defendant, he and P.Venkatesulu attestor were present. The plaintiff did not examine the attestor of Ex.A.1 to prove that

Ex.A.1 is true, valid and supported by consideration. If really Ex.A.1 is a genuine document, the plaintiff would have examined the attestor. But the plaintiff did not do so. When the defendant seriously disputing the execution of

Ex.A1, it is the duty of plaintiff to examine all the witnesses who were present and signed in Ex.A1 at the time of execution of Ex.A1. But the plaintiff did not examine attestor of Ex.A1 which shows that Ex.A1 is not genuine document.

If really Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant, the plaintiff would have examine attestor of Ex.A1. Moreover on perusal of evidence of PW.1, he did not state in his chief examination that in whose presence he lend Ex.A1 amount and in whose presence the defendant executed Ex.A1. If really scribe and attestor was present at the time of execution of Ex.A1, he would have stated in his plaint or in his evidence that PW.2 and attestor was present at the time of execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant. From this it appear that the plaintiff created Ex.A1.

8) On the other hand the main contention of the defendant is that he never borrowed Ex.A.1 amount and never executed Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.1 was created by the plaintiff by forging the signature of the defendant. To prove his contention the defendant examined himself as DW.1. DW.1 and filed his chief examination affidavit and stated that he never borrowed any amount muchless

Ex.A.1 amount and that the alleged suit promissory note is forged by the plaintiff. Nothing has been elicited during the cross examination of DW.1 to disbelieve the testimony of DW.1.

9)Further defendant sent Ex.A1 with his admitted signatures to the expert through the court for comparison purpose and also examined the

Scientific Officer as CW.1. CW.1 The Scientific Officer, Telangana State

Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad deposed in his evidence that he carefully and thoroughly examined the original documents in O.S.142/2011 in all angles of handwriting identification, detection of forgery with sophisticated 4 instruments, such as magnifiers, stereomicroscope and video spectral comparator and found that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked S1 to S9 (G.Nagaraju i.e. defendant) did not write the red enclosed signature marked Q (Pronote i.e. Ex.A1), accordingly he gave his opinion marked as Ex.C1. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of CW.1 by the plaintiff Counsel to disprove the testimony of CW.1. When the signature on Ex.A1 is differs with the admitted signatures of defendant, it clearly shows that Ex.A1 suit promissory note was not executed by the defendant.

Moreover on perusal of Ex.C1 the expert i.e. CW.1 give his opinion stating that “the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked S1 to S9 did not write the red enclosed signatures marked Q”. From this appears that Ex.A.1 executed by forging signature of the defendant without consideration.

10)Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff failed to prove that

Ex.A.1 is a genuine document and it is true, valid and supported by consideration. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

11)ISSUE NO.2 :

As stated supra in issue No.1, the plaintiff failed prove Ex.A.1 is a genuine document, as such he is not entitled to the suit claim. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the defendant against the plaintiff.

12)ISSUE No.3 :

In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18th day of November, 2019.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu. FAC Kalyandurg

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW.1: U.VenkatesuluDW.1:G.Nagaraju PW.2: B.Rudranna 5

Witness examined by Court

CW-1 : N.Krishna Prasad

Exhibits marked for

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

Ex.A1 : Original promissory note dt.08.02.2009 NIL Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice dt. 01.08.2011 Ex.A3 : Postal receipt bearing No.284 Ex.A4 : Postal acknowledgement card.

BY COURT

Ex.C1 : Opinion dt.19.4.2018 given by Scientific Officer (CW.1)

J.C.J

1

I N THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS : RAYADURG

Present : Sri A. THOUSHEED HUSSAIN,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ananthapuramu, FAC, Rayadurg. Friday, the 20th day of December, 2019

O.S.No.92 of 2019

Between:- Kalva Sivarama Reddy S/o late Hanumanthappa, Hindu, aged about 70 years, Cultivation, R/o Pulakurthy village, D.Hirehal mandal. …. Plaintif

Vs

1. Hanumakka S/o late Rajappagari Hanumappa, aged about 55 years,

2. Anjaiah @ Anjineyulu S/o late Rajappagari Hanumappa, aged 42 years,

3. Raju @ Rajanna S/o late Rajappagari Hanumappa, aged 34 years,

4. Eswaramma D/o late Rajappagari Hanumappa, aged 38 years,

5. Lakshmi D/o late Rajappagari Hanumappa, aged 28 years, All are Hindus, Cultivation, R/o Palakurthy village, D.Hirehal Mandal.

