Kum. Anam Naga Malleswari

O.S.No.192/2016, PJCJ, TPG

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

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:: TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Kum.A.Nagamalleswari Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2023

O.S.No.192/2016

BETWEEN:

Kokkiripati Jhansirani W/o Lazar, aged 49 years, Venkatramannagudem, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. …Plaintif

AND

1. Marlapudi Veera Nagamma W/o NageswaraRao, aged 56 years, Uradallapalem village, D.No.1-115, Attili mandal, West Godavari District.

2. Kokkiripati Deena Swarupa Rani W/o Venkatrao, aged 44 years, Aganvadi teacher, D.No.2-283, Venkatramannagudem, Tadepalligudem.

3. Kokkiripati Surya Rao S/o Subbaiah, aged 70 years, Venkatramannagudem, Tadepalligudem. (case against D3 is abated as he died).

4. Reddy Srinivasa Rao S/o Krishnamurthy, aged 45 years, Vellampalli stage,Posemmapuramvillage,PeddatadipalliPanchayat, Tadepalligudem. …Defendants

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 20-03-2023 in the presence of Sri.K.Prasada Rao, the learned Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri.V.Venkanna, the learned Advocate for D2 and advocate for D1 remained ex-parte and D3 abated and upon hearing the counsel on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The present suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendant praying to grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, followers, successors in interest not to interfere with the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and for costs.

2. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows; The plaintif and 1st defendant are own sisters and they are the daughters of Kokkirapati

Venkanna. Their ancestors possessed large extent of properties and the said properties are partitioned between the mother of the plaintif and first defendant and her brothers even prior to 1970. The schedule Page 1 of 14

O.S.No.192/2016, PJCJ, TPG

property and some other properties fell to the share of the mother of the plaintif and 1st defendant. The mother of the plaintif and the first defendant died instate without executing any document in respect of her allotted properties. After the death of their parents, the plaintif and 1st defendant succeeded the schedule property and some other properties as per Hindu Succession Act jointly. Both of them have enjoyed those properties jointly without any disputes. Thereafter, the plaintif and the first defendant have partitioned the properties under a registered partition deed dated 18-01-2013. As per the partition deed,

A schedule property fell to the share of first defendant and B schedule property fell to the share of plaintif. The schedule property is the item

No.2 of B schedule property. Since the date of partition, both the plaintif and the first defendant have been enjoying their respective shares without any interruption and without any objection from anybody. The plaintif has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any interrupation by any other person. Except the plaintif none other have right over the schedule property and the schedule property is the absolute property of the plaintif. The 3rd defendant is adjacent owner of the suit schedule property i.e eastern and southern boundary of the property. The second defendant is the daughter-in-law of the third defendant and both are distant relatives of the plaintif and first defendant. The 4th defendant is the alleged proposed purchaser of the schedule property.

The defendants colluded with each other and making eforts to interfere with and trying to alienate the schedule property by creating sham and nominal documents in favour of the 4th defendant. Infact the defendants have no manner of right, title or possession over the schedule property. If the defendants, created any sham and nominal documents without any manner of right in respect of the schedule

Page 2 of 14

O.S.No.192/2016, PJCJ, TPG

property, they are not binding on the plaintif and they are invalid in the eye of law. The defendants are having political influence in and around area and they are trying to dispossess the plaintif from the schedule property forcibly by creating a sham and nominal document in favour of fourth defendant. The defendants are proclaiming in and around areas since one week that they would dispossess the plaintif from the schedule property and occupy the same. The plaintif being a lady having no support in and around area, cannot resist the high handed and illegal acts of the defendants and if the defendants succeeded in their attempt she would be deprived of her right in the schedule property. Hence, she approached the Hon’ble court with the suit.

3. After receipt of summons, defendants 1 and 4 were remained ex-parte and the 3rd defendant filed his written statement the same was adopted by the 2nd defendant and filed her adoption memo the same is recorded and the contents of the written statement are also considered on behalf of the 2nd defendant.

