Sri. Ajay Kumar Jadhav

O.S.65 of 2019 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT MEDCHAL.

PRESENT: SRI AJAY KUMAR JADHAV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025

O.S.No.65 of 2019

Between:

1. Dyavanapally Anandam S/o Late D. Gangaram, aged 62 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.2-159, Plot No. 17, Green Park, Jeedimetla village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District Rep.by Chenna Rajesh S/o Late Chenna Anthaiah, aged 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.10-133, Meenakshi Colony, Near Ramalayam Temple, Jeedimetla village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (Plaintiff No.2).

2. Chenna Rajesh S/o Late Chenna Anthaian, aged 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 10-133, Meenakshi Colony, Near Ramalayam Temple, Jeedimetla village, Quthubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

…..Plaintiffs

AND

1. Dongala Sattemma W/o Ram Reddy. Aged 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Η No.1-70, Nutankal village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

2. Dongala Venkat Reddy S/o Ram Reddy, Aged 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No. 1-70, Nutankal village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

…..Defendants

28.03.2025 Addl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal

O.S.65 of 2019 Page 2

This suit came before me for final hearing on 28-03-2025 in the presence of Sri T.Shiva Kumar counsel for Plaintiffs and Sri G.Pratap Reddy counsel for defendants and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G E M E N T

1.This suit was instituted for simple injunction in respect of AC.00-17 guntas of land in Sy.No.346/A (346/part) situated at Nuthankal village, Medchal

Mandal, Rangareddy District (hereinafter referred as suit schedule property) to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff No.2 over it.

2.The brief acts of the plant are that the plaintiff No.1 has purchased the suit property from its owner Dongala Malla Reddy for valuable sale consideration under registered sale deed vide document No.10849 of 2005 dated 22/08/2005 and delivered its possession on the same day. Later, his name was mutated in the revenue records while proceeding No.4089 of 2005, dated 21.02.2006 and he obtained pattadar Passbook and title deed in his favour.

Thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff

No.2 by executing agreement of sale General Power of attorney vide document

No.1071 of 2019, dated 22.01.2019 and delivered its possession and since then the plaintiff No.2 has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. On 01/02/2019 when the plaintiff No.2 was carrying out 28.03.2025 Addl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal

O.S.65 of 2019 Page 3

agricultural activities in the suit land, the defendant being neighbor land owner questioned him and demanded him to sell the suit schedule property to them as it is abutting to their land and when the plaintiff No.2 refused. They started interfering with it and threatened the plaintiff No.2 to dispossess him from the suite schedule property. The plaintiff No.2 approached the local police but in vain. The defendant are influential person and as such there is threat of disposition. Hence, plaintiff approached before this court, by way of this suit.

Hence, this suit.

3.The defendants No.1 and 2 approached before this court through their counsel and file their written statement by denying the material averments made in the plaint and stated that they are the pattadar and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.00-14 gunta in Sy.No.346/AA, AC.00-18 guntas in survey

No.347/A and Ac.00- 34 ½ gunta in Sy.No.351/2 totally admeasuring AC.02-26 ½ gunta situated at Nuthankal village. The suit schedule property is situated abutting to 15 feet wide Dabilpur to Nuthankal Road/Cart way on the North

Eastern side of the land belonging to the defendant which they purchased from

Dongala Malla Reddy in the year 2005. In the year 2005 the said road was winded in to 100 feet wide road and thus the suit schedule property was affected in the road and as such the plaintiffs are trying to encroach into the the afore said land of the defendant to cover up the loss caused to them in the road 28.03.2025 Addl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal

O.S.65 of 2019 Page 4

widening. When the 15 feet wide Road is widening to 100 feet Road on the north side of the plaintiffs. How the plaintiff No.1 can hand over the physical possession of this same to the plaintiff No.2 and it is subsequent to the purchase of land by the plaintiff No.1, as such, he cannot alienate the same in favor of the plaintiff No.2. The plaintiff have approached this court with unclean hand by suppressing the real facts. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for perpetual injunction over the suit schedule property against defendants?

3. If so, to what relief?

5.During course of the trial, the plaintiff, No.2 was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A13. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B5. The defendant No.2 was examined as

D.W.2 and got marked Ex.B6 to B9.

6.Heard both the learned counsels. Peruse the record. Written arguments are submitted for the defendants.

7.It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff No.1 had purchased the suit land from Dongala Malla Reddy under a registered deed and later executed 28.03.2025 Addl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal

O.S.65 of 2019 Page 5

AGPA in favor of the plaintiff No.2 and since then the plaintiff has been in physical possession and enjoyment over the suit land, but the defendant are trying to interfere with his possession over the suit land. On the other hand, the case set up by the defendant is that the suit land is not existing on ground.

and it was lost in road widening and in order to grab the land of the defendants, the plaintiff No.2 falsely claiming their land. After purchase of the land by plaintiff No.1 from Dongala Malla Reddy, the 15 feet wide Road was widened and to 100 feet wide Road on its South and as such the question of the title or the suit land does not arise and the documents are created by the plaintiff to for their land.

8.In order to resolve the question, it is just an essential to refer the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides. The plaintiff No.2 himself examined as PW.1 and he relied upon the Ex.A1 to A13. In his chief examination he reiterated the contents of the plaint. Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of AGPA vide document No.1071 of 2009 dated 22/01/2009 executed by the plaintiff No.1 in favour of the plaintiff No.2 in respect of the suit land. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of Sale deed vide document No.10849 of 2005 dated 22/08/2005 executed by D.Malla Reddy in favour of the plaintiff No.1. Ex.A3 is the mutation proceeding in favor of the plaintiff No.1. Ex.A4 to A12 are the certified copy of Pahanis from the year 1961-62 to 2017 which shows the flow of 28.03.2025 Addl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal

O.S.65 of 2019 Page 6

title of the suit schedule property. Ex.A13 is the Encumbrance Certificate. In cross examination of PW.1 he deposed that after verifying all the documents he purchased the suit land from plaintiff No.1, who in turn purchased it from

Dongala Malla Reddy S/o Sathi Reddy. He do not know that the suit schedule property belongs to one Sathi Reddy who is issue less. Sathi Reddy is having five grandsons namely Yadi Reddy, Oil Reddy. Chandra Reddy, Raja Reddy and

Devendra Reddy. He do not know whether Sathi Reddy is having two wives namely Pochamma and Kistamma, that pochamma is having one daughter by name Yadamma and whereas Kistamma is having one daughter by name

Mallamma. The Learned counsel for the defendant did not suggest to PW.1 that the South land was merged in Road widening on its South and that there is exist no land on ground as pleaded in the written statement. Thus, nothing useful was elicited in cross examination of PW.1 to disprove the case of the plaintiff.

9.It is apt to mention that as per Sec.6 of Telangana right in land and the pattadar Passbook Act 1971, there is a presumption with regard to the correction of interest made in revenue records. Unless the contrary is proved that the entries made in the record of the rights are presumed to be correct.

Thus, the revenue records produced by the plaintiff under Ex.A4 to A12 shows the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and flow of title 28.03.2025 Addl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal

O.S.65 of 2019 Page 7

from long back. Ex.A13 reveals the transactions under Ex.A1 and A2. Thus, by virtue of Ex.A1 the plaintiff No.2 has perfected his title over the suit schedule property.

10.Now coming to the evidence of defendants, the defendant No.1 herself examined as DW.1 and she filed her chief examination affidavit by reiterating the written statement averments in toto and got marked Ex.B1 to B5 in support of her case. The Ex.B1 is the C.C. of Gift Deed No.5813/1983, dated 28.11.1983,

Ex.B2 is the C.C. of Pahani for the year 1975-76, Ex.B3: C.C. of Pahani for the year 1981-82, Ex.B4: C.C. of Pahani for the year 1985-86, Ex.B5: C.C. of Pahani for the year 1995-96.

11.In cross examination, she deposed that one Anandam filed this suit, but do not know the relief claimed by him. The suit scheduled Sy.No.is 346, 347 and 351 do not know in which survey number the plaintiff has filed this suit.