.… Defendants

This suit coming before me on 13-12-2019 for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri Y.H.Babu Rao, Advocate for the plaintif and the defendants were remained exparte, this matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1]The suit is filed for recovery of sum of Rs.68,866/- with costs and with future interest at 24% p.a from the estate of late Rajappagari

Hanumappa which is now in the hands of defendants basing on the promissory note dated 30.06.2016 for an amount of Rs.40,000/- executed by late Rajappagari

Hanumappa.

2]The case of the plaintif as set out in the plaint as follows :-

That on 30.06.2016 one Rajappagari Hanumappa who is husband of first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 5 borrowed a sum of

Rs.40,000/- from the plaintif and executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay with interest at 24% p.a. Subsequently in the month of

September 2017 the said Rajappagari Hanumappa died, after his death all his 2 legal heirs i.e. defendants 1 to 5 are enjoying his estate and hence the defendants are liable to discharge the debt borrowed by Rajappagari Hanumappa. Inspite of repeated demands and legal notice dt.08.06.2019 the defendants not paid any sum towards promissory note. Hence the plaintif was constrained the present suit.

3]After receipt of summons, defendants failed to appear before the court, hence the defendants were called absent, no representation, hence they were set exparte.

4]The plaintif himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3 on his behalf.

5]Heard the counsel for plaintif.

6]Now the points of consideration are:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

2.To what relief?

POINT No.1:- 7]PW.1 K.SivaramaReddy deposed that he filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and that Rajappagari Hanumappa who is husband of first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 5 borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 30.06.2016 from the plaintif and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, thereafter in the month of September 2017 the said Rajappagari Hanumappa died leaving behind him the defendants as his legal heirs, after death of Hanumappa all his estate devolved on the defendants, hence the defendants are liable to pay the suit debt. On demands the defendants failed to repay the suit amount and hence he got issued a legal notice on 08.06.2019, inspite of demands and legal notice the defendants failed to repay the suit amount under suit promissory note. Ex.A1 is the original suit promissory note executed by late Rajappagari Hanumappa in favour of plaintif for Rs.40,000/- dt. 30.06.2016, Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice dt.08.06.2019, Ex.A3 is postal receipts (5 in number).

3 8]The document Ex.A1 discloses that Rajappagari Hanumappa borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 30.06.2016 from the plaintif and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, on demands as the defendants failed to repay the amount, the plaintif got issued Ex.A2 legal notice, Ex.A3 is postal receipts. If the

Rajappagari Hanumappa who is husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 to 5 did not borrow the amount under Ex.A1, then nothing prevented the defendants to contest the suit denying the averments of plaint by filing written statement, but the defendants remained exparte and unchallenged the evidence of plaintif.

9]The evidence of plaintif coupled with documentary evidence discloses that the late Rajappagari Hanumappa borrowed amount and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintif and later he died leaving behind him the defendants and his entire estate is in the hands of defendants and the defendants failed to discharge the debt covered under Ex.A1 promissory note, hence the plaintif is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly point

No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif.

POINT No.2:- 10]In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.68,866/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6 percent per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.40,000/- by directing the defendants 1 to 5 to pay the suit amount out of the estate of Late Rajappagari Hanumappa which is vested in the hands of defendant

Nos.1 to 5.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 20th day of December, 2019.

Sd/- A.Thousheed Hussain

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ananthapuramu FAC.Rayadurg.

4

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintif Defendants PW.1 :- K.Sivarama Reddy None

Exhibits marked for

Plaintif Defendants Ex.A-1 is Original promissory note dt.30.06.2016 for Rs.40,000/- Nil executed by Rajappagari Hanumappa. Ex.A-2 is office copy of legal notice dt.08.06.2019 Ex.A-3 is postal receipts (5 in number).

