Sri.Agnoor.Naga Raj

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: AT

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Friday, the 24th day of November, 2023

Present: - Sri Agnoor Nagaraj, Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.

S.C. No. 1241 of 2021

Preliminarily registered case No. 10/2021 committed by the XXVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Maheshwaram, in Cr.No. 72/2021 of P.S. Kandukur for the offences U/Secs.498-A and 306 IPC.

Prosecution.Sri K. Naresh Kumar, Addl., Public prosecutor, Ibrahimpatnam.

AccusedA1 : Bashamoni Narsimha S/o. Jangaiah, Age:55 years, Caste: BC-Mudiraj, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Lemur village of Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

(Sri Manda Mahender, Adv. defended the accused as legal aid counsel)

Offences under sectionU/Secs. 498-A and 306 IPC.

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

FindingFound guilty for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC

Sentence or order Accused is found guilty for the charges U/Secs. 498-A and 306 IPC and he is convicted Under Sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period 21 of (3) three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for (3) three months for the offence U/Sec. 498-A IPC. He is also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for (10) Ten years and he shall also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for (3) three months for the offence U/Sec. 306 IPC. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on both counts shall run concurrently. The remand period undergone by the accused as under trial prisoner shall be set off U/Sec. 428 Cr.P.C, against the sentence of imprisonment now imposed.

@@@@@

This Sessions case is coming up for hearing before me on 27.10.2023 and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Kandukur filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 72/2021 for the offences U/Secs.498-A and 306 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the Charge Sheet are that the marriage of deceased Smt.Lavanya was performed with accused in the year 2002.

The said marriage was second marriage to the accused and first marriage to the deceased. They were blessed with two daughters and one son. After some time, the accused started harassing the deceased physically and mentally and used to beat her by consuming alcohol. In this regard, she lodged a complaint before the Police, Kandukur but the matter was settled before the village elders. They lead happy life for 21 only few days. On 27.03.2021 at about 10:00a.m., the deceased informed her brother-PW.1 over phone stating that the accused was harassing her for the last (15) days and also beating her. On that when

PW.1 informed her that he will visit their house, but she refused. On the same day, when PW.1 made a phone call to the deceased, the brother of accused PW.4 lifted the phone and informed that she consumed unknown poison and he along with accused were shifting his sister

Lavanya to hospital for treatment. They shifted the deceased to

Osmania General Hospital, but the doctor examined and informed that she was brought dead. In this regard, PW.1 filed a complaint on the same day at night at 10:00p.m. On receipt of complaint, a case in the above Crime number was registered U/Secs.498-A and 306 IPC and investigated into.

3.During the course of investigation, PW.9 recorded the statement of

PW.1 and handed over the CD-file to PW.10. On receipt of CD-file, PW.10 conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of scene of offence. He has also visited Osmania General Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was referred to postmortem examination. The doctor who conducted autopsy collected the viscera and sent for chemical examination. The chemical analyst opined that the death was due to consumption of “Organophosphate – An Insecticide Poison”. The statements of other witnesses were also recorded by PW.10. On 29.03.2021 at 11:00a.m., the accused was apprehended at his house and on interrogation, he admitted the guilt. Accordingly, his arrest was affected and sent to court for remand. After collecting the postmortem report and other documents and on completion of investigation, PW.10-S.I. of Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/Secs.498-A and 306

IPC.

21

4.The XXVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Maheshwaram took the cognizance of the case and registered the PRC No.10/2021 for offences

U/Sec.498-A and 306 IPC and committed the case to the Court of

Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge. The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions

Judge took the cognizance U/Secs.498-A and 306 IPC and made over the

case initially to VII Assistant Sessions Judge, L.B.Nagar for trial, but later, it was transferred to this court for trial.

5.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him and the charges U/Secs.498-A and 306 IPC were framed read over and explained to the accused. He denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In support of its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 11 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the examination of Lws.2, 10 & 12.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. He denied the same, reported no

Defence evidence. Hence, Defence evidence was closed.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides.

9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that in this case, the material witnesses have deposed about harassment of the accused which drove her to commit suicide. The evidence of all the material witnesses is consistant, cogent and unrebutted. He has also argued that the death of the deceased by consumption of

Organophosphate; is not in dispute. The evidence of the prosecution 21 witnesses prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused has argued that except Pws.1 to 3 who are brothers and daughter of deceased, all other the independent witnesses have turned hostile. PW.5 though deposed in favour of prosecution, her evidence is not believable. The mediators for scene of offence panchanama and inquest also turned hostile.

There is no evidence except evidence of Pws.1 to 3 & 5 which is also contradictory and not consistent. The learned counsel for Defence has also argued that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the ingredients of abetment to commit suicide by the deceased U/Sec.306

IPC and the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC against the accused.

11.In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Geo Varghese v/s. State of Rajasthan and another reported in 2021 (3)

ALT (Crl.) 356 SC. He has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in Velladurai v/s. State represented by the Inspector of

Police in Criminal Appeal No.953/2021, dt:14.09.2021 and argued that “there was a quarrel on the day of occurrence, but except the said statement there is no material on record which indicates abetment”. In this case also as per PW.1, the deceased informed her brother about the harassment and beating of accused. Except, the said statement there are no other incidents, as such it cannot be said that harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused.

12.He has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Rajesh v/s. State of Haryana reported in 2019 (2) HLT (Crl.) 137 (SC) wherein it is held that “any words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation within the meaning of Section 306 IPC”. The circumstances of the present case 21 are also fit within the said decision, as the accused used to abuse her in intoxication condition only but not intentionally.

13.He has also relied on the decision of M.Mohan v/s. State through

Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in 2011 (2) ALT (Crl.) 1 (SC) wherein it is held that “Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing –

Without a positive act on the part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained”. In this case also, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged abetment of the accused or intentionally aiding in commission of suicide by the deceased. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

14.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the charges U/Secs.498-A and 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:

15.The charges leveled against the accused are U/Secs.498-A and 306

IPC reads as follows:

Section 498-A IPC : Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation:- For the purposes of this section “cruelty” means -

(a)anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or 21

(b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand

Section 306 IPC : Abetment of suicide – If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also be liable to fine.

16.PW.1-Defacto Complainant has deposed that the marriage of deceased with accused was performed in the year 2002 and they both reside at Lemur village and got two daughters and one son. After marriage, they lived happily for two years prior to her suicide, one day the accused beat her and caused fracture to her leg. Once, he has also poured kerosene on her. In that regard, a complaint was filed before

Police, Kandukur, but on intervention of elders and request of the accused, the said case was compromised and his sister also agreed for compromise as she has three children. Accordingly, his sister joined the accused. On 27.03.2021, in the morning at 10:00a.m., his sister called him over phone and informed that accused was beating her and subjecting her to cruelty for the last two days. When he informed her that he will visit their house, she has stated that there was no necessity, but in the afternoon, when he again called his sister, her neighbourer

Bashamoni Krishna lifted the phone and informed that his sister consumed something and struggling for life. His sister was shifted to

Osmania General Hospital. Immediately, he along with his family members rushed to Osmania General Hospital and found that his sister died. Accordingly, on the same day night, he went to Police Station,

Kandukur and filed complaint stating that due to harassment of 21 accused, his sister committed suicide and he is responsible for the death.

17.PW.2 – the daughter of accused and deceased deposed that her mother committed suicide on 27.03.2021. Her father used to beat and abuse her mother in intoxication condition with whatever weapon in his hand i.e., stick, belt etc. and also used to abuse her for each and every issue. She studied upto 10th class in their village and due to harassment of accused against her mother, she shifted to her maternal grandmother’s village to study Intermediate and her mother used to call her every day and enquire about her well being. On 27.03.2021, when she called her Senior paternal uncle B.Krishna, he informed that her mother consumed something and struggling for life and they are shifting her to Osmania General Hospital. Later, she along with PW.1, LW.2 and others went to Osmania General Hospital and found her mother died.

18.PW.3 father of the deceased deposed that the accused is having suspicious mentality and used to beat his wife very frequently. His sister

LW.2 and the children of accused used to inform her about the harassment of accused against his wife. Panchayats were held for (3) to (4) times with regard to the harassment of accused and they used to advice the accused to take care of his wife and the accused also used to promise to take care, but he did not change his attitude. (15) days prior to death of Lavanya(deceased), they all convinced the accused and sent her with him. Later, he came to know about the death of the deceased.