Sy.No.346 consists of Ac.02-26 ½ gunta and the document filed by him reveals that survey No.346 consists of Ac.02-27 gunta which she is having. She do not know who is Kistamma and Mallamma. She has not filed any document to show that she is having land in Sy.No.346. In Ex.B1 to B5 her name is not reflecting in respect of the suit schedule property. She has not filed any suit or counter claim in this suit in respect of the suit land. She has not filed any document to show that the alleged road widening mentioned in her written statement as well 28.03.2025 Addl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal

O.S.65 of 2019 Page 8

as in her chief affidavit. There is a compound wall around the suit schedule property. She adds that she constructed it. She has not filed any document or photo to show that she constructed the said compound wall. She has verified the documents of the plaintiff. The name of Mallaiah reflected in pahani for the year 1995-96/Ex.B5. She adds that it was created by Malla Reddy. She has not taken any steps in respect of alleged document before the revenue authorities or police or court. She came to know about Ex.B5 and other documents after receiving summons from the court in this suit. She has not taken any steps from 2019 in respect of the document of plenty before any authority. She do not know whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit. She admitted that, when plaintiff cleared the suit schedule property, they interfere and objected them and as such, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

12.The defendant No.2 examined as D.W.2 who is non other than son of

D.W.1 and got marked Ex.B6 to B9. The Ex.B6 is the C.C. of Plaint in O.S.

1040/2012 on the file of XI Addl. Dist. Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at

Medchal together with order Dt. 24.12.2021, Ex.B7 is the C.C. of Memorandum of Understanding Dt. 24.12.2021, Ex.B8 is the C.C. of Aadhaar Cards of

Gaddam Balamani and Dongala Satthemma, Ex.B9 is the C.C. of Will Dt.

05.09.1978 executed by Dongala China Venkat Reddy S/o Raji Reddy together 28.03.2025 Addl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal

O.S.65 of 2019 Page 9

with Telugu Translation and in his chief affidavit he reiterate the written statement averments once again, but in cross examination he admitted that, this suit is filed for land in Sy.No.346 for an extent of Ac.00-17 guntas. The total extent of land of Sy.No.346 is AC.02-28 guntas. The said Ac.02-28 guntas of land originally belongs to one Sathi Reddy and Venkat Reddy. Venkat Reddy is his grand father and he is having two daughters namely Sattemma (D1) and

Balamani. Satti Reddy having two wives namely Pochamma and Kistamma.

One Yadamma is the daughter of Pochamma though Satti Reddy one Venkat

Reddy is husband of Yadamma. One Oppala Malla Reddy is husband of

Mallamma. Further admitted that, the named Dongala Malla Reddy is reflecting in revenue records. Further admitted that in OS.1040 of 2012 (Ex.B6)

Balamani and Sattemma (D1) are the parties and same is filed for schedule-A property in Sy.No.346/A to an extent of Ac.01-14 guntas. Further admitted that, in Ex.B9 it is mentioned that my grand father is having only AC.01-14 guntas in

Sy.No.346. In Sy.No.346 my grand father namely Venkat Reddy is having AC.01- 14guntas separately and Satti Reddy (father in law of Venkat Reddy) is having

Ac.01-14 guntas separately. In Ex.B6, B7 in schedule -A property North side boundary is mentioned wrongly as ‘DONKA’ instead of Road or panadi. They have not taken any steps to correct the boundaries in Ex.B6, B7. It is further admitted that, suit schedule property was purchased by plaintiff from the share 28.03.2025 Addl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal

O.S.65 of 2019 Page 10

of Satti Reddy. They have not filed any case including partition in respect of land of Satti Reddy. The pahanies specifically reflects the land of Venkat Reddy and Satti Reddy separately. The names of Venkat Reddy, Satti Reddy reflected as possessions in pahanies in respect of their land separately. He has not taken any steps against Ex.B1 as well as entries of the name in pahani and denied the other suggestions put by the learned counsel for plaintiff that he has not went to interfere over suit schedule property and admitted that might be D1 went to interfere.

13.The main contention of the defendants are that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of the property of late Dongala Sathi Reddy and from him, his legally wedded wife, Smt Pochamma has inherited and later by her daughter

Yadamma and after death of Yadamma, defendant No.1 inherited it, but the said plea is nowhere taken by the defendant in their written statement. It is also their further contention that Kistamma is not the wife of late Dongala

Sathi Reddy and he is married Pochamma but contrary to the said contention the learned counsel for the defendant would posed a question to the P.w.1 that

Sathi Reddy is having two wives, namely Pochamma and Kistamma for which

PW.1 pleaded ignorance. By way of written arguments the Counsel for the defendant brought several new facts, but they remain unproved in the absence of any cogent convincing material on record. All these contentions are without 28.03.2025 Addl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal

O.S.65 of 2019 Page 11

any basis and even they were not pleaded in their written statement filed by the defendants nor even given suggested to PW.1 in his cross examination and only for the first time came up with those contention in the written arguments. It is settled law that the contention which are not pleaded in the written statement or irrelevant and not valid in the eye of law. Even the defendant have failed to produce any document in support of her pleadings that the suit schedule property was lost in road widening and the suit schedule property is not at all in the existence on ground. D.W.1 in her cross examination has categorically admitted when the plaintiff cleared the suit schedule property they entered fear and objected them and as such, the present suit is filled. D.W.2 also admitted that suit schedule property was purchase by plaintiff from the shared Satti

Reddy and further reveals that the name of Satti Reddy and Venkat Reddy are reflected in pahanies as owner and possessor in respect of Ac.01-14 gunta each seperately. Further admitted, that D1 might have inter over suit schedule property of plaintiff. The evidence of DW.1 clearly reveals that there is a compound wall around the suit schedule property and even the own document of

Defendant i.e., Ex.B5 reveals the name of Malla Reddy as owner of the suit land in the year 1995-96. Thus, the plaintiff have proved their own case against the defendant regarding title, ownership and possession and also interference by the defendant over the suit land. DW.1 could not initiate any steps by 28.03.2025 Addl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal

O.S.65 of 2019 Page 12

challenging Ex.B5 either before revenue authorities or before police or before any competent court by filing a suit after receipt of the suit summons since the year 2019 and remained silent. The said document of the DW.1 and D.W.2 can be taken note of even after receiving the suit summons and after filing her written statement, defendant did not choose to file any rejoinder also putting forth their claim against the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property which is not done. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs amply proves the ownership, possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff

No.1 initially and subsequently by the plaintiff No.2 over the suit schedule property. Thus, this court holds that the plaintiffs have proved their case against the defendants. Accordingly, the issue are answered against the

Defendants.

14.In the result, the suit is decreed with cost by granting perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff No.2 restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of March, 2025).

Sd/-

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT,

AT MEDCHAL.

28.03.2025 Addl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal

O.S.65 of 2019 Page 13

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For PlaintiffFor defendant

P.W.1: Chenna Rajesh D.W.1: Dongala Sattemma D.W.2: Dongala Venkat Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff Ex.A1: is the Certified of Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney

Vide Document bearing No. 1071/2019 dated 22/01/2019

Ex.A-2: is the C.C. of sale deed vide document bearing No. 10849/2005

dated 22/8/2005

Ex.A-3: is Original proceeding copy issued by M.R.O 21/02/20061 dated

Ex.A-4: is the C.C. of Pahani for the year 1961-1962

Ex.A-5: is the C.C. of Pahani for the year 1975-1976

Ex.A-6: is the C.C. of Pahani for the year 1985-1986

Ex.A-7: is the C.C. of Pahani for the year 1990-91

Ex.A-8: is the C.C. of Pahani for theyear 1995-96

Ex.A-9: is the C.C. of Pahani for the year 1999-2000

Ex.A-10: is the C.C. of Pahani for the year 2005-06.

Ex.A-11: is the C.C. of Pahani for the year 2009-10

Ex.A-12: is theC.C. of Pahani for the year 2017.