Sd/- A.T.H

J.C.J

1

I N THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS : RAYADURG

Present : Sri A. THOUSHEED HUSSAIN,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ananthapuramu, FAC, Rayadurg. Friday, the 27th day of December, 2019

O.S.No.186 of 2019

Between:- Kalva Sivarama Reddy S/o late Hanumanthappa, Hindu, aged about 70 years, Cultivation, R/o Pulakurthy village, D.Hirehal mandal. …. Plaintif

Vs

1. Hanumakka S/o late Rajappagari Hanumappa, aged about 55 years,

2. Anjaiah @ Anjineyulu S/o late Rajappagari Hanumappa, aged 42 years,

3. Raju @ Rajanna S/o late Rajappagari Hanumappa, aged 34 years,

4. Eswaramma D/o late Rajappagari Hanumappa, aged 38 years,

5. Lakshmi D/o late Rajappagari Hanumappa, aged 28 years, All are Hindus, Cultivation, R/o Palakurthy village, D.Hirehal Mandal.

.… Defendants

This suit coming before me on 20-12-2019 for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri Y.H.Babu Rao, Advocate for the plaintif and the defendants were remained exparte, this matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1]The suit is filed for recovery of sum of Rs.34,000/- with costs and with future interest at 24% p.a from the estate of late Rajappagari

Hanumappa which is now in the hands of defendants basing on the promissory note dated 14.04.2016 for an amount of Rs.20,000/- executed by late Rajappagari

Hanumappa.

2]The case of the plaintif as set out in the plaint as follows :-

That on 14.04.2016 one Rajappagari Hanumappa who is husband of first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 5 borrowed a sum of

Rs.20,000/- from the plaintif and executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay with interest at 24% p.a. Subsequently in the month of

September 2017 the said Rajappagari Hanumappa died, after his death all his 2 legal heirs i.e. defendants 1 to 5 are enjoying his estate and hence the defendants are liable to discharge the debt borrowed by Rajappagari Hanumappa. Inspite of repeated demands and legal notice dt.21.01.2019 the defendants not paid any sum towards promissory note. Hence the plaintif was constrained the present suit.

3]After receipt of summons, defendants failed to appear before the court, hence the defendants were called absent, no representation, hence they were set exparte.

4]The plaintif himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3 on his behalf.

5]Heard the counsel for plaintif.

6]Now the points of consideration are:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

2.To what relief?

POINT No.1:- 7]PW.1 K.SivaramaReddy deposed that he filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and that Rajappagari Hanumappa who is husband of first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 5 borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 14.04.2016 from the plaintif and executed a promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, thereafter in the month of September 2017 the said Rajappagari Hanumappa died leaving behind him the defendants as his legal heirs, after death of Hanumappa all his estate devolved on the defendants, hence the defendants are liable to pay the suit debt. On demands the defendants failed to repay the suit amount and hence he got issued a legal notice on 21.01.2019, inspite of demands and legal notice the defendants failed to repay the suit amount under suit promissory note. Ex.A1 is the original suit promissory note executed by late Rajappagari Hanumappa in favour of plaintif for Rs.20,000/- dt.14.04.2016, Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice dt.21.01.2019, Ex.A3 is postal receipts (5 in number).

3 8]The document Ex.A1 discloses that Rajappagari Hanumappa borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 14.04.2016 from the plaintif and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, on demands as the defendants failed to repay the amount, the plaintif got issued Ex.A2 legal notice, Ex.A3 is postal receipts. If the

Rajappagari Hanumappa who is husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 to 5 did not borrow the amount under Ex.A1, then nothing prevented the defendants to contest the suit denying the averments of plaint by filing written statement, but the defendants remained exparte and unchallenged the evidence of plaintif.

9]The evidence of plaintif coupled with documentary evidence discloses that the late Rajappagari Hanumappa borrowed amount and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintif and later he died leaving behind him the defendants and his entire estate is in the hands of defendants and the defendants failed to discharge the debt covered under Ex.A1 promissory note, hence the plaintif is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly point

No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif.