4. The defendants specifically denied all the allegations mentioned in the of plaint and further submitted that one Kokkiraparti Bojjiyya who is the grand father of 2nd defendant, Kokkirapati Surayya (3rd defendant),

Tadigadapa Appalaswamy, 4) Pasalapudi Satteyya, 5) Kokkirapati

Venkatesu jointly purchased an extent of Ac.0.46 cents in R.S.No.183/4 under a registered sale deed dated 04-03-1959. Again Kokkirapati

Subbayya, Kokkirapati Bojjiyya, Kokkirapati Venkatesu, Kokkirapati

Surayya and Tadigadapa Appalaswamy purchased in an extent of

Ac.1.35 cents in R.S.No.183/4 under sale deed dated 04-12-1959. Out of Ac.0.46 cents, Kokkirapati Bojjiyya Ac.0.04 cents, Kokkirapati

Surayya Ac.0.04 cents, Tadigadapa Appalaswamy Ac.0.06 cents,

Page 3 of 14

O.S.No.192/2016, PJCJ, TPG

Dusalapudi Satteyya Ac.0.04 cents and Kokkirapati Venkateswarlu

Ac.0.04 cents for house sites total an extent of Ac.0.22 cents and they have constructed houses in their respective sites and balance is

Ac.0.24 cents and it was shown as A schedule property in

O.S.No.25/2010 and the above said vendees jointly enjoyed the

remaining Ac.0.24 cents during their life time and their respective legal heirs are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same.

5. In the A schedule property in O.S.NO.25.2010 the sharer Pasalapudi

Satteyya left the village long back leaving his share to other sharers. At present 3rd defendant Tadigadapa Subbarao heirs of Appalaswamy,

Mallipudi Manikyam heir of Bojjiyya, Kokkirapati Surama heir of

Venkatesu are in joint and constructive possession of A schedule property. The 3rd defendant is having Ac.0.06 cents in A schedule property.

6. The property of Ac.1.35 cents was shown as B schedule property in

O.S.No.25/2010 and the vendees Kokkirapati Subbayya (father of 3rd

defendant, Kokkirapati Bojjiyya, Kokkirapati Venkatesu, 3rd defendant and Tadigadapa Appalaswamy jointly enjoyed the A schedule property in O.S.No.25/2010 during their life time. Kokkirapati Subbayya died intestate leaving behind 3rd defendant, Bojjiyya and Venkatesu as his heirs. The said Venkatesu sold his undivided share to the 3rd defendant,

Bojjiyya, Appalaswamy. So, the B schedule property is in

O.S.No.25/2010 is in joint and constructive possession of the 3rd

defendant, Bojjiyya. At present 3rd defendant, Tadigadapa Subbarao heir of Appalaswamy, Mallipudi Manikyam heir of Bojjiyya, Kokkirapati

Suramma heir of Venkatesu are in joint and constructive possession of

B schedule property in O.S.No.25/2010.

Page 4 of 14

O.S.No.192/2016, PJCJ, TPG

7. The B schedule property has to be divided in between the 3rd defendant, father of the 3rd defendant, father of Tadigadapa Subbarao,

Bojjiyya and Venkatesu each are having Ac.0.27 cents. The share of the

Subbayya has to be divided in between 3rd defendant, Bojjiyya and

Venkatesu each are having Ac.0.09 cents. The said Venkatesu sold his undivided share Ac.0.27 cents and his undivided share in the share of his father Ac.0.09 cents total Ac.0.36 cents but sold Ac.0.34 cents under the registered sale deed dated 28-01-1963 to the 3rd defendant, father of Tadigadapa Subba Rao (Appalaswamy) and grand father of

Mallipudi Manikyam (Bojjiyya) each are having Ac.11.33 cents. The

Tadigadapa Subbarao is only legal heir to his father Appalaswamy. The

Mallipudi Manikyam is the daughter’s daughter of the Bojjiyya.