Ex.A-13: is the E.C. dated 04/02/2019

For Defendant:

Ex.B1: C.C. of Gift Deed No.5813/1983, dated 28.11.1983

Ex.B2: C.C. of Pahani for the year 1975-76

Ex.B3: C.C. of Pahani for the year 1981-82

Ex.B4: C.C. of Pahani for the year 1985-86 28.03.2025 Addl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal

O.S.65 of 2019 Page 14

Ex.B5: C.C. of Pahani for the year 1995-96

Ex.B6: C.C. of Plaint in O.S. 1040/2012 on the file of XI Addl. Dist. Judge,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal together with order

Dt. 24.12.2021.

Ex.B7: C.C. of Memorandum of Understanding Dt. 24.12.2021

Ex.B8: C.C. of Aadhaar Cards of Gaddam Balamani and Dongala Sathemma

Ex.B9: C.C. of Will Dt. 05.09.1978 executed by Dongala China Venkat Reddy

S/o Raji Reddy together with Telugu Translation.

Sd/-

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT,

AT MEDCHAL.

// True Copy // 28.03.2025 Addl.Senior Civil Judge Medchal

Page 1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDCHAL-

MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT : MEDCHAL

Present: Sri. Ajay Kumar Jadhav

Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal

Wednesday, 10 th day of April, 2025

SC No.141 of 2023

Between:-

The State through Sub Inspector of Police Basheerabad P.S.

......Complainant

AND

A1. Mangoli Mahesh S/o Shivaram, age 23 Years, Occ: Private Job, Caste: Bestha, R/o Near Sai Baba Temple, Jayaram Nagar, Quthubullapur (M), Medhcal district (Aadhar Address: Plot No-106 & 107, Godavari Homes, Gayathri Nagar, Quthubullapur (M), Medhcal district. (Note: A1 died, case against A1 is abated)

A2.Shaik Ghouse S/o Sadullah, age 25 Years, Occ: Driver, Caste: Muslim, R/o Near Water Tank, Yapral, Secunderabad, N/o Plot No-13, Jayaram Nagar, Quthubullapur (M), Medhcal district, ………Accused No.2

This case came up before me for final hearing on 10.04.2025 in the presence of Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri D.Santhosh Rao, counsel for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 2

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused No.2 is prosecuted for the offence under section 307 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 29-12-2020 at 02:00 hours received a complaint from Sri. Sai Kiran Rungubai S/o B. Narsing Rao, age. 29 years, occ

Pvt. Employee, R/o H.No.8-132/A/1, Jayaram Nagar, Quthbullapur (M), Medchal

District, in which he stated that on 28-12-2020 at about 20:45 hours he went to his house as usually, at that time his brother Tarun was in the house and received one telephone call and he went out by talking over phone. Meantime

Ghouse and Mahesh came on Active and stopped in front of his gate, Ghouse acted like he was talking with Tarun, with an intention to kill his brother,

Ghouse caught hold of Tarun and told Mahesh to stab, then Mahesh stabbed the knife which was brought along with him in his stomach one time and stabbed on his shoulder. Due to which Tarun sustained bleeding injuries, he along with his brother tried to rescue him, but they threatened them by showing knife and fled away from there. Immediately they shifted Tarun to

Srujana Hospital, Sri Krishna Nagar. From there he was shifted to Russh

Hospital for better treatment. Later on enquiry he came to know that on 28-12- 2020 night at 20:00 hours for the opening of Chirag Mandi Hotel, on the main road of Jayaram Nagar they called the guest Sri. Bahrath Simha Reddy and

Katta Kumar. At that time Ghouse and Maheh came on their Active in front of the hotel, then they quarrelled with the persons there by abusing them. The persons by name D. Satish Yadav, G. Srikanth, G. Srinivasa Reddy, Tarun who were present there parked their bike beside. Ghouse got angry and beaten them with hands Tarun was trying to pacify the matter why to quarrel and taken

Ghouse to beside, then Ghouse told that why he pushed him and shouted at him

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 3 by saying he will see his end and left from there. After that they roamed on the

Active in bis lane for two times, while Tarun was talking over phone, they came to him, Ghouse caught hold of Tarun, Mahesh stabbed Tarun. Therefore, he requested to take necessary action.

3.As per the contents of the above complaint, LW.20/Sri Mahesh, Sub-

Inspector of police, Pet-Basheerabad registered a case in Crime No.949/2020

U/Sec.307, 323 IPC and the investigation entrusted to LW.21.

3.During the course of investigation, LW.21 examined the complainant/Lw-1 and recorded his statement. Later LW.1 visited the scene of offence situated at

H.No. 8-132/A/1, Jayaram Nagar, Quthbullapur (m), Medchal District and secured two respectable mediators i.e., 13 and 14 and drafted the crime details form in the presence of above said mediators and made enquiries in the vicinity/L.W.21 recorded the statements of eye-witnesses i.e., LWs. 3 to 12.

Further visited Rush Hospital, Suchitra where the injured was undergoing treatment, as he is not in a condition to talk, injured statement is not recorded.

Thereafter, Lw-21 again visited the Rush Hospital, Suchitra and examined and recorded the detailed statement of injured/victim Lw-2 in which he corroborated the statement of Lw-1 in all aspects. After completion of the entire investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused.

4.The learned IX Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, at Medchal took cognizance of the offence U/Sec.307, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and registered the case as

PRC.No.24 of 2021. On appearance of the accused before, the said court, copies required U/sec.208 of Cr.P.C. were furnished and the case was committed to the

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 4

Hon’ble Principal District and Session Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri and later it

was made over to this court for disposal.

5.Accused No.1 is died, case against A1 is abated. On appearance of the accused No.2 before this court and after examining him and hearing the learned

Addl.P.P and learned defence counsel, charges U/Sec.307, 323 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused No.2 for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to 11 and got marked Ex.P1 to P18, M.O.No.1. The accused No.2 neither examined anyone on his behalf.

7.Heard both the learned additional P.P and learned defence counsel.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.2 for the offence under section 323, 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.Heard the argument, submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. and the counsel

for the accused No.2 and on perusal of the record. At the time of argument the

learned Addl.P.P. submitted that, the prosecution examine P.W.1 to 11 and got marked Ex.P1 to P18. He argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.11 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 are corroborating with each other and the said evidence proved the offence against the accused and finally, he prays to convict the accused for the

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 5 offence U/sec.307, 323 of IPC. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused submitted that there are no eye witness in this case, and P.W.1 to 10 are not supported the case of prosecution and they turned hostile. Further, contended that, the accused are no way concern with this case and they are innocent.

Counsel contended that, prosecution not prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence U/Sec.307, 323 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and finally contended that, accused is no way concerned with this case, finally prayed to acquit the accused No. 1 and 2 in the interest of justice as prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No. 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable ground for the alleged offence punishable U/Sec.307, 323 of IPC.

POINT :

10.Keeping in mind the argument submitted by the learned counsel of the both sides, the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

U/Sec.307, 323 of IPC?

11.After submitted the hearing by learned Addl.P.P. and learned counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 and after consideration of material on record, it is to be reported that the charged leveled against the accused No.1 and 2 is

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 6

U/Sec.307, 323 of IPC. Whatever the charge may be, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt. The essential ingredients of Sec.307, 323 of IPC shall be proved by the prosecution to record the conviction against the accused No.1 and 2 clear, cogent, reliable and trustworthy oral evidence is necessary to believe the prosecution story.

12.In the above back ground, the oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused is carefully examined.

The material witness examined by the prosecution to support their case are

P.W.1 to 11. Pw1/Tarun Rungubai/injured, Pw2/Golla Sathish/eye witness cum injured, Pw3/Golla Srikanth/eye witness cum injured, Pw4/Md.Asif/eye witness cum injured, Pw5/Edara Kasaiah/panch witness for C.D.F, Pw6/P.Sujatha/eye witness, Pw7/Golla Indiramma/eye witness, Pw8/G.Srinivas Reddy/eye witness cum injured, Pw9/R.Shoba Rani/eye witness, Pw10/P.Bala Krishna/Panch witness for CDF, Pw11/P.Rama Krishna, SI of Police and is the investigating officer who file charge sheet before the Court.

13.The case of the accused No.1 and 2 total denial of prosecution case. The offence alleged against the accused No.1 and 2 is U/Sec.307, 323 of IPC. To find

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 7 out accused No.1 and 2 guilt for the offence U/Sec.307, 323 of IPC. It is mandatory for the prosecution to prove that accused attacked P.W.2/injured with an intention to kill him.