On that, he went to Osmania Hospital and found the dead body of the deceased Lavanya.

19.PW.5 the villager of the accused deposed that she knows the accused and deceased is his second wife. As the accused used to beat and quarrel with his first wife Kalamma, she left him, as such the 21 accused contacted second marriage with Lavanya about (20) years ago.

Lavanya also died by consuming pesticide. She further deposed that about one year ago, in the evening, when she returned from coolie work, she came to know that accused beat Lavanya, as such she consumed poison. She further deposed that prior to her death, the accused used to beat his wife Lavanya and she also witnessed the beating of the accused. Accused used to beat her in intoxication condition. In this regard, panchayats were also held and accused used to harass his wife Lavanya for every (15) days. Except Pws.1 to 3 & 5, the other witnesses Pws.4 & 7 have turned hostile.

20.PW.4 brother of the accused deposed about the consumption of unknown poison by the deceased and one year ago, in the afternoon at 02:00p.m., while he was taking lunch after returning from land, younger daughter of accused came and informed him that her mother was vomiting froth. On that, he along with his wife went there and found

Lavanya was unconscious and froth was coming from her mouth. On the arrival of accused, they shifted Lavanya to Osmania General

Hospital, Hyderabad.

21.Pws.7 & 8 – Mediators for scene of offence panchanama have turned hostile and did not state anything about conducting of scene of offence in their presence. PW.6 deposed that in the Osmania General Hospital, the Police conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased.

22.PW.11-Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased deposed that he has conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 28.03.2021 and there were no Ante-mortem injuries over the dead body. He collected stomach contents viz., i.e., namely intestine, liver, kidney and 100ml of blood for Forensic examination. The 21

FSL authority gave opinion stating that cause of death was due to consumption of Organo Phosphate an insecticide poison.

23.In the 313 Cr.P.C. examination, the accused has admitted that the death of deceased was due to consumption of poison. He has also admitted about shifting of the deceased to hospital on consuming poison. Since, the death of the deceased is not in dispute and the evidence of PW.11 is supported by the Ex.P9-Postmortem report and

Ex.P10-FSL report and it is not challenged. On the other hand, it is admitted by the accused that the death of the deceased is due to consumption of poison. Hence, there is no dispute with regard to death of the deceased by way of suicide by consuming poison. Hence, the hostile testimony of Pws.4, 7 & 8 is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

24.The accused has also admitted in his 313 Cr.P.C. examination about registration of Criminal case against him and it was settled in compromise. He has also admitted that his daughter-PW.2 is studying in the house of her maternal grandmother. He has also admitted about consumption of poison by the deceased. Neither Registration of

Criminal case, its compromise nor the death of the deceased nor the studies of PW.2 in the house of her maternal grandmother are disputed and on the other hand, they are admitted by the accused in his statement made in 313 Cr.P.C. The said statements would corroborate the further statement given by PW.2 that due to harassment of her mother by the accused, she has shifted to her maternal grandmother’s house for her studies. They further supports the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the earlier complaint against accused due to his harassment against the deceased.

21

25.In Brajendra Singh v/s. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2012 SC 1522 in Criminal Appeal No.113-114/2010, dt:28.02.2012, the Hon’ble

Apex Court has held that “In terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has the freedom to maintain silence during the investigation as well as before the Court.

The accused may choose to maintain silence or complete denial even when his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is being recorded, of course, the Court would be entitled to draw an inference, including adverse inference, as may be permissible to it in accordance with law. Right to fair trial, presumption of innocence unless proven guilty and proof by the prosecution of its case beyond any reasonable doubt are the fundamentals of our criminal jurisprudence. When we speak of prejudice to an accused, it has to be shown that the accused has suffered some disability or detriment in relation to any of these protections substantially. Such prejudice should also demonstrate that it has occasioned failure of justice to the accused. One of the other cardinal principles of criminal justice administration is that the courts should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or whether it is only a camouflage, as this expression is perhaps too pliable. [Ref.

Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2011) 8 SCC 300].

It is a settled principle of law that the obligation to put material evidence to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is upon the Court.

One of the main objects of recording of a statement under this provision of the Cr.P.C. is to give an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him as well as to put forward his defence, if the accused so desires. But once he does not avail this opportunity, then consequences in law must follow. Where the accused takes benefit of this opportunity, then his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in so far as it supports the case of 21 the prosecution, can be used against him for rendering conviction.

Even under the latter, he faces the consequences in law.”

26.In this case also, the statements made by the accused under 313

Cr.P.C. examination are in the lane of prosecution case and supports the version of the prosecution. Hence, the court is entitled to draw an inference, including adverse inference, as may be permissible to in accordance with law against the accused, and it can be used to base conviction against the accused.

27.Now, it is to be seen whether the accused has harassed the deceased physically and mentally and thereby abetted her to commit suicide.

28.PW.1 the brother of the deceased deposed about the harassment of the accused continuously two years after their marriage and beating her in intoxication condition. He also stated that two years prior to the date of incident, the accused beat her, caused fracture to her leg and also poured kerosene on her. In that regard, a complaint was filed before the

Police, Kandukur and on the intervention of elders and request of accused; it was compromised. He has also stated in the cross- examination that there were panchayats before the elders with regard to the harassment of the accused for two or three times and inspite of the panchayats, the accused did not mend his ways and beat his sister, as such the complaint before the Police, Kandukur was filed.

29.PW.2 has also specifically stated that her father i.e., accused used to abuse her mother in intoxication condition for each and every issue and beat her with whatever weapon that he will have i.e., stick, belt etc.

When a suggestion was given to PW.2 that during her study at Lemur village; they were happy. She denied the same and volunteered that 21 accused used to beat and abuse her mother in intoxication condition.

She also denied the suggestion that accused used to look after her and her mother well and he never harassed them. She has also denied the accused is no way responsible for the death of the deceased. It is the evidence of PW.2 and due to harassment of the accused against her mother, she shifted to her maternal grandmother village for her studies.

In the 313 Cr.P.C. examination also, the accused admitted that PW.2 is studying in her maternal grandmother’s house. PW.2 is none other than the daughter of the accused, as she is the best witness to speak about the harassment of the accused. As she also used to reside with them till her studies upto 10th class and only because of harassment of the accused against her mother, she shifted to her maternal grandmother’s house for studies.

30.PW.3 the maternal uncle of the deceased was also cross-examined, but nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination in favour of accused with regard to the allegation that accused was having suspicious mentality and used to beat his wife very frequently.

According to PW.3 also, Panchayats were held for (3) to (4) times in respect of the harassment of the deceased by the accused.

31.PW.5 who is an independent eye witness and villager of the accused also clearly stated about the harassment of the accused and beating her in intoxication condition. In the cross-examination, it is suggested to

PW.5 that except when the accused consumed liquor, other times the accused was cordial with his second wife for which she admitted, but volunteered that accused used to pick up quarrels with his wife for every (15) days by consuming liquor. She denied the other suggestion that the accused never beat his first wife and she left him due to disputes.

21

32.The evidence of PW.1 with regard to the lodging of complaint before the Police, Kandukur prior to the incident and its ending by way of compromise before the elders is consistent with the complaint lodged by him. On the intervention of the elders and request of the accused the said case was compromised and his sister also agreed for compromise as she has three children. From the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 & 5 it is clear that the accused was beating the deceased in intoxication condition for each and every issue for the last so many years and in that regard, she also filed a complaint before the Police, Kandukur. It is the specific evidence of PW.1 that two years prior to the date of incident, the accused beat her and caused fracture to her leg and also poured kerosene on her.

33.The word cruelty as defined under explanation (a) of Section 498-A

IPC is “anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman”.

34.In this case, not only the mental harassment as defined under explanation (a) of Sec.498-A IPC, the accused also caused physical harassment to the deceased. He beat her caused fracture to her leg and poured kerosene on her on the earlier dates of incident. It is the specific evidence of PW.1 that on 27.03.2021 in the morning, the deceased called him over phone and informed that accused was beating her and subjecting her to cruelty for the last two days and when he informed to visit her house, she refused and informed that it is not necessary, but in the afternoon when he again called, he came to know that deceased consumed poison.