Kokkirapati Suramma is the wife of Venkatesu and she is only legal heir to the Venkatesu. Thus, the 3rd defendant is having Ac.0.27 cents as his own share. Ac.0.09 cents as legal heir to his father Subbayya and

Ac.0.11 cents in the share of the Venkatesu who sold his share to total

Ac.0.47 cents in A schedule property. Thus, 3rd defendant is entitled for

Ac.0.06 cents in A schedule property and Ac.0.47 cents in B schedule property in total Ac.0.53 cents in A and B schedule properties. Since they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of A and B schedule properties. When Tadigadapa Subba Rao, Mallipudi Manikyam and Kokkirapati Suramma did not cooperate for the partition, the 3rd defendant filed suit in O.S.No.25/2010 for partition of the plaint schedule properties and the same is pending. The said Tadigadapa

Subbarao is brother of mother of the plaintif and 1st defendant. The partitioned deed dated 18-01-2013 is not correct. There is no such schedule property in existence. The partition deed in between plaintif and 1st defendant dated 18-01-2013 and it is created for wrongful gain.

The plaintif and 1st defendant are granddaughters of Tadigadapa

Page 5 of 14

O.S.No.192/2016, PJCJ, TPG

Appalaswamy. The mother of the plaintif and 1st defendant ie

Mangamma is the sister of Tadigadapa Subbarao who is 1st defendant in the suit in O.S.No.25/2010. The plaintif surname is Kodamanchili but not Kokkirapati.

8. The plaintif is daughter of sister of deceased Tadigadapa Subbarao.

There is no such schedule property on ground. The plaintif is the daughter of Seshamma who is daughter of Tadigadapa Appalaswamy.

The son of Tadigadapa Appalaswamy who is Tadigadapa Subbarao and his brother sold away their properties which includes the plaint schedule property. The plaintif has no right to file the suit against the defendant. The property sold by this defendant to 4th defendant is separate property nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. The 2nd defendant is her daughter in law and she is no way concerned with the plaint schedule property. The 2nd defendant is unnecessarily implicated in the suit. The 4th defendant is bonafide purchaser from the defendant. There is no cause of action for the suit so he prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

9. After considering both parties pleadings, the following issues were framed by this court:

1. Whether the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, followers and supporters from ever interfering with the plaintif’s possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

4.

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintif, the plaintif examined herself as PW1 and third party was examined as PW2 and

Page 6 of 14

O.S.No.192/2016, PJCJ, TPG

got marked Ex.A1. On behalf of the defendants, no oral evidence is adduced and no documents are marked.

6. Heard the both learned counsels and perused the material brought on record.

7. ISSUE Nos.1 to 3:- The main contention of plaintif is that by virtue of partition held between her and the 1st defendant on 18-01-2013 she got B schedule property on her behalf towards her share and in the said B schedule the item No.2 is a present schedule property in the suit. Since the partition the plaintif and 1st defendant have been enjoying their respective properties with absolute rights without any interruption. Recently, the defendants colluded together and trying to make eforts to interfere with the schedule property and alienate the same by creating sham and nominal documents in favour of the 4th defendant. So, she approached the court with the suit.

8. Whereas the contention of the defendant is that the plaintif has no manner of right over the schedule property she is no way concerned to the property there was a prior to suit in O.S.No.25/2010 on the file of this court which is pending and the said suit was filed for A and B schedule properties and in those properties the 3rd defendant is having right for an extent of Ac.0.06 cents in A schedule property and Ac.0.47 cents in B schedule property total extent of Ac.0.53 cents in A and B schedule properties and the Tadigadapa Subba Rao, Mallipudi

Manikayam and Kokkirpati Suramma are in joint possession and enjoyment over the A and B schedule properties and cultivating jointly.