14.In the event of prosecution successfully establishing the above ingredients of Sec.307 r/w 34 IPC. The accused No.1 and 2 can be found guilty otherwise he has to be set at free. To substantiate its case and to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.11, as the P.W.1 to 10 were not supported the case of prosecution and they turned hostile and cross examined but nothing elicited to prove their version of prosecution. As such, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.11/I.O., he deposed before this Court during his examination that the lines of his investigationthat on on 29.12.2020 Lw1 went to Lw20 and filed a written complainant as Ex.P8. Basing on it Lw20 issued FIR as Ex.P9 vide Cr.No.949 of 2020 and entrusted case file to Lw.21. Lw21 recorded the statement of Pw1. Later visited scene of offence at H.No.8-132/A1, Jayaram

Nagar, Quthbullahpur and conducted scene of offence panchanama as Ex.P10 in the presence of Pw5 and Pw10. Later Lw21 recorded the statement of Pw2 to 4, 6 to 9, Lw8, 11 and 12. Later he visited Rush Hospital as injured was under going treatment and unable to talk as such he could not record his statement.

Later Lw21 again visited Rush Hospital and recorded the statement of

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 8

Pw1/injured. On 01.01.2021 at about 07.30 am their staff apprehended accused no.1 and no.2 and brought them to police station. On interrogation as accused no.1 and no.2 voluntarily read to confess their guilt as such Lw21 secured the presence of Lw15 and 16 and conducted confession panchanama of accused no.1 and no.2 as Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 respectively. Later accused no.1 led Lw21 along with panchas to seizure weapons near Guzari, Jayaram nagar and same was seized under cover of seizure panchanama as Ex.P13 and seized a knife as MO

No.1. later affected arrest of accused no.1 and no.2 and produced them for judicial remand before Hon’ble Court. Later Lw21 send knife with blood stains, blue colour jean pant with dark brown stains, a torn cream coloured full cotton shirt with dark brown stains, a torn blue coloured underwear with dark brown stains to the FSL for examination. As Lw21 was transferred as such he received

CD file from him. He has verified the investigation conducted by Lw21 and found it on proper line. Later he has collected medical certificates of Pw2, 3 and 8 from Lw18 as E.P14 to P16 respectively and collected medical certificate of

Pw1 from Lw17 as Ex.P17. Later he has collected FSL report as Ex.P18 from

Lw19. Later he has deposited case property before the court. After completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet before the court. During cross examination P.W.11 denied the suggestions of the Learned counsel for the accused that Lw1 never went to Lw20 nor filed any Ex.P8/complaint and on

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 9 28.12.2020 Pw1 to Pw3, 8 they are proceeding towards their home on their bikes and their bikes were skid and they fell down and sustained injuries as such they were shifted to Rush hospital for treatment. He denied that Lw20 was obtained signature of Lw1 on some blank white paper and basing on he registered a false case to fulfill his monthly target. He further denied that Lw21 recorded the statements of Pw1 to 4, 6 to 9, Lw8, 11 and 12 nor conducted any scene of offence panchanama nor coducted seizure panchanama nor conducted confessional panchanama of accused no.1 and no.2 in the presence of Pw5 and

Pw10, Lw15 and Lw16 nor seized MO.No.1 and L.W.17 and 18 never gave treatment to Pw1 to 3, 8 nor issued any Ex.P14 to P17 and Lw19 not issued

Ex.P18/FSL Report and he has not verified the investigation conducted by Lw21 and without proper investigation he has filed false charge sheet against the accused.

15.The learned Addl.P.P. submitted that the evidence of P.W11 /I.O. is constant and Ex.P1 to P18 also supported the prosecution case and prayed to convict the accused No.1 and 2.

16.The learned counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 argued that, P.W.1 never went to P.S. Basheerabad nor he lodged any report nor accused No.1 and 2 attacked P.W.1 to Pw3 and Pw8/injured with an intentional to kill them nor

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 10 caused any injuries to them. P.W.1 to Pw3 and Pw8/injured sustained injuries by fell down from bike and he shifted to Rushi hospital for treatment. Where

L.W.20obtain the signature of Lw1 on white blank paper and registered this false case for statistical purpose and without proper investigation P.W.11 filed this false charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2. Prosecution fail to prove the case for the offence U/Sec.307, 323 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and pray to acquit the accused No.1 and 2 .

17. It is true that, the evidence of hostile witness need not be discarded completely but to consider the previous statement of P.W.1 to 10, have been marked as Ex.P1 to P18. There is every need that the witness give some clue about the incident in the chief examination or in cross examination, in this case, neither P.W.1 to Pw10 did not whisper anything about the incident to say that in the alleged incident the accused No. 1 and 2 attacked P.W.1 to Pw3 and

Pw8/injured/injured with an intention to kill them and caused injuries. In such a case the prosecution though marked previous statement of P.W.1 to 10 as

Ex.P1 to P18 the same are not useful in anyway.

18. Further, the witnesses i.e., Lw1/Sai Kiran/complainant, Lw8/M.Soma

Narsiah/eye witness, Lw11/A.Babi Leela, Lw12/O.Nerla, Lw15/B.Yadagiri,

Lw16/G.Balaram, Lw17/Dr.Hasan, Medical Officer, Lw18/Dr.Anil Kumar,

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 11

Medical Officer, Lw19/Dr.Shaik Haseena Pravin, Lw20/Mahesh, SI of

Police/Issued FIR, Lw21/G.Srinivas, SI of police/1st IO and arrested the accused no.1 and no.2 not examine by the prosecution and his evidence was given-up, without the evidence of the doctor, it is not possible to say the injuries sustain by the P.w.1 are caused by the accused and accused are liable for punishment

U/Sec.307, 323 of IPC. Failure of the prosecution to establish the ingredients of sec.307 r/w 34 of IPC though the evidence of P.W.9 entitles in acquittal of the accused for the offence U/Sec.307, 323 of IPC.

19.Considering the above evidence on record, the crucial witness i.e.,

P.W.1 to 11 the defacto complainant, complainant and eye witness to the alleged scene of offence were not supported the version of prosecution. It is well settled law that, the burden to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt is lies on the shoulder of the prosecution. The accused has a right to maintain silence during trial. Every accused to be presume innocent till prove guilty. The burden of proof on the prosecution to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities and presumptions.

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 12

20.For the reason stated supra, it is very clear that the prosecution fail to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered that the prosecution fail to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable

U/Sec.307, 323 of IPC and they are entitle for acquittal.

21.In the result, the accused No.2 found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.307 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence u/sec.235 (1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused no.2 shall stands in force for a period of six months from today contemplated u/Sec.448-A Cr.P.C. The M.O

No.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed by the Stenographer Gr-II and corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 10 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Medchal

Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution

Pw.1 R.Tharun Pw.2 G.Sathish Pw.3 G.Srikanth Pw.4 Md.Asif Pw.5 E.Kashaiah Pw.6 P.Sujatha

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 13

Pw.7 G.Indiramma Pw.8 G.Srinivas Reddy Pw.9 R.Shobha Rani Pw.10 P.Balakrishna Pw.11 P.Rama Krishna

For DefenceNone

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 is 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P5 is 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P6 is 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.7 Ex.P7 is 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.9 Ex.P8 is written complaint Ex.P9 is F.I.R Ex.P10 is Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P11 and 12 Confession panchanama of accused No.1 and 2 respectively Ex.P13 is seizure panchanama Ex.P14 to Ex.P16 Medical certificates of P.W.2, 3 and 8 from L.W.18 respectively Ex.P17 is Medical certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P18 is FSL report

Exhibits Marked for Defence

NIL

Material Objects marked

M.O.No.1 is Kinfe

Sd/-

Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Medchal

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 14

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 1 of 11

SC No.288 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDCHAL-

MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT : MEDCHAL

Present: Sri. Ajay Kumar Jadhav Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal

Thursday, 10th day of April, 2025

SC No.288 of 2023

Between:-

The State through Sub Inspector of Police P.S Alwal.