35.In Geo Varghese v/s. State of Rajasthan and another reported in 2021 (3) ALT (Crl.) 356 SC, the Hon’ble Apex court while dealing with the 21 case of commission of suicide by a child on the admonition by the teacher has held that “it is the duty of a teacher to instil discipline in the students and it is not uncommon that teachers reprimand a student for not being attentive or not being upto the mark in studies; their would not tantamount to provoking a student to commit suicide, unless there are repeated specific allegations of harassment and insult deliberately without any justifiable cause or reason”.

36.Though, the facts of the said case are not relevant for the purpose of this case, but still the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to the ingredient under Section 306 IPC are relevant. At Para

No.22, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission offence of suicide and mere allegations of harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the accused is otherwise is not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it is not safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.

37.In this case, the marriage of deceased took place in the year 2002, and two years thereafter, the accused started harassment against the deceased both physically and mentally, as such she committed suicide on 27.03.2021. Two years prior to her death, a complaint was filed

before Police, Kandukur, but it was closed on compromise at the

intervention of elders and as the deceased also compromised as she has three children. Thus, from the above circumstances, it can be said that the deceased bore the harassment of accused for about (17) years, but 21 the accused did not change his attitude of harassing her, as such it cannot be said that she was hypersensitive in taking such extreme step of committing suicide. Hence, the harassment of the accused is a direct act of incitement to the commission of suicide.

38.The Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for defence in

Velladurai v/s. State represented by the Inspector of Police in Criminal

Appeal No.953/2021, dt:14.09.2021, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to allow the appeal and acquit the accused on the ground that there was a quarrel on the day of occurrence and except that there was no other material on record which indicates abetment, but in this case, the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 & 5 proves that the accused was harassing the deceased for the last (17) years and even for the last (15) days prior to the date of incident, the accused was harassing her physically and mentally, as such the facts of the said case are not applicable to the present case. Accordingly, with due respects to the said decision, it is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

39.The decision relied on by the defence counsel in Rajesh v/s. State of

Haryana reported in 2019 (2) HLT (Crl.) 137 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to held that the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation and there was no proximity between the panchayath held in September, 2001 and date of suicide by the deceased, as such there was no abetment of committing suicide by the deceased. Hence, they were acquitted, but coming to this case, two years prior to the date of incident, a criminal case was registered against the accused before the Police, Kandukur on the complaint of deceased and on intervention of elders; it was compromised. Thereafter also, the accused did not change his attitude and two or three panchayaths were held from the date of compromise of case till the date of incident.

21

40.PW.3 specifically stated that (15) days prior to the death of Lavanya, they all convinced the accused and sent her along with him. Hence, the said piece of evidence goes to show that there were continuous efforts to convince the accused to change his attitude, but he did not change his attitude and further, the accused was harassing the deceased for the last (15) days prior to her death, as such the facts of the decision relied on by the counsel for defence are not applicable to the present facts of the case. In this case that the incident was not occurred in a fit or anger or omission. Hence, with due respects to the said decision, it is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

41.The learned counsel for defence has also relied on the decision of

M.Mohan v/s. State through Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in 2011 (2) ALT (Crl.) 1 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the accused did not beat the deceased and he only used harsh words and only (10) days prior to the date of incident, PW.1 complained the matter to the elders about the harassment of the accused and prior there to, she never complained about the alleged harassment of the accused, but where as in this case, the accused was continuously harassing the deceased for the last (17) years and it was also informed to the elders, panchayats were also held and a criminal case was also registered, and the said case was settled in compromise, as such the facts of the said case are not applicable to the present case.

42.The evidence of PW.1 to 3 & 5 is consistent with each other and their evidence inspires confidence to believe their testimony as their evidence is cogent. PW.2 is none other than the daughter of the accused and PW.5 is an independent witness has specifically stated about the attitude of the accused even against his first wife and his continuous harassment against second wife i.e., deceased. The 21 evidence on record clearly goes to show that the acts of continuous physical and mental harassment of the accused are direct, incitement abetting the deceased to commit suicide.

43.In the light of circumstances as discussed above, the deceased was not hypersensitive and she bore the harassment of the accused for about (17) years. Inspite of lodging complaint and settling the matter on intervention of elders, the accused did not change the attitude and again continued his harassment which is specifically informed by the deceased over phone to PW.1 that he was beating her for the last (15) days. She crossed the yielding point of patience and took the extreme step of committing suicide. Hence, from the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 & 5 it is clear that the physical and mental harassment of the accused drove the deceased to commit suicide.

44.In the light of analysis of evidence of all the witnesses and circumstances on record, I find that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges U/Secs. 498-A and 306 IPC; beyond all reasonable doubt.

45.In the result, I find that the accused is guilty for the charges U/Secs.

498-A and 306 IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted Under Sec. 235(2)

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of November, 2023.

Addl. Asst.Sessions Judge, Ibrahimpatnam 21

46.The accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed on him. He pleaded mercy of the court stating that he has two daughters and one son. He further stated that now they are residing at their maternal grandmother’s house, but still he has to take care of them and perform their marriage and requested to take lenient view.

47.As seen from the evidence on record, the accused is in the habit of harassing his wives. His first wife left him due to his harassment. Later, he contacted second marriage with the deceased and started harassing two years after their marriage and continued till her death. PW.2 who is none other than the daughter of accused and deceased has also deposed about the harassment of the accused against her mother due to which, she was forced to shift to her maternal grandmother’s house for her studies. As per the accused, now all of his children are staying in their maternal grandmother’s house, as such he is not taking care of them. Hence, I feel that the accused is not entitled for any lenient view and a deterrent punishment would only meet the ends of justice.

48.In the result, accused is found guilty for the charges U/Secs. 498-A and 306 IPC and he is convicted Under Sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (3) three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for (3) three months for the offence

U/Sec. 498-A IPC. He is also sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for (10) Ten years and he shall also pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for (3) three months for the offence U/Sec. 306 IPC. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on both counts shall run concurrently. The remand period undergone by the accused as under 21 trial prisoner shall be set off U/Sec. 428 Cr.P.C, against the sentence of imprisonment now imposed.

49.The accused is explained about his right to prefer appeal against the

Judgment of this court.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of November, 2023.

Sd/-

Addl. Asst.Sessions Judge, Ibrahimpatnam

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1- Utupally Mallesh(Complainant)-None- P.W.2- Bashamoni Prasanna (Eye witness) P.W.3- Mekala Narsimha (Circumstantial witness) PW.4 - Bashamoni Krishnaiah (Eye witness) PW.5 – Butti Balamma (Eye witness) PW.6 – Pulapalli Balamani (Panch for the inquest of the deceased) PW.7 – Nimmarajula Hanumanth (Panch for scene & Rough sketch) PW.8 – Manchala Yadaiah (Panch for scene & Rough sketch) PW.9 – K.Swamy (I.O.) PW.10 – B.Suresh Babu (I.O.) PW.11 – Dr.S.K.Khaja Moinuddin (Conducted autopsy)

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P.1-Complaint filed by PW.1, dt:27.03.2021 Ex.P.2-161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.4, dt:28.03.2021 Ex.P.3-Panchanama, dt:28.03.2021 Ex.P.4-Signature on Crime Details Form by PW.7, dt:27.03.2021 Ex.P.5-Signature on Crime Details Form by PW.8, dt:27.03.2021 Ex.P.6-FIR, dt:27.03.2021 Ex.P.7-Scene of offence panchanama in Crime Details Form,

dt:27.03.2021

Ex.P.8-Photos of the deceased(4 Nos.) 21

Ex.P.9-Requisition for Postmortem Examination Report, dt:28.03.2021 Ex.P10-FSL report by PW.11, dt:04.07.2021

Exhibits marked for Defence -Nil-

Material objects marked -Nil-

Addl. Asst.Sessions Judge, Ibrahimpatnam

21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT IBRAHIMPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri A.NAGARAJ,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam

Wednesday, the 15th day of November, 2023 . NO.S o. 505 of 2007

Between:-

Anreddy Padmamma, W/o. Late Yadagiri Reddy Aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kongrakalan Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...Plaintiff

AND

1. Pittala Sathaiah (Died per LRs)

2. Pittala Peddamma, W/o. Late Sathaiah Age:72 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. Pittala Madhusudan, So. Late Sathaiah, Age:50 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