POINT No.2:- 10]In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.34,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6 percent per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.20,000/- by directing the defendants 1 to 5 to pay the suit amount out of the estate of Late Rajappagari Hanumappa which is vested in the hands of defendant

Nos.1 to 5.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day of December, 2019.

Sd/- A.Thousheed Hussain

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ananthapuramu FAC.Rayadurg.

4

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintif Defendants PW.1 :- K.Sivarama Reddy None

Exhibits marked for

Plaintif Defendants Ex.A-1 is Original promissory note dt.14.04.2016 for Rs.20,000/- Nil executed by Rajappagari Hanumappa. Ex.A-2 is office copy of legal notice dt.21.01.2019 Ex.A-3 is postal receipts (5 in number).

Sd/-A.T.H

J.C.J

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS : RAYADURG

Present : Sri A. THOUSHEED HUSSAIN,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ananthapuramu, FAC, Rayadurg. Friday, the 27th day of December, 2019

O.S.No.94 of 2019

Between:-

Boggula Parameswarappa S/o Bommanna, Aged 55 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Madenahalli village, D.Hirehal Mandal, Ananthapuramu dist. …. Plaintif

Vs

Nayakula Konapuram Kunti Obuluswamy S/o Kunti Ramaiah, Aged 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Konapuram village, Thammepalli Post and mandal H/o Devasamudram village, Molakalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga District. Karnataka state. … Defendant

This suit coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri N.C.Sreenivasan, Sri S.Channaveerappa, Advocates for the plaintif and the defendant was remained exparte, this matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following Judgment.

J U D G M E N T

1]This suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, relatives, executants and assignees from forming rastha across the suit schedule property and from from interfering with the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs.

2]The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :-

The plaintif is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and he acquired the same through his ancestors. Recognizing the right, title, possession and enjoyment of plaintif, the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook, title deed, 1-B Namuna and the plaintif has been in continuous possession and 2 enjoyment of the suit schedule property without disturbance by anybody. While so the defendant is stranger and he have no manner of right, title interest or possession over the suit schedule property and he is making hectic eforts to trespass into the suit schedule property and also trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property. Therefore the plaintif obliged to file this suit for permanent injunction.

3]Defendants remained exparte.

4]The plaintif himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3 on his behalf.

5]Heard the counsel for plaintif.

6]Now the points of consideration are:

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

2.To what relief?

POINT No.1:- 7]PW.1 B.Parameswarappa deposed that he filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and it devolved upon him from his ancestors and recognizing his right, title, possession and enjoyment, the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook, title deed, 1-B Namuna and he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant who is a stranger to the suit schedule property is trying to trespass into the property and also trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Ex.A1 is the original pattadar passbook issued by the Mandal

Revenue Officer, D.Hirehal in favour of plaintif, Ex.A2 is Title deed issued by the

Mandal Revenue Officer, D.Hirehal in favour of plaintif, Ex.A3 is Meeseva copy of 1-B Namuna which shows that the plaintif is the enjoyer of the suit schedule property.

3 8]The document Ex.A1 to A3 discloses that the plaintif is the pattadar and enjoyer of the suit schedule property. If the defendant did not try to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property, then nothing prevented him to contest the suit denying the averment of plaint by filing written statement, but the defendant remained exparte and unchallenged the evidence of plaintif.

9]The evidence of plaintif coupled with Ex.A1 to A3 discloses that the plaintif is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same as on the date of filing of the suit and the defendant tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of plaintif over the suit schedule property, hence the plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintif.

10]In the result, the suit is decreed without costs. Permanent injunction is granted in favour of the plaintif restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day of December, 2019.

Sd/- A.Thousheed Hussain

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Ananthapuramu FAC.Rayadurg.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for Plaintif Defendants PW.1 :- B.Parameswarappa None

Exhibits marked for Plaintif Defendants Ex.A1 : Original pattadar passbook issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, NIL D.Hirehal in favour of plaintif, Ex.A2 : Title deed issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, D.Hirehal in favour of plaintif, Ex.A3 : Meeseva copy of 1-B Namuna in connection with suit schedule property.

Sd/- A.T.H

J.C.J