......Complainant

AND

1. Kommu Mashanna @ Mahesh, s/o. Late Karranna, Aged 33 years, Occ: Mason, r/o. Near Gram Panchayathi, Thelkapally (M), Nagar Kurnool district.

2. Kommu Laxmamma, w/o. Karranna, Occ: Housewife, r/o. Near Gram Panchayathi, Almasguda, Meerpet, N/o.Golagudam (v), Thelkapally (M), Nagar Kurnool district. ………Accused

This case came up before me for final hearing on 10.04.2025 in the presence of Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and Swetha counsel for the Accused No.1 and no.2 and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused No.1 and No.2 are prosecuted for the offence under section 498-A and 306 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that, the de facto complainant V.Venkatamma went to police station, Alwal P.S. on 10.05.2022 at 10.45 hours lodged a complaint and stated that she is having three daughters. 10 years back they performed her second daughter Nallavelli Chennamma, w/o.

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 2 of 11

SC No.288 of 2023

N.Mahesh, r/o. Golagunda village in the presence of elders. At that time of the marriage, as per he demand of her son in law they had given cash of Rs.40,000/- and one tula gold and performed the marriage. Her son in law/Mahesh, her daughter Chennamma and her three children went to Hyderabad and residing at

Halmasguda, Meerpet and eking out their livelihood by doing labour work. For some years her son in law addicted to consume liquor and daily harassed her daughter mentally and physically to bring additional dowry. On 06.05.2022 at about 18.00 hours her son in law brought her her daughter to their house, when she asked what happened, he said that her daughter is not feeling well and asked to keep her. On 07.05.2022 at about 06.00 hours, he left from their house. Afer that when she asked her daughter, she said that her husband had beaten her for want for additional dowry and her mother in law supported to her husband. On 08.05.2022 at about 10.30 hours she left the house to bring money from her mason, at that tie her daughter Chennamma was in the house, at about 1500 hours she came to her house after taking money from mason and noticed her daughter was slept, she tried to wake up her to have food, but she did not get up, no response from her and turpentine oil smell was coming from her mouth, under the cot noticed one thumbsup bottle fell down and immediately she called her elder daughter who is residing beside and shifted her daughter to Gandhi hospital, while undergoing treatment her daughter was expired on 09.05.2022 at about 15.19 hours. As her son in law and his mother Laxmma were harassed her daughter mentally and physically for want of additional dowry, due to unbearable harassment her daughter consumed turpentine oil and died and requested to take action against the accused.

3.Basing on the above report, L.W.8/M.Prasuram, Sub-Inspector of police,

Alwal, Cyberabad P.S., registered a case in Crime No.319 of 2022 under Section 498-A, 306 of IPC and he entrusted case file to L.W.9/Bethappa, the then Sub

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 3 of 11

SC No.288 of 2023

Inspector of police Alwal, from him L.W9 received CD file and conducted investigation. During the course of investigation, the lw9 recorded the statement of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, visited Gandhi Hospital Mortuary and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, lw7/Dr.Krupal Singh, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased N.Chennamma. On 11.05.2022 apprehended A1 and on 12.05.2022 A2 surrendered herself, recorded their confession statement and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet is filed against the accused.

4.The learned X.Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, at Medchal took cognizance of the offence U/sec.498-A and 306 of IPC and registered the case as PRC.No.96 of 2022. On appearance of the accused before, the said court, copies required

U/sec.208 of Cr.P.C. were furnished and the case was committed to the Hon’ble

Principal District and Session Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri and later it was made over

to this court for disposal.

5.On appearance of the accused before this court and after examining them, and hearing the learned Addl.P.P and learned defence counsel, charges U/sec.498-

A and 306 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to

P4, M.O.No.1 and 2. The accused neither examined anyone on their behalf.

7.Heard both the learned additional P.P and learned defence counsel.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 498-A, 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 4 of 11

SC No.288 of 2023

9.Heard the argument, submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. and the counsel for the accused No.1 and no.2 and on perusal of the record. At the time of argument the learned Addl.P.P. submitted that, the prosecution examine P.W.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4. He argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and Ex.P1 to

Ex.4 are corroborating with each other and the said evidence proved the offence against the accused and finally, he prays to convict the accused for the offence

U/Sec.498-A, 306 r/w.34 of IPC. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused

No.1 and no.2 submitted that there are no eye witness in this case, and P.W.1 to

Pw3 are not supported the case of prosecution and they turned hostile. Further, contended that, the accused are no way concern with this case and they are innocent. Counsel contended that, prosecution not prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.498-A, 306 r/w.34 beyond reasonable doubt and finally contended that, accused is no way concerned with this case, finally prayed to acquit the accused in the interest of justice as prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable ground for the alleged offence punishable

U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC.

POINT :

10.Keeping in mind the argument submitted by the learned counsel of the both sides, the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC?

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 5 of 11

SC No.288 of 2023

11.After submitted the hearing by learned Addl.P.P. and learned counsel

for the accused No.1 and no.2 and after consideration of material on record, it is to

be reported that the charged leveled against the accused is U/Sec.498-A, 306 of

IPC. Whatever the charge may be, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The essential ingredients of

U/Sec.498-A, 306 shall be proved by the prosecution to record the conviction against the accused clear, cogent, reliable and trustworthy oral evidence is necessary to believe the prosecution story.

12.In the above back ground, the oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused is carefully examined. The material witness examined by the prosecution to support their case are P.W.1 to 4.

Pw1/Vadala Venkatramma/complainant/mother, Pw2/Vadala Ramulu/father of deceased/witness, Pw3/Alwalolla Nagendramma/elder sister of deceased,

Pw4/M.Bethappa, S.I of Police and filed charge sheet is the investigating officer who file charge sheet before the Court.

13.The case of the accused total denial of prosecution case. The offence alleged against the accused is U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC. To find out accused No.1 and no.2 guilt for the offence U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC. It is mandatory for the prosecution to prove that accused No.1 and no.2, harassed the deceased which lead to abetment of suicide.

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 6 of 11

SC No.288 of 2023

14.In the event of prosecution successfully establishing the above ingredients of U/Sec.498-A, 306. The accused No.1 and no.2 can be found guilty otherwise they are to be set at free. To substantiate its case and to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and no.2 beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.4, as the P.W.1 to Pw3 were not supported the case of prosecution and they turned hostile and cross examined but nothing elicited to prove their version of prosecution. As such, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W4/I.O., he deposed before this Court during his chief examination that the lines of his that on 10.05.2022 at about 10.45 am, Lw8 received complaint form Pw1 basing on it he registered a case in Cr.No.319 of 2022 and issued FIR as

Ex.P1 and entrusted case file to him for further investigation and he has perused the CD file and proceed for further investigation, he has recorded the statement of Pw1. Later he visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama as Ex.P2 in the presence of Lw5 and Lw6. Thereafter, he visited

Gandhi Hospital and recorded the statement of Pw2, 3, Lw4/K.Balaswamy, later he has conducted inquest panchanama as Ex.P3 over the dead body of deceased in the presence of lw5 and Lw6. Later lw7/Dr.T.Krupal singh conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PME report as Ex.P4 final opinion report of Lw7 as Ex.P5. On 11.05.2022 at about 10.00 am they apprehended accused no.1 on interrogation accused confessed his guilt later, he served Sec.50 and 50-A Cr.PC to accused and produced the accused before the Hon’ble Court for judicial

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 7 of 11

SC No.288 of 2023

remand. On 12.05.2022 accused no.2 surrendered before him as such he has issued Sec.41-A Cr.PC notice and complied the same as such he has not affected her arrest. MO. No.1 is Empty Turpentine Bottle, M.O.No.2 Empty Thums Up bottle, after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet. During cross examination P.W.4, he denied that Pw1 never came to him nor lodged any report and the deceased committed suicide on her own due to her health problems. He denied that Lw8 obtained thumb impression of Pw1 on blank white paper and registered false case and issued FIR to fulfill your monthly target and he further denied that he has not recorded the statement of Pw1 to Pw3, Lw4 and he has not conducted scene of offence panchanama nor seized M.O.1 No.1 and No.2.