Both are R/o. Kongarakalan Village, Ibrahimpatanam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. Smt. Avisha Balamani, W/o. Gopal D/o. Late Sathaiah, R/o. Ragannaguda Village, Abdhullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...Defendants

(As per amended I.A.No.212/2022; D2 to D4 added as legal heirs of the D1 P.Sathaiah) 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007

This suit is coming before me on this day 23.08.2023 for final hearing in the presence of M/s. G.Chandra Shekar Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and

M/s. K.Shrikanth Reddy, Advocate for Defendants No.2 to 3, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:- : J U D G M E N T:

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for grant of

Perpetual Injunction in respect of land bearing Sy.No.242/A/E extent Acs.02-33 guntas situated at Kongarakalan village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District within the boundaries as specifically shown in the schedule of property restraining the Defendant and his kith and kin, agents, servants and all his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

Plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the land bearing suit schedule property Sy.No.242/A/E an extent of admeasuring Acs.02-33 guntas, situated at Kongrakalan Village,

Ibrahimpaatan Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Originally, the lands belongs to one Mr.Challa Reddy @ Challaiah, S/o. Krishna Reddy and after his death, his two sons Yadagiri Reddy and Narasimha Reddy have succeeded. The Plaintiff 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007 is the wife of Yadagiri Reddy. The Partition between the sons of Challa Reddy took place prior to 1956. Since then, the husband of the Plaintiff was in possession. The husband of the Plaintiff also died long back, and after his death, the Plaintiff is in possession and she is looking after the entire agriculture operations including the suit land. The Mandal Revenue Officer issued the pattadar passbook in favour of Plaintiff and also entered her name in possessory column. The Plaintiff is not having any children and taking advantage of her helplessness, the Defendant is trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment. In the month of December, 2006, the

Defendant who is the adjacent land owner approached the Plaintiff and requested her to sell the suit property. When the Plaintiff refused the same and recently, when the land value drastically increased in view of laying of

Outer Ring Road and Fab city, the Defendant with the help of anti-social elements trying create nuisance and threatening the Plaintiff with dire consequences. Accordingly, on 14.01.2007, the Defendant along with anti- social elements brought one JCB and tried to remove the soil from the land of the Plaintiff which is suitable for making bricks. He has also tried to change the nature of the land and also boundaries of the suit scheduled land. The

Plaintiff could resist and prevented the Defendant and his followers. The 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007

Plaintiff also filed a complaint before the Police, but they did not take any action on the ground that the matter is of civil in nature. The Plaintiff having no other go approached the court for seeking remedy of injunction against the

Defendant. Hence, the suit.

3.The Defendant filed Written Statement contending that the suit of the

Plaintiff is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed in limini. It is denied that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and so also, the alleged interference of the Defendant over the schedule property. It is specifically contended that originally the land bearing Ghut Sy.Nos.238, 239, 240, 241, 242/A & 243/A which includes the schedule land belongs to one Anreddy Chellaiah, Anreddy Yadagiri Reddy,

Anreddy Venkatamma and Pittala Seethaiah. They are all having 1/4th share each in the said property. After the death of Anreddy Yadagiri Reddy, his wife Anreddy Padmamma-the Plaintiff has succeeded to the lands held by

Anreddy Yadagiri Reddy. Likewise, after the death of Anreddy Chellaiah, his son Anreddy Narasimha Reddy and the Plaintiff and two other daughters of

Chellaiah have succeeded to the lands held by him. After the death of Pittala

Seethaiah, his son Pittala Narsimha succeeded to the lands held by Pittala

Seethaiah. After the death of Anreddy Venkatamma, Anji Reddy has succeeded 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007 to her share. Anji Reddy sold his share of land in the said Ghut survey numbers to Satahari Malla Reddy. Accordingly, all the above persons have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said lands separately on approximate basis to the extent of shares held by them. The Defendant was cultivating 1/4th share belonging to Pittala Seethaiah on batai basis during the life time of said Pittala Seethaiah. After the death of said Pittala Seethaiah, the father of Pittala Narsimha had continued the cultivation for about (10) years. The joint owners of the said lands namely Anreddy Padmamma,

Anreddy Chellaiah, Satahari Malla Reddy and Pittala Narsimha orally got divided their lands about (37) years ago and in the said division, an extent of

Acs.11-02 guntas in suit Ghut Sy.No.242/A of Kongrakalan village has been fell to the share of Pittala Narsimha. Since from the date of division, Pittala

Narsimha has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same.

4.The Defendant purchased the said area of Acs.11-02 guntas in suit Ghut

Sy.No.242/A, of Kongrakalan village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R.District, from

Pittala Narsimha for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousands only) with the consent of other joint owners and said Pittala

Narsimha along with other joint owners has executed a Sale Document,

dt:08.08.1973, in favour of the Defendant herein. From the date of purchase,

21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007 the Defendant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same.

The other joint owners namely Anreddy Padmamma i.e., Plaintiff, Anreddy

Chellaiah and Satahari Malla Reddy, did not turn up for registering the land in favour of the Defendant. Pittala Narsimha who actually received the sale consideration and sold the same in favour of the Defendants in view of the close relationship to avoid the registration expenses, executed the Registered

Gift Deed in respect of the land bearing Sy.Nos.238, 239, 240, 241, 242/A & 243/A, admeasuring Acs.02-15 guntas, Acs.02-10 guntas, Ac.01-22 guntas,

Ac.01-39 guntas, Acs.02-25 guntas, & Ac.00-12 guntas respectively situated at

Kongrakalan village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R.District. On the basis of the said gift deed, the name of Defendant has also been mutated in revenue records as pattedar and he has also continued his possession and enjoyment over Acs.11-02 guntas, in suit Ghut Sy.No.242/A, which includes the suit schedule land as purchased by him earlier under the Document, dt:08.08.1973.

5.After the execution of the said gift deed and mutation of the patta of the said gifted lands in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant and other joint owners namely Anreddy Padmamma i.e., Plaintiff, Satahari Malla Reddy,

Anreddy Chellaiah have again got adjusted their joint lands as per their convenience by way of oral settlement in the year 1983 and in the said 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007 settlement, the Sy.No.241 extent of Ac.00-20 guntas which has a well kamaravani bavi out of Acs.07-36 guntas and Sy.No.242/A, to the extent of

Acs.08-13 guntas, out of the total area of Acs.11-03 guntas, which includes the suit schedule land and Sy.No.243/A, measuring Acs.02-29 guntas, as shown in

Red color in the site plan annexed to the written statement fell to the share of

Defendant. From the date of adjustments by way of settlement, the Defendant is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. The Defendant installed a current motor to the said kamaravani bavi in Sy.No.241 and drawing water to cultivate the lands as wet crops. Meanwhile, M/s. Dandigay

Yadaiah and others who are adjacent land holders started causing interference in the possession of the Plaintiff over the said lands belonging to the

Defendant, the Defendant filed the suit for perpetual injunction vide

O.S.No.20/1986, on the file of the District Munsif, at Ibrahimpatnam, against

them and got decree in his favour on 13.05.1992, after contest. Due to eyesore over the developments made by the Defendant, Pittala Narsimha has filed a suit for cancellation of Registered Gift deed, dt:04.07.1981 and for recovery of possession of the said gifted lands against the Defendant with false allegations vide O.S.No.35/1988 on the file of District Munsif, Ibrahimpatnam.

21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007

6.The Defendant made appearance in the said suit and filed his written statement and also claimed his ownership and possessory rights over the said lands including the suit schedule land. Ultimately, the said suit was dismissed on 21.04.1994 as the Plaintiff therein remained absent. The Defendant submitted the original sale document, dt:08.08.1973 executed by Pittala

Narsimha, Anreddy Chellaiah, Anreddy Padmamma i.e., the Plaintiff herein and

Satahari Malla Reddy in the said suit and it was not returned as the same was destroyed along with other documents by the court, as such the Defendant filed photocopy of the said document.

7.Thus, the Defendant is the exclusive owner and possessor of the lands bearing Sy.No.241, to the extent of Acc.0-20 guntas, out of the total area of

Acs.07-36 guntas, Sy.No.242/A, to the extent of Acs.08-13 guntas, out of the total area of Acs.11-03 guntas, and Sy.No.243/A, measuring Acs.02-29 guntas, as shown in Red colour in the site plan annexed to the written statement. The

Defendant has raised 180 guava trees in the year 1990, 200 teak trees in the year 1995, 13 tamarind trees, 35 coconut trees, 30 custard apple trees and 20 toddy trees and fenced the entire lands belonging to him and has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The Defendant is also manufacturing bricks over an area of Acs.02-00 guntas in said lands. He dug 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007 a bore well in Sy.No.242/A which includes suit schedule land about (20) years back and drawing water by erecting a current motor. According to the

Defendant, the remaining area in the suit schedule Ghut Sy.No.242/A, to the extent of Acs.02-30 guntas, has been fell to the share of Satahari Malla Reddy in the adjustments as per the settlement of the joint lands effected in between the joint owners.

8.In fact, the Plaintiff has no land in the suit schedule Ghut Sy.No.242/A, or the suit land bearing Sy.No.242/A/E, to the extent of Acs.02.32 guntas of

Kongrakalan village, as alleged by the her. Taking advantage of nominal patta, the Plaintiff on the basis of wrong entries in the possessory column against suit schedule land for one or two years, she filed the present suit only to knock away the valuable property of the Defendant. As a matter of fact, the division of the properties belongs to the joint owners including Anreddy

Chellaiah in the said joint lands only took place about (37) years back in the first instance, but not as alleged by the Plaintiff i.e., prior to 1956. Based on the nominal patta, the Mandal Revenue Officer has issued pattedar pass book in favour of the Plaintiff herein in respect of the suit schedule land. Though the Plaintiff has no concern whatsoever either with the ownership or with the possession of the suit schedule land. Since, the Plaintiff has no concern with 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007 the ownership and possession of the suit schedule land, the alleged interference of the Defendant over the schedule property as alleged by the Plaintiff is false and does not arise and the said story is created for the purpose of the suit.

9.It is further contended by the Defendant by way of amendment to the written statement that the Defendant executed a Registered Gift Deed

Document No.5215/05, dt:07.10.2005 in favour of his wife Pittala Padmamma in respect of land bearing Sy.No.240 to the extent of Ac.01-22 guntas,

Sy.No.241 to the extent of Ac.01-39 guntas, Sy.No.242 to the extent of Acs.02- 25 guntas and Sy.No.243 to the extent of Acs.00-12 guntas of KongaraKalan

Village. Accordingly, he also executed a Registered Gift Settlement Deed

Document No.5216/2005, dt:07.10.2005 on the same day in favour of his son

Pittala Madhusudan in respect of land hearing Sy.No.238/ఆ to the extent of

Acs.02-15 guntas, and Sy.No.239/ఆ to the extent of Acs.02-10 guntas, situated at Kongarakalan Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R.District. Since from the date of said Registered Gift settlement deeds, the Donee’s wife and son came into possession and enjoying the lands. It is further denied about the alleged interference of the Defendant over the schedule property as alleged by the

Plaintiff and as the Plaintiff with the collusion of the lower cadre revenue officials has created revenue records behind his back and claiming ownership 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007 and possession over the suit schedule property. The allegations made in the plaint are imaginary and created for the purpose of the suit. The Plaintiff has no concern with the ownership or possession of the schedule property, as such she cannot value the suit under Section 26(c) of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and

Suit Valuation Act, as such the suit is not valued properly and the court fee paid is incorrect. The Plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.

Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

10.The sole Defendant died and on his death, the Defendants No.2 to 4 are brought on record as his legal heirs. They filed the memo adopting the written statement filed by the original Defendant.

11.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial on 20.06.2011:

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

2.To what relief?

12.In support of her case, the Plaintiff got examined her General Power of

Attorney Holder i.e., Anreddy Narsimha Reddy as PW.1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A14. She also examined one Siga Anjaiah as PW.2 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007

13.On the other hand, Defendant No.2 is examined as DW.1. They also examined one Kola Manglu and Kavali Gopal as Dws.2 & 3 on behalf of

Defendants and Exs.B1 to B29 are marked.

14. Heard the arguments of both sides at length.

ISSUE No.1:-

15.The Plaintiff is claiming the property in respect of Sy.No.242/A/E extent

Acs.02-33 guntas within the boundaries as shown in the schedule contending that she acquired the property from her husband Yadagiri Reddy. Originally, the land belongs to her father-in-law Challa Reddy @ Challaiah and during the life time of Challaiah, the partition took place prior to 1956 between his two sons and after the death of her husband, she succeeded to the suit property.

On the other hand, it is the contention of the Defendant that originally, the lands in Sy.Nos.238, 239, 240, 241, 242/A & 243/A which includes the schedule land belongs to Anreddy Challaiah, Anreddy Yadagiri Reddy, Anreddy

Venkatamma and Pittala Seethaiah as they are all having 1/4th share in the said property and after the death of Anreddy Yadagiri Reddy, his wife i.e., the

Plaintiff succeeded to the property and after the death of Chellaiah, his son

Anreddy Narasimha Reddy, Plaintiff and his two daughters succeeded to the lands held by him. After the death of Seethaiah, his son Pittala Narasimha 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007 succeeded to the lands held by him and after the death of Anreddy

Venkatamma, Anji Reddy has succeeded to her share. It is also the contention of the Defendant that during the life time of Pittala Seethaiah, he cultivated the land fallen to the share of Pittala Seethaiah on batai basis and after his death, he continued the cultivation for about (10) years and oral partition took place about (37) years ago among the joint share holders Anreddy Padmamma,

Anreddy Challaiah, Satahari Malla Reddy and Pittala Narasimha. In the said partition, an extent of Acs.11-02 guntas in the suit Ghut Sy.No.242/A fell to the share of Pittala Narasimha. Since, from the date of division, Pittala

Narasimha has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The

Defendant has purchased the said suit Sy.No.242/A extent Acs.11-02 guntas under Private Sale Deed Document, dt:08.08.1973 for which the other joint owners also signed the same and since, the date of purchase, he was in continuous possession of Acs.11-02 guntas in Sy.No.242/A.

16.It is also his contention that as the other joint owners did not turn up for Registration, Pittala Narasimha alone who received sale consideration executed Registered Gift Deed vide Ex.B2 in his favour in respect of the

Sy.Nos.238, 239, 240, 241, 242/A & 243/A; in order to avoid the Registration charges. Hence, from the above pleadings, it can be said that the Defendant 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007 is not denying about the ownership of the husband of Plaintiff over the suit

Sy.No.242 along with other share holders. The Defendant has not given the total extent of all the Sy.Nos.238, 239, 240, 241, 242/A & 243/A held by all the four share holders.

17.In support of her case, the Plaintiff examined her GPA Holder Anreddy

Narasimha Reddy i.e., brother of her husband as PW.1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to

A14. Ex.A1 is pattedar pass book which show that the Plaintiff is the pattedar of Suit Sy.No.242/A/E extent Acs.02-33 guntas apart from other lands to the total extent of Acs.19-02 guntas. The Pahanies Exs.A2, A3, A8 to A11 show the name of Plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property with specific

Sy.No.242/A/E to the extent of Acs.02-33 guntas. Exs.A4 to A6 clearly show that the land in Sy.No.242/A/E extent is shown as Acs.11-02 guntas for which the pattedars and possessors are shown as Challa Reddy @ Challaiah, Yadagiri

Reddy, Venkatamma and Seethaiah as 1/4th share holders. Even as seen from

Exs.B12 to B16, the suit Sy.No.242/A/E total extent is Acs.11-02 guntas and the pattedars are shown as Satahari Malla Reddy, Narasimha Reddy,

Padmamma, Lakshmamma, Rammulamma, Bhadramma and Pittala

Sathaiah(Defendant) and in the possessory column the name of Defendant is shown. From the Ex.B17, the pahani for the year 1993-1994 onwards, the suit 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007 survey number along with other Sy.Nos.238, 239, 240, 241, 242/A & 243/A were sub-divided. The total extent of Sy.No.242/A is shown as Acs.11-02 guntas. It is sub-divided and extent of land is shown separately to each share holder. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s name is shown as pattedar to the extent of

Sy.No.242/A/E and in possesory column, the name of PW.1 is shown. So far as the Sy.No.242/A to the extent of Acs.02-25 guntas the name of Defendant is shown as pattedar and possessor. Hence, from the documents filed by both the sides, the Plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property Sy.No.242/A/E extent Acs.02-33 guntas and the Defendant is the owner of land in

Sy.No.242/A/RU to the extent of Acs.02-25 guntas.