And he further denied that he has not conducted inquest panchanama and both accused are no way concerned with this case and without proper investigation he has filed this false charge sheet.

15.The learned Addl.P.P. submitted that the evidence of P.W4 /I.O. is constant and Ex.P1 to P4 and M.O. No.1 and No.2 also supported the prosecution case and prayed to convict the accused.

16.The learned counsel for the accused No.1 and no.2 argued that, P.W.1 never went to P.S. Alwal nor he lodged any report nor accused No.1 and no.2 harassed the deceased. Where Pw4 obtain the signature of Pw1 on white paper and registered this false case for registered this false case and as he is superior

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 8 of 11

SC No.288 of 2023

officer as such to help him without further proper investigation. Prosecution fail to prove the case for the offence U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and pray to acquit the accused .

17. It is true that, the evidence of hostile witness need not be discarded completely but to consider the previous statement of P.W.1 to Pw4, have been marked as Ex.P1 to P4. There is every need that the witness give some clue about the incident in the chief examination or in cross examination, in this case, neither

P.W.1 to Pw3 did not whisper anything about the incident to say that in the harassment of the deceased, which lead to abetment of suicide. In such a case the prosecution though marked previous statement of P.W.1 to Pw4 as Ex.P1 to P4 the same are not useful in anyway.

18. Further, the witnesses given by the learned APP i.e., Lw4/Kallur Balaswamy,

Lw5/Erram Rama Krishna and Lw6/P.Muthyalamma/panch for CDF/panch for inquest, Lw7/Dr.T.Krupal Singh/conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued FSL report and Lw8/M.Parasuram, SI of police issued FIR, not examine by the prosecution and their evidence was given-up, without the evidence of the doctor, and accused No.1 and no.2 are liable for punishment U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC. Failure of the prosecution to establish the ingredients of U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC. though the evidence of P.W.4 entitles in acquittal of the accused for the offence U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC.

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 9 of 11

SC No.288 of 2023

19.Considering the above evidence on record, the crucial witness i.e.,

P.W.1 to Pw3 the defacto complainant/mother and eye witness to the alleged scene of offence were not supported the version of prosecution. It is well settled law that, the burden to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt is lies on the shoulder of the prosecution. The accused has a right to maintain silence during trial. Every accused to be presume innocent till prove guilty. The burden of proof on the prosecution to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities and presumptions.

20.For the reason stated supra, it is very clear that the prosecution fail to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and no.2 beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered that the prosecution fail to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC and they are entitle for acquittal.

21.In the result, the accused No.1 and no.2 found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the said offence under Sec.235 (1) Cr.PC for the said alleged offence. The bail bonds of the accuse no.1 and no.2 shall stands in force for a period of six months in

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 10 of 11

SC No.288 of 2023

view of Sec.448-A of Cr.PC. M.O.No.1 and No.2 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed by the Stenographer Gr-II and corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 10 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Medchal

Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution:

Pw.1 V.Venkatamma Pw.2 V.Ramulu Pw.3 A.Nagendramma Pw.4 M.Bethappa

For Defence:--None--

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 FIR Ex.P2 Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3 Inquest panchanama Ex.P4 P.M.E report

Exhibits Marked for Defence

NIL

Material Objects marked

M.O. No.1 Empty Turpentine Bottle

M.O.No.2 Empty Thumsup Bottle

Sd/-

Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrict,atMedchal

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDCHAL-

MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT : MEDCHAL

Present: Sri. Ajay Kumar Jadhav Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal

Monday, 7th day of April, 2025

SC No.1651 of 2022

Between:-

The State through Sub Inspector of Police Jawhar nagar P.S.

......Complainant

AND

1. Shyamala Sai Kumar, S/o. Ramulu, 25 yrs, occ: Chef, r/o. H.No.7-713, Ayyappa colony, Dammaiguda, Medchal n/o.H.No.5-81/16, Vellutla village, Lingala Ghanapuram mandal Jangam District.

2.Shyamala, w/o. Mallesh, 35 yrs, occ: Housewife, r/o. H.No.7-713, Ayyappa colony, Dammaiguda, Medchal n/o.H.No.5-81/16, Vellutla village, Lingala Ghanapuram mandal Jangam District.

3.Sharadha, o. Mallesh, 35 yrs, occ: Housewife, r/o. H.No.7-713, Ayyappa colony, Dammaiguda, Medchal n/o.H.No.5-81/16, Vellutla village, Lingala Ghanapuram mandal Jangam District. (A3 died hence abated)

4.Mallesh, s/o.Mallesh, 45 yrs, Occ: Chef, r/o. H.No.7-713, Ayyappa colony, Dammaiguda, Medchal n/o.H.No.5-81/16, Vellutla village, Lingala Ghanapuram mandal Jangam District.

………Accused No.1 to 4

This case came up before me for final hearing on 07.04.2025 in the presence of Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and R.Sardar counsel for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 2

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused are prosecuted for the offence under section 498-A, 306 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that, the de facto complainant lodged a report before Lw10/P.Bixapathi Rao stating that she performed marriage of her daughter with accused and they blessed with one child.

Later, accused started abusing her in filthy language and beaten with hands to her daughter. The deceased stated her that one Mallesh and his second wife

Shyamala started harassing her through phone to clear their debt for which accused and deceased quarreled with each other in matter of their debt. On 21.04.2020 at 10.00 am accused informed her that Divya/deceased committed suicide by hanging to a sealing fan at her residence with Saree. Immediately she rushed to the spot and found her daughter died. On enquiry she came to know that on 21.04.2020 accused and deceased were quarreled with each other and due to which deceased committed suicide and prayed for necessary action.

3.Basing on the above report, L.W.10/B.Bixapathi Rao, S.I of police, Jawahar nagar P.S., registered a case in Crime No.345/2020 under Section 498-A, 306 r/w.34 of IPC and he entrusted case file to Pw5/D.Anil the then Sub Inspector of police

Jawahar nagar. During course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of L.W.1/Chindam Sujatha and later visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of L.W.6 and 7. Later, he recorded the statement of L.W.2 to 5. Later he visited hospital and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased. Lw9 conducted PME over the dead body. Later, on 23.04.2020 at about 3.00 pm he apprehended the accused and he confessed his guilt later he produced the accused before the court for judicial remand. After completion of the entire investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused No.1 to 4 under Sec.498-A, 306 r/w.34 IPC.

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 3

4.The learned X Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, at Medchal took cognizance of the offence U/sec.498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC and registered the case as PRC.No.74 of 2020. On appearance of the accused before, the said court, copies required

U/sec.208 of Cr.P.C. were furnished and the case was committed to the Hon’ble

Principal District and Session Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri and later it was made over

to this court for disposal.

5.On appearance of the accused before this court and after examining them, and hearing the learned Addl.P.P and learned defence counsel, charges U/sec.498-

A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to

P8. The accused neither examined anyone on their behalf.

7.Heard both the learned additional P.P and learned defence counsel.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 498-A, 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.Heard the argument, submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. and the counsel for the accused No.1 to 4 and on perusal of the record. At the time of argument the learned Addl.P.P. submitted that, the prosecution examine P.W.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8. He argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and

Ex.P1 to Ex.5 are corroborating with each other and the said evidence proved the offence against the accused and finally, he prays to convict the accused for the

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 4 offence U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused

No.1 to 4 submitted that there are no eye witness in this case, and P.W.1 to Pw4 are not supported the case of prosecution and they turned hostile. Further, contended that, the accused are no way concern with this case and they are innocent. Counsel contended that, prosecution not prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.498-A, 306 beyond reasonable doubt and finally contended that, accused is no way concerned with this case, finally prayed to acquit the accused in the interest of justice as prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable ground for the alleged offence punishable

U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC.

POINT :

10.Keeping in mind the argument submitted by the learned counsel of the both sides, the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to No.4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC?

11.After submitted the hearing by learned Addl.P.P. and learned counsel

for the accused No.1 to 4 and after consideration of material on record, it is to be

reported that the charged leveled against the accused is U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC.

Whatever the charge may be, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 5 of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The essential ingredients of

U/Sec.498-A, 306 shall be proved by the prosecution to record the conviction against the accused clear, cogent, reliable and trustworthy oral evidence is necessary to believe the prosecution story.