18.Though according to the Defendant, the Sy.No.242/A extent Acs.11-02 guntas was fallen to the share of father of his vendor i.e., Pittala Seethaiah and he purchased the same under Private Sale Deed on 08.08.1973, he has not filed the said document, but in this regard, it is his contention in the written statement that the document, dt:08.08.1973 was filed in O.S.No.35/1988 and it was not returned as it was destroyed along with other documents by the court.

In this regard, except stating that the said document was filed in

O.S.No.35/1988, he has not filed any document to show that he filed petition

for return of document and the court has returned stating that the document 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007 was destroyed. According to the Defendant, he purchased Acs.11-02 guntas in

Sy.No.242/A vide Ex.B2 from Pittala Narasimha and he obtained gift deed in order to obtain Registration charges. Ex.B2 shows that his vendor has sold

Sy.Nos.238, 239, 240, 241, 242/A & 243/A total extent Acs.11-03 guntas. The extent of Sy.No.242/A is shown as Acs.02-25 guntas in the agreement,

dt:25.12.2007. If really, the entire Sy.No.242/A fallen to the share of Pittala

Seethaiah, his son Pittala Narsimha would have executed the gift deed to the total extent of Acs.11-02 guntas in respect of Sy.No.242/A; but he has not purchased the entire extent. The extent shown in the agreement,

dt:25.12.1974 in respect of Sy.No.242/A tallies with the Exs.B12 to B23 held

by father of his vendor to the extent of Acs.02-25 guntas and the survey number of his vendor is shown as Sy.No.242/A/RU.

19.In S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by Lrs v/s. Jagannath (Dead) By Lrs reported in AIR 1994 SC 853, the Hon’ble Apex court held that “A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.” 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007

20.In this case also, though the Defendant is claiming right under a Private

Sale Deed, dt:08.08.1973, he has not filed the said document and purposefully withhold the same, simply saying that it was destroyed filed in

O.S.No.35/1988. In fact, for O.S.No.35/1988, the Plaintiff is not party to the

said proceedings. The said suit was filed by his vendor Pittala Narsimha for

Cancellation of the Ex.B1, but the said suit was dismissed as his vendor remained absent on 21.04.1994.

21.Though PW.1 was cross-examined by the counsel for Defendant, nothing is elicited in favour of the Defendant and on the other hand, the joint ownership of Malla Reddy, Chellaiah, Yadagiri Reddy, Venkatamma and Pittala

Seethaiah is elicited, the total extent of Sy.No.242/A in also elicited as Acs.11- 03 guntas and all the four share holders are having equal shares and after the death of original share holders, their LRs succeeded to the said shares. It is suggested to PW.1 that the 1/4th share held by Pittala Seethaiah was succeeded by his son Pittala Narasimha and accordingly, the other 1/4th share of other remaining share holders were also succeeded by their LRs. It is also suggested that the four share holders were enjoying the said land on approximate basis which were admitted by PW.1, but he specifically denied that in the partition took place among the share holders, the entire 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007

Sy.No.242/A extent Acs.11-03 guntas was fallen to the share of Pittala

Narasimha. In order to prove that the said oral partition; no single document is filed and even the revenue records also speaks that the partition was affected equally among all the share holders, as such the plea of the Defendant that the entire Sy.No.242/A extent Acs.11-03 guntas was fallen to the share of

Pittala Narasimha is false.

22.Coming to the cross-examination of DW.1, it is admitted that the Plaintiff succeeded to the property held by her husband and patta was also mutated in her name to the extent of land held by her husband. Though he has stated that he is having document of partition held among the original pattedars and stated that he can file the said document into the court, he has not filed the same. He has also stated that he is having the document to show that

Acs.11.02 guntas in Sy.No.242/A was fallen to the share of Pittala Narasimha and he can file the same, but he has not filed the same. As held above, he has purposefully withheld the said documents, except stating that it was filed in O.S.No.35/1988 and destroyed by the court. The Defendants are also not disputing the boundaries of the schedule property as contended by the Plaintiff.

23.In the further cross-examination, he has specifically admitted that except the lands covered under Ex.B2, they are no way concerned with the other 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007 lands. Ex.B2 is only in respect of Sy.No.242/A extent Acs.02-25 guntas and other survey numbers, but not in respect of the suit land i.e., Sy.No.242/A/E.

Though DW.2 stated that he is adjacent land owner, he failed to give the total extent of his land and its boundaries. In the further cross-examination, he has admitted that Yadagiri Reddy is the son of Challa Reddy and after the death of

Yadagiri Reddy, the suit property standing in the name of his wife i.e., the

Plaintiff and further volunteered that now, the Plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property. DW.3 has stated that what ever the deposition he has given in the chief examination is based on the information given by the deceased Defendant-Pittala Sathaiah, as such his entire evidence is only a hear say, as such it is not helpful to the case of the Defendants. From the oral and documentary evidence placed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant and specific admission made by DW.3, it is clear that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and she is in possession thereof right from the year 1989- 1990. Hence, the Plaintiff has proved her claim. Accordingly, the Issue No.1 is held in favour of the Plaintiff.

ISSUE No.2:-

24.In view of findings on Issue No.1, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be decreed with costs.

21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007

25.In the result, suit of the Plaintiff is decreed with costs granting Perpetual

Injunction in her favour against the Defendants their agents, servants and all his men interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open

court on this the 15th day of November, 2023.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF S: FOR DEFENDANTS: PW1 – Anreddy Narsimha Reddy DW.1 – Pittala Madhusudhan Reddy PW2 – Siga Anjaiah DW.2 – Kola Manglu DW.3 – Kavali Gopal

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF S : Ex.A1-Pattedar Pass book Ex.A2-C.C. of Pahani for the year 2003-2004 Ex.A3-C.C. of Pahani for the year 2004-2005 Ex.A4-C.C. of Pahani for the year 1954-1955 Ex.A5-C.C. of Pahani for the year 1955-1956 Ex.A6-C.C. of Pahani for the year 1966-1967 Ex.A7-C.C. of Pahani for the year 1973-1974 Ex.A8-C.C. of Pahani for the year 1989-1990 Ex.A9-C.C. of Pahani for the year 1999-2000 Ex.A10-C.C. of Pahani for the year 2005-2006 Ex.A11-C.C. of Pahani for the year 2006-2007 Ex.A12-C.C. of Pahani for the year 2007-2008 Ex.A13-C.C. of Pahani for the year 2009-2010 Ex.A14-C.C. of Pahani for the year 2015-2016 21 of 21O.S.No.505 of 2007

FOR DEFENDANT S : Ex.B1-Signature of PW.1-Narasimha Reddy in Agreement,dt:25.12.1974 Ex.B2-Original Registered Gift Deed Document No.551/1981, dt:04.07.1981 Ex.B3-C.C. of Judgment in O.S.No.20/1986, dt:13.05.1986 Ex.B4-C.C. of Plaint in O.S.No.35/1988, dt:08.02.1988 Ex.B5-C.C. of Written statement in O.S.No.35/1988, dt:11.07.1988 Ex.B6-C.C. of Judgment in O.S.No.35/1988, dt:21.04.1994 Ex.B7-Panchanama in File No.G7/3195 of 1980, dt:10.01.1982 Ex.B8-C.C. of Panchanama in File No.B/783/1985, dt:23.12.1985 Ex.B9-C.C. of Panchanama in File No.G7/3088/1985, dt:11.09.1985 Ex.B10-Original report, dt:29.12.1993 Ex.B11-True copy of Panchanama, dt:02.12.2006 Ex.B12-C.C. of Pahani for the year 1980-1981 Ex.B13-C.C. of Pahani for the year 1983-1984 Ex.B14-C.C. of Pahani for the year 1985-1986 Ex.B15-C.C. of Pahani for the year 1987-1988 Ex.B16-C.C. of Pahani for the year 1991-1992 Ex.B17-C.C. of Pahani for the year 1993-1994 Ex.B18-C.C. of Pahani for the year 1995-1996 Ex.B19-C.C. of Pahani for the year 1997-1998 Ex.B20-C.C. of Pahani for the year 1999-2000 Ex.B21-C.C. of Pahani for the year 2004-2005 Ex.B22-C.C. of Pahani for the year 2005-2006 Ex.B23-C.C. of Pahani for the year 2006-2007 Ex.B24-Original ROR Proceeding No.5834/2005, dt:03.11.2005 Ex.B25-Original Gift Deed No.5216/2005, dt:07.10.2005 Ex.B26-Original ROR Proceeding No.5833/2005, dt:03.11.2005 Ex.B27-Original Gift Deed No.5215/2005, dt:07.10.2005 Ex.B28-Original Title Deed of Smt.P.Peddamma Ex.B29-Original Pattedar pass book of P.Peddamma

Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam

Read by :

Compared by :

14 of 14 O.S.No.523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No.883/2020)

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT IBRAHIMPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri A.NAGARAJ,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam

Friday, the 24th day of November, 2023 . NO.S o. 523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No. 883 of 2020)

Between:-

1. Andela Ramadevi W/o. Bojjam Shiva, D/o. Andela Srinivas, Aged about 26 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No.3-98, Mankhal village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District – 501359

2. Andela Swathi, D/o. Andela Srinivas, Aged about 23 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.3-98, Mankhal village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District – 501359

3. Andela Swapna, D/o. Andela Srinivas, Aged about 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.3-98, Mankhal village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District – 501359

4. Andela Rajesh S/o. Andela Srinivas, Aged about 19 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.3-98, Mankhal village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District – 501359

...Plaintiffs

AND

1. Andela Sreenu, S/o. Late Ramulu, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 3-98, Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-501359.

14 of 14 O.S.No.523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No.883/2020)

2. Andela Sathaiah, S/o. Late Ramulu, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 3-96, Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-501359.

3. Yerragolla Mailika Shirisha, W/o. Late Yerragolla Mailika Vijay Kumar Yadav, D/o. Andela Sathaiah, aged about 27 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No.4-1-98. Old Road, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District-501505.

4. Andela Raju, S/o. Andela Sathaiah, Aged about 23 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H. No. 3-96, Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-501359.

5. Andela Manasa, D/o. Andela Sathaiah, Aged about 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H. No. 3-96, Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-501359.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me on this day 10.10.2023 for final hearing in the presence of M/s. K.Sangan Naidu, Advocate for Plaintiffs and M/s. J.Tulsiram, Advocate for Defendants No.3 to 5 and Defendants

No.1 to 2 are remained exparte, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:- : J U D G M E N T:

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants for Partition and Separate Possession of suit schedule property and allot 4/5th share to the 14 of 14 O.S.No.523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No.883/2020)

Plaintiffs, 1/5th share to Defendant No.1 and remaining ½ share to the

Defendants No.2 to 5.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are the children of Defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 is the elder brother of Defendant

No.1. Defendants No.3 & 5 are the daughters of Defendant No.4 who is son of Defendant No.2. Their common ancestor Sri.Andela Ramulu died long back leaving behind his sons Andela Sattaiah, Andela Naga Bhushanam and Andela

Srinivas as his legal heirs. During the life time of Andela Ramulu, he purchased Sy.No.820 extent Acs.02-29 guntas, Sy.No.821 extent Ac.01-38 guntas and Sy.No.822 extent Ac.01-33 guntas, total admeasuring Acs.06-20 guntas situated at Mankal Revenue village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District. He purchased the said property in the name of his three sons vide Sale Deed Document No.157/1994, dt:22.01.1994. Thus, the suit schedule property is the ancestral property and they are enjoying the same by raising crops.

3.After the death of Andela Ramulu, all his three sons were enjoying the property. Andela Naga Bhushanam divided from the family and orally partitioned the above said properties to the extent of 1/3rd share(Acs.02-06 guntas) out of the total extent of Acs.06-20 guntas in Sy.Nos.820, 821 & 822.

14 of 14 O.S.No.523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No.883/2020)

Thus, Andela Naga Bhushanam divided from the joint family and residing separately with his family, as such Defendants No.1 & 2 are continuing in joint possession over the remaining 2/3rd share to the extent of Acs.04-14 guntas.

Their names were mutated in the revenue records vide ROR Proceedings

No.D/312/1994, dt:26.02.1994. Defendants No.1 & 2 were issued pattedar pass books. The marriage of first Plaintiff was performed on 20.04.2016 by borrowing the money from the money lenders due to non-cooperation of the

Defendants, as such on 15.11.2020, the Plaintiffs approached the Defendants requesting to partition the suit schedule property and to allot their respective shares to them, but they were postponing the same by saying cock and bull stories. The Defendants No.1 to 6 colluded with each other and trying to sell the property to the prospective purchasers. Hence, the suit.

4.Defendants No.1 & 2 remained exparte.

5.Defendants No.3 to 5 filed written statement contending that the the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. The relationship between the parties and the purchasers of property by Andela

Ramulu and partition among the brothers were all admitted and so also, the separation of Andela Naga Bhushanam from the joint family by taking 1/3rd share and now, the Defendants No.1 & 2 are enjoying the property to the 14 of 14 O.S.No.523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No.883/2020) extent of Acs.04-14 guntas jointly. It is also admitted about the marriage of first Plaintiff and incurring of huge expenses, but denied that the Defendants did not co-operate with the Plaintiffs for Partition. It is also admitted that the

Plaintiffs demanded for Partition on 15.11.2020. As the Surveyor was busy, they requested the Plaintiffs to wait for some time. It is denied that the

Defendants are trying to alienate the property in collusion with prospective buyers. It is admitted that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of the Plaintiffs and Defendants, but to get the surveyor and for his assistance to take measurements, the partition could not be made. Hence, the suit is filed without waiting for the surveyor. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.

6.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial on 22.11.2022:

1.Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for Partition and Separate

Possession of half share in the suit schedule property?

2.To what relief?

7.In support of their case, the first Plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A6.

8.On the other hand, the Defendants have not entered into witness box and not adduced any evidence.

14 of 14 O.S.No.523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No.883/2020)

9.Heard the arguments of both sides.

ISSUE No.1:

10.it is the contention of the Plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property purchased by their grandfather Andela Ramulu in favour of his three sons and out of them, one son i.e., Andela Naga Bhushanam separated from the joint family by taking 1/3rd share to the extent of

Acs.02.06 guntas and the other brothers Defendants No.1 & 2 are jointly enjoying the property to the extent of Acs.04-14 guntas.

11.Defendants No.3 to 5 have filed written statement admitting the claim of the Plaintiffs, but denied that they have not partitioned the properties and denied to partition the same. The evidence of PW.1 is unchallenged and unrebutted. PW.1 deposed her evidence reiterating the averments made in the plaint and in support of her case to show that the property was purchased by their grandfather Andela Ramulu in the names of his sons; she filed Ex.A1.

Since, it is admitted by the Defendants No.3 to 5 that the schedule property is their ancestral property, I find that the Plaintiffs being the children of

Defendant No.1 and Defendants No.3 to 5 being the children of Defendant

No.2 are equally entitled for the shares. Hence, I find that the Plaintiffs No.1 14 of 14 O.S.No.523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No.883/2020) to 4 and Defendant No.1 together entitled for ½ share and Defendants No.2 to 5 together are entitled for ½ share. Accordingly, the Issue No.1 is held in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants.

ISSUE No.2:

12.In view of the findings on Issue No.1, the suit of the Plaintiffs is liable to be decreed with costs.

13.In the result, suit of the Plaintiffs is decreed with costs by allotting ½ share to the Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and Defendant No.1 and ½ share to the

Defendants No.2 to 5 in the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the

Preliminary Decree is passed.