12.In the above back ground, the oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused is carefully examined. The material witness examined by the prosecution to support their case are P.W.1 to 5.

Pw1/Ch.Sujatha/complaiant/mother of the deceased, Pw2/father of the deceased,

Pw3/Ch.Vinod/brother of the deceased, Pw4/P.Nirmala/aunt of the deceased,

Pw5/D.Anil, SI of Police and filed charge sheet is the investigating officer who file charge sheet before the Court.

13.The case of the accused total denial of prosecution case. The offence alleged against the accused is U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC. To find out accused No.1 to 4 guilt for the offence U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC. It is mandatory for the prosecution to prove that accused No.1 to 4, harassed the deceased which lead to abetment of suicide.

14.In the event of prosecution successfully establishing the above ingredients of U/Sec.498-A, 306. The accused No.1 to 4 can be found guilty otherwise they are to be set at free. To substantiate its case and to prove the guilt

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 6 of the accused No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.5, as the P.W.1 to Pw4 were not supported the case of prosecution and they turned hostile and cross examined but nothing elicited to prove their version of prosecution. As such, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W5/I.O., he deposed before this Court during his chief examination that the lines of his that on 21.04.2020 at about 07.00 pm, lw10 received Ex.P1 from Pw1 and registered it as FIR No.345 of 2020 as Ex.P5 and entrusted the case to me for further investigation. During the course of investigation he has examined and recorded the statement of Pw1, later he visited the scene of offence at Dammaiguda and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch as Ex.P6 and he sent requisition to Lw8/Shabana, the then Delputy

Tahsildar at RDO Office, Sunderabad to conduct inquest panchanama. Later Lw8 conducted inquest panchanama of deceased as Ex.P7 in the presence of Lw6 and

Lw7 and recorded the statements of Pw1 to Pw4 and Lw5 as the alleged offence was occurred within the seven years of marriage. On 23.04.2020 at about 3.00 pm he apprehended the accused and brought him to police station. During interrogation accused voluntarily confessed guilty. Thereafter, he affected the arrest of accused and produced him before the court for judicial remand. Later he has collected PME report held by LW9. Ex.P8 is the PME report of lw9. As accused no.2 to 4 surrendered before Hon’ble Court and they were remanded to judicial custody on 26.06.2020. After completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet. During cross examination P.W.5, he denied that Pw1 never went to Lw10

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 7 nor lodged any report and Lw10 obtained the signature of Pw1 on some blank papers and registered this false case to fulfill their monthly targets. He further denied that deceased committed suicide on her own and accused persons are no way concerned with the suicide of the deceased and he further denied that he has not conducted Ex.P6/SOP in the presence of Lw6 and Lw7 and Lw8 not conducted inquest panchanama in the presence of Lw6 and Lw7 and lw9 not conducted any

PME over the dead body of the deceased. He admitted that he has not examine any neighbour of the house of deceased. He further denied that he has not conducted proper investigation he filed this false charge sheet for statistical purpose.

15.The learned Addl.P.P. submitted that the evidence of P.W5 /I.O. is constant and Ex.P1 to P8 also supported the prosecution case and prayed to convict the accused.

16.The learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 4 argued that, P.W.1 never went to P.S. Jawahar nagar nor he lodged any report nor accused No.1 to 4 harassed the deceased. Where Lw10 obtain the signature of Pw1 on white paper and registered this false case for registered this false case to fulfill their monthly targets. Prosecution fail to prove the case for the offence U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and pray to acquit the accused .

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 8

17. It is true that, the evidence of hostile witness need not be discarded completely but to consider the previous statement of P.W.1 to Pw5, have been marked as Ex.P1 to P8. There is every need that the witness give some clue about the incident in the chief examination or in cross examination, in this case, neither

P.W.1 to Pw4 did not whisper anything about the incident to say that in the harassment of the deceased, which lead to abetment of suicide. In such a case the prosecution though marked previous statement of P.W.1 to Pw5 as Ex.P1 to P5 the same are not useful in anyway.

18. Further, the witnesses given by the learned APP i.e., Lw5/D.Balamani,

Lw6/S.Narsimha, Lw7/A.Ashok/panch for scene and inquest, Lw8/Shabana,

RDO/held inquest over dead body of the deceased, Lw10/P.Bikshapathy

Rao/issued FIR and these witnesses are not examine by the prosecution and their evidence was given-up, without the evidence of the doctor, and accused No.1 to 4 are liable for punishment U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC. Failure of the prosecution to establish the ingredients of U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC. though the evidence of P.W.4 entitles in acquittal of the accused for the offence U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC.

19.Considering the above evidence on record, the crucial witness i.e.,

P.W.1 to Pw4 the defacto complainant/mother and eye witness to the alleged scene of offence were not supported the version of prosecution. It is well settled law that, the burden to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt is lies on the

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 9 shoulder of the prosecution. The accused has a right to maintain silence during trial. Every accused to be presume innocent till prove guilty. The burden of proof on the prosecution to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities and presumptions.

20.For the reason stated supra, it is very clear that the prosecution fail to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered that the prosecution fail to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-

A, 306 of IPC and they are entitle for acquittal.

21.In the result, the accused No.1, 2 & 4 found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A, 306 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the said offence under Sec.235 (1) Cr.PC for the said alleged offence. The bail bonds of the accuse no.1, 2 & 4 shall stands in force for a period of six months in view of

Sec.448-A of Cr.PC. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed by the Stenographer Gr-II and corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court this the 7 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Medchal

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 10

Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution:

Pw.1 : Ch.Sujatha Pw.2 : Ch. Ramulu Pw.3 : Ch.Vinodh Pw.4 : P.Nirmala Pw.5 : D.Anil

For Defence:--None--

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 : Report of Pw1 Ex.P2 : Sec.161 Cr.PC Statement of Pw2 Ex.P3 : Sec.161 Cr.PC Statement of Pw3 Ex.P4 : Sec.161 Cr.PC Statement of Pw4 Ex.P5 : FIR Ex.P6 : Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P7 : inquest Ex.P8 : PME report

Exhibits Marked for Defence

NIL

Material Objects marked

Sd/-

Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrict,atMedchal

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

Page 11

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge

at Medchal

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT

AT KUKATPALLY

PRESENT: Ajay Kumar Jadhav,

FAC Senior Civil Judge,

Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally

Thursday, this the 18th day of April, 2024

O.S. No. 614 OF 2022

BETWEEN:-

1. Smt.Geddam Lakshmanamma, W/o Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu, Aged about 88 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.10-3-117/A, Addagutta, East Marredpally, Secunderabad-500026, TS, Cell: 9492507451. Aadhaar No.6411 1810 3861.

2. Sri Geddam Atchuthananda Rao, S/o Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu, Aged about 71 years, Occ: Retired Govt. Employee, R/o H.No.79-20-12, 12, Mallina Nagar, Rajahmundry (Urban), East Godavari-533103, A.P., Cell: 9440417586, Aadhaar No.9660 3397 8614.

3. Dr.Geddam Bapi Raju, S/o Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu, Aged about 69 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o H.No.10-3-117/A, Addagutta, East Marredpally, Secunderabad-500026, TS. Presently Residing at 4997, Hampton Village Drive Mason, United States of America. Cell: +1 513 324 7633. Aadhaar No.9750 2107 7976. Rep.by its GPA Sri.Geddam Nageswara Rao, S/o Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu, Plaintiff No.5 herein.

4. Smt.Maddu Balaji Devi, W/o Sri Maddu Appala Konda, D/o Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu, aged about 64 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.48-3-6, Gowthami Complex, Sree Nagar, Opposite BVK College, Visakhapatnam-530016, A.P. Cell: 9014966727. Aadhaar No.2319 3152 8497 Rep.by its GPA Smt.Ravada Sashikala, D/o Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu, Plaintiff No.6 herein (Amended as per Order in IA.No.323/23 dt.21/6/23)

5. Sri Geddam Nageswara Rao, S/o Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Retired Govt. Employee, R/o H.No.10-3-117/A, Addagutta, East Marredpally, Secunderabad-500026, TS. Cell: 9440087666. Aadhaar No.3802 2753 3824.

6. Smt.Ravada Sashikala, W/o Sri Ravada Satyanarayana, D/o Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.86-25/1/4, V.L.Puram, Rajahmundry (Urban), East Godavari-533101, A.P. Cell: 9493490675. Aadhaar No.3999 0963 5258.

7. Sri. Geddam Raja Rajeshwara Rao, S/o Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Homeopathic Doctor, R/o H.No.10-3-117/A, Addagutta, East Marredpally, Secunderabad-500026, TS. Cell: 9849558328. Aadhaar No.5652 9460 6708

...Plaintiffs.

And

1. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kukatpally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Mandal Revenue Office, JNTU Road, Dharma Reddy Colony, Phase-2, Beside Rythu Bazaar, Kukatpally Housing Board Colony, Hyderabad-500072.

2. All concerned.

...Defendants.

2 OF 5 O.S.No.614 OF 2022

This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Pardha Saradhi, learned Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Defendants remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This Suit is instituted by the Plaintiffs No.1 to 7 against the Defendants No.1 & 2 to declare the

Plaintiffs as Legal Heirs and Successors of Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu who died on 03/08/2001 at Care Hospital, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad in respect of property bearing all the agricultural piece of land in Plot No.765, admeasuring 300 sq.yds., being a part of Sy.No.172/7 of Hydernagar village, Bagh Ameer panchayat, RR District which is bounded as North: Plot No.764, South: Plot

No.766, East: Plot No.758, West: 30 feet wide road (hereinafter called as suit schedule property)

2.It is further submitted by the plaintiffs that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Late Sri

Geddam Venkaiah Naidu who died on 03/08/2001 at Care Hospital. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife and

Plaintiffs No.2 to 7 are the children's’ of Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu. That Late Sri Geddam

Venkaiah Naidu was purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed vide

Doc.No.5534/1982 dated 30/06/1982. As the deceased Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu died on 03/08/2001 at Care Hospital, Nampally leaving behind plaintiffs No.1 to 7 as his legal heirs, plaintiff

No.3 residing in Abroad as such she executed GPA in favour of Plaintiff No.5 as his agent. The plaintiffs approached the Tahasildar Marredpally for issuance of legal heir certificate but, he issued

Family Member Certificate vide letter No.A/552/2022 dated 30/03/2022 for the purpose of clearing dues if any from the Government and not valid for any other purpose. Then, plaintiffs approached defendant No.1 for obtaining legal heir certificate on which, defendant No.1 stated that they do not have any power to issue legal heir certificate and suggested the plaintiffs to approach court of law for obtain legal heir certificate. Having no other option plaintiffs appeared before this court by way of this suit. Hence this suit.

3.After receipt of the summons of this court, the Defendants No.1 & 2 not appeared before this court nor any one represent on their behalf, as such, Defendants No.1 & 2 were set exparte on 19/10/2022.

3 OF 5 O.S.No.614 OF 2022

4.In order to prove the case of the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff No.2 he himself examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A12, on behalf of the defendants none were examined and no documents were got marked and they were set exparte.

5.Now the point for consideration are:

i) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as Legal Heirs and Successors of Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu?

ii) To what relief?

6. POINT NO.1 & 2:

In order to prove the pleadings, Plaintiffs relied upon the oral evidence of Pw1 and on the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1 to Ex.A12. The Plaintiff No.2 he himself examined as Pw1 and he deposed in his chief examination affidavit, by reiterating the plaint pleadings once again. However, the

Pw1 furnished the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1 to Ex.A12. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed vide Doc.No.5534/1982 dated 30/06/1982, Ex.A2 is the encumbrance certificate dated 13/04/2022

Ex.A3 is the statement of encumbrance on property dated 18/04/2022, Ex.A4 is the original death certificate of G.Venkaiah Naidu, Ex.A5 is the letter addressed by Tahasildar, Marredpally to the

Manger, SBI dated 30/03/2022, Ex.A6 is the Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff No.1, Ex.A7 is the Aadhaar

Card of Plaintiff No.2, Ex.A8 is the Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff No.3, Ex.A9 is the Aadhaar Card of

Plaintiff No.4, Ex.A10 is the Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff No.5, Ex.A11 is the Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff

No.6, Ex.A12 is the Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff No.7.

7.On careful perusal of Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed vide Doc.No.5534/1982 dated 30/06/1982 shows that Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu was purchased the suit schedule from Sri

Satya Sai Cooperative Housing Society Limited for a sale consideration of Rs.1,500/- and since then he is in possession, Ex.A2 is the encumbrance certificate dated 13/04/2022 which shows that Late Sri

Geddam Venkaiah Naidu purchased the suit schedule property, Ex.A3 is the statement of encumbrance on property dated 18/04/2022, Ex.A4 is the original Death Certificate of G.Venkaiah Naidu which reveals that he died in Care Hospital, Nampally Station Road on 03/08/2001 as such, concerned GHMC authorities issued Death Certificate dated 23/04/2022, Ex.A5 is the letter addressed by Tahasildar,

Marredpally to the Manger, SBI dated 30/03/2022 which reveals that Tahasildar Marredpally issued

4 OF 5 O.S.No.614 OF 2022

Family Member Certificate of Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu to the Branch Manager, SBI,

Banjarahills which reveals that Plaintiffs No.1 to 7 are Family Members of Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah

Naidu, Exs.A6 to A12 are the Aadhaar Cards of Plaintiffs No.1 to 7 which reveals that Late Sri

Geddam Venkaiah Naidu is the husband of Plaintiff No.1 and father of Plaintiffs No.2 to 7.

8.It is settled principle of law that any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the Plaintiffs need not in such suit ask for any further relief, provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the Plaintiffs, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. As per Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiffs need not in such suit ask for any further relief.

However, provided that no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiffs, being able to seek further relief than mere a declaration of title, omits to do so.

9.In the present case on hand, it is the contention of the Counsel for the Plaintiffs that originally deceased Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu was purchased the Suit Schedule Property through registered

Sale Deed by paying valid consideration and he is in possession of the Schedule Property till his death.

Subsequently, upon the death of the deceased Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu, the plaintiffs being the legal heirs approached the defendant No.1 who in turn suggest the plaintiffs to get Legal Heir

Certificate from the competent court of law for transfer the Suit Schedule Property in the name of plaintiffs. The deceased Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu died on 03/08/2001 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his Legal Heirs and Successors and they being a Class-I legal heirs are entitled the legal heir-ship. It is the further contention of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 denying the legal character of the plaintiffs. However, the defendant No.1 not chosen to appear before this court nor any one represent on his behalf as such he was set exparte. Thereby the case of the plaintiffs stands proved in the absence of rebuttal evidence. Therefore, by virtue of unchallenged evidence of the Pw1 and the Exs.A1 to A12, this court holds that plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as Legal Heirs and Successors of Late Sri

5 OF 5 O.S.No.614 OF 2022

Geddam Venkaiah Naidu in respect of the Suit Schedule Property which was purchased by the deceased. Accordingly, the point No.1 & 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

10.In the result, this suit is decreed by declaring the plaintiffs No.1 to 7 as Legal Heirs and

Successors of Late Sri Geddam Venkaiah Naidu to succeed the estate of Suit Schedule Property. No order to costs.

Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of April, 2024.

FAC Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Atchuthananda Rao- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of sale deed vide Doc.No.5534/1982 dated 30/06/1982

Ex.A2 is the encumbrance certificate dated 13/04/2022

Ex.A3 is the statement of encumbrance on property dated 18/04/2022

Ex.A4 is the original death certificate of G.Venkaiaj Naidu

Ex.A5 is the letter addressed by Tahasildar, Maredpally to the Manger, SBI dated 30/03/2022

Ex.A6 is the Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff No.1

Ex.A7 is the Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff No.2

Ex.A8 is the Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff No.3

Ex.A9 is the Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff No.4

Ex.A10 is the Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff No.5

Ex.A11 is the Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff No.6

Ex.A12 is the Aadhaar Card of Plaintiff No.7

FOR DEFENDANT

- NIL -

FAC Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.