Dictated to Stenographer, Transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

Open court on this the 24th day of November, 2023.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF S:FOR DEFENDANT S : PW1 – Andela RamadeviNIL 14 of 14 O.S.No.523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No.883/2020)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF S : Ex.A1-C.C. of Sale Deed Document No.157/1994, dt:22.01.1994 Ex.A2-C.C. of 1-B(ROR) revenue record, dt:16.09.2020 Ex.A3-Original Aadhar card of the Plaintiff No.1 Ex.A4-Original Aadhar card of the Plaintiff No.2 Ex.A5-Original Aadhar card of the Plaintiff No.3 Ex.A6-Original Aadhar card of the Plaintiff No.4

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam

Read by :

Compared by :

14 of 14 O.S.No.523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No.883/2020)

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT :: IBRAHIMPATNAM (Friday, this the 24th day of November, 2023)

Present:-Sri A.Nagaraj,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District . NO.S o. 523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No. 883 of 20520)

Between:

1. Andela Ramadevi W/o. Bojjam Shiva, D/o. Andela Srinivas, Aged about 26 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No.3-98, Mankhal village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District – 501359

2. Andela Swathi, D/o. Andela Srinivas, Aged about 23 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.3-98, Mankhal village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District – 501359

3. Andela Swapna, D/o. Andela Srinivas, Aged about 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.3-98, Mankhal village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District – 501359

4. Andela Rajesh S/o. Andela Srinivas, Aged about 19 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.3-98, Mankhal village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District – 501359

...Plaintiffs

AND

1. Andela Sreenu, S/o. Late Ramulu, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 3-98, Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-501359.

14 of 14 O.S.No.523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No.883/2020)

2. Andela Sathaiah, S/o. Late Ramulu, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 3-96, Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-501359.

3. Yerragolla Mailika Shirisha, W/o. Late Yerragolla Mailika Vijay Kumar Yadav, D/o. Andela Sathaiah, aged about 27 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No.4-1-98. Old Road, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District-501505.

4. Andela Raju, S/o. Andela Sathaiah, Aged about 23 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H. No. 3-96, Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-501359.

5. Andela Manasa, D/o. Andela Sathaiah, Aged about 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H. No. 3-96, Mankhal Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-501359.

...Defendants

Claim:Suit is filed for Partition and Separate Possession. Plaint filed under Section 26 Order VII Rule 1 & 2 of CPC.

Cause of The cause of action arose on 15.11.2020, when the Plaintiffs Action: approached the Defendants for partition of the suit schedule property and to allot their respective shares with metes and bounds and on 22.01.1994, when the suit schedule property was purchased by the Plaintiffs grandfather with the sale proceeds of the ancestral properties and on 26.02.1994, when the suit schedule property was mutated on the name of the Defendants No. 1 and 2 vide R.O.R proceedings No. D/312/1994 dt.26.02.1994 issued by the M.R.O., Maheshweram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District., and all the dates when the Defendant No. 1 and 2 were got issued Pattadar pass books bearing No. 105160160364 with Khata No. 793 to the Defendant No. 1 and 14 of 14 O.S.No.523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No.883/2020)

Pattadar pass book No. 105160160363 with Khata No. 791 to the Defendant No.2 and all the dates when the Plaintiffs approached the elders for Partition and still continuing the cause of action.

Valuation:The Suit is filed for Partition and valued at Rs.1,39,20,000/- out of which ½ share of Rs.69,60,000/-, out of which the Plaintiffs share is 4/5th share, which comes to an amount of Rs.55,68,000/- out of which 3/4th comes to Rs.41,76,000/- and the parties are being in joint possession as such the same is valued Under Section 34(2) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act, 1956 and affixed Court Fee of Rs.200/- is paid,

dt:15.12.2020, which is sufficient.

Suit presented on: 15.12.2020 Suit numbered on: 15.12.2020

This suit is coming before me on this day 10.10.2023 for final hearing in the presence of M/s. K.Sangan Naidu, Advocate for Plaintiffs and M/s. J.Tulsiram, Advocate for Defendants No.3 to 5 and Defendants

No.1 to 2 are remained exparte, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

1.That the suit of the Plaintiffs be and hereby decreed with costs.

2.That the ½ share is allotted to the Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and Defendant No.1 and ½ share to the Defendants No.2 to 5 in the suit schedule property.

3.That the Defendants to do pay an amount of Rs.396/- to the Plaintiffs towards the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this the 24th day of November, 2023

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

14 of 14 O.S.No.523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No.883/2020)

COSTS OF THE SUIT

For Plaintiff For Defendants

1. Stamps on PlaintRs.- 259=00Rs. -

2. Stamps on Vakalat Rs.- 2=00Rs.- 2=00

3. Stamps on Process Rs.- 135=00Rs. -

4. Advocate FeeRs. - Cost memo Rs.- Cost memo not filed not filed

5. Publication ChargesRs. -Rs.-

6. Miscellaneous Rs.-Rs.- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL Rs. - 396=00Rs.- 2=00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that the Agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Acs.04-14 guntas in

Sy.Nos.820, 821 & 822 situated At Mankal village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District., bounded by:

North:Road, South:Land in Sy.No.743

East:Land in Sy.No.820/Part

West : Land Sy.No.821 & 822/Part and Road

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Read by :

Compared by :

14 of 14 O.S.No.523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No.883/2020)

FORM NO. 8

(PARTICULARS OF VALUE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY)

(RULE 11 AND 87 OF PART Volume I, C.R.P. & Co.)

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT :: IBRAHIMPATNAM . NO.S o. 523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No. 883 of 20520)

Between : Andela Ramadevi and others

...Plaintiffs

AND Andela Sreenu and others

...Defendants

Value of immovable properties U/Sec.10 of the T.S.C.F and S.V.Act, 1Sl.No. of immovable All that the Agricultural land admeasuring an propertiesextent of Acs.04-14 guntas in Sy.Nos.820, 821 & 822 situated At Mankal village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2Registration District and Ranga Reddy District. Sub-District 3Taluk, Village, where the Mankal Revenue village. property is situated 4Survey number and Sub –Sy.Nos.820, 821 and 822 Division number 5ExtentAc.04-14 guntas 6Class of the land wet or Agricultural land dry 7Rental Value of the landOwn occupation 8Market Value of the landRs.55,68,000/- (total value of Plaintiff share) 9Value for the purpose of The Suit is filed for Partition and valued at Court Fee and JurisdictionRs.1,39,20,000/- out of which ½ share of 14 of 14 O.S.No.523 of 2021 (OLD O.S.No.883/2020) with the provision of law Rs.69,60,000/-, out of which the Plaintiffs share under which it is valuedis 4/5th share, which comes to an amount of Rs.55,68,000/- out of which 3/4th comes to Rs.41,76,000/- and the parties are being in joint possession as such the same is valued Under Section 34(2) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act, 1956 and affixed Court Fee of Rs.200/- is paid,

dt:15.12.2020, which is sufficient.

10R E M A R K S Nil

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

NOTE: Both the parties are directed to apply for return of documents as soon as pos- sible lest the same will be destroyed after 3 years from the date of this decree as per Records Destruction Rules 1917.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM VII

ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, IBRAHIMPATNAM R.R

DISTRICT

Present : Sri. A. Nagaraj Addl.Senior Civil Judge,

Cum VII Addl. Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam,

R.R. District.

Dated 21 st day of November, 2023

O.S.No.1522 of 2014

Between:

1. Anireddy Sudhakar S/o. Late Raghava Reddy Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture R/O.H.No. 1-22, Manchal Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

....… Plaintiff. AND

1. Smt. Anireddy Rangamma W/O Late Raghava Reddy Age: 74 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/O. Manchal Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Smt, Jain Sulochana W/o. Sree Ram Reddy Age: 58 Occ: Agriculture R/O.Cherlapatelguda Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal Ranga Reddy District.

3. Smt. Gaddam Chandrakala W/O Prabhakar Reddy & others

...…..Defendants

Claim : Petition filed U/Sec. 26 CPC Order 7 Rule 1 CPC.

This suit is coming on this day before me in the presence of M/s. G. Chander Shekhar Reddy Counsel for Plaintiff and Sri. D. Ravinder Counsel for Defendants having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the followings :

Docket Order Dated 21.11.2023

Plaintiff along with his counsel and D4 are present. Plaintiff filed a memo reporting that the matter was compromised out of the court. Notice of the memo was issued to counsels for

Defendants No.3 to 5. As per the record, Defendants No.1 & 2 died and their LRs Defendants No.6 to 8 are brought on record.

Defendants No.6 to 8 remained exparte on 10.01.2023. Hence, the notice given to the contesting Defendants No.3 to 5 is sufficient. Accordingly, the memo is accepted by permitting the

Plaintiff to not press the suit. Since, the suit is not pressed by the Plaintiff, it is dismissed as not pressed. In the circumstances, both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of November, 2023.

For FAC Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, R.R.District.