As the remaining sharers are not cooperating for the partition on that the 3rd defendant filed partition suit in O.S.No.25/2010 for partition and the same is pending before the Hon’ble Court. The said Tadigadapa

Page 7 of 14

O.S.No.192/2016, PJCJ, TPG

Subbarao is brother of the mother of plaintif and 1st defendant. The schedule property in partition deed dated 18-01-2013 is not correct. No such property is in existence and it is created for wrongful gain. The mother of the plaintif and 1st defendant i.e Mangamma is the sister of

Tadigadapa Subbarao who is the 1st defendant in the suit in

O.S.No.25/2010. The plaintif surname is Kodamanchili but not

Kokkirapati. The property which is sold by this defendant to 4th defendant is the separate property nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. As the 1st defendant and 4th defendant remained ex- parte and 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant contested the matter and during the pendency of this suit 3rd defendant was died and no steps were taken for adding the legal heirs of the 3rd defendant. Hence, the case against the 3rd defendant was abated as died on 24-07-2019.

Thereafter, the suit was posted for several adjournments for cross examination of PWs1 and 2 and her witnesses but the 2nd defendant failed to appear and cross examine the plaintif and her witnesses and also failed to adduce any evidence rebutting the evidence of plaintif.

So, the court considers that it is appropriate all the issues discussed at a time.

9. To prove the contention of the plaintif, she examined herself as PW1 and got marked the registered partition deed dated 18-01-2013 which is efected between the 1st defendant and plaintif which is showing that the present plaint schedule fell to the share of the plaintif as item

No.2. The plaintif filed her chief affidavit by reiterating the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1. In support of her evidence PW2 by name Tadigadapa Papamma who is her mother-in-law was examined as

PW2 and in her chief affidavit she has stated that the plaintif is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. After demise of her

Page 8 of 14

O.S.No.192/2016, PJCJ, TPG

mother, the plaintif and her sister partitioned the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property fell to the share of the plaintif through the document dated 18-01-2013 and also stated that the defendants are proclaiming in the village that they would occupy the suit schedule property. Though the defendant has taken several defences in their written statement i.e about pendency of the suit in

O.S.No.25/2010 but they have not disclosed what are the properties in

dispute in the above said suit and how the plaintifs are not entitled for the suit schedule property. Though they have mentioned that several properties were purchased jointly by one Kokkirapati Bojjiyya,

Kokkirapati Surayya, Tadigadapa Appalaswamy, Pasalapudi Satteyya,

Kokkirpati Venkatesu in an extent of Ac.0.46 cents in R.S.No.183/4 under sale deed dated 04-03-1959 and again purchased in the same

R.S.No 1.35 cents in R.S.No.183/4 and later the same property was distributed among themselves and jointly enjoyed the same. Later at the instance of 3rd defendant the suit in OS.No.25/2010 filed. But the defendants have not filed even the office copy of the said plaint copy in O.S.No.25/2010 to make sure that the present property is also included in the said suit as part and parcel of the disputed property and even a single document was also not enclosed to the pleadings of the defendants 2 and 3, one way the defendants are saying that

Tadigadapa Subbarao only legal heir to Appalaswamy, another way they are saying that one Mangamma who is mother of plaintif and 1st defendant is the sister of the Tadigadapa Subbarao as such there is a contradiction in their version. Further, the another point raised by the plaintif is the daughter of Seshamma who is daughter of

Appalaswamy, Tadigadapa Subbabrao his brother sold away the property which includes the schedule property. But in their pleadings they have not shown to whom and when they sold the property and

Page 9 of 14

O.S.No.192/2016, PJCJ, TPG

not filed any piece of document . According to the written statement the properties which were jointly purchased by the 3rd defendant and other persons which are the subject matter of O.S.No.25/2010 are situated in R.S.No.183/4, where the present plaint schedule property is situated as per Ex.A1 in R.S.No.185/6D in an extent of 219 sq.yards. As such the defendants failed to show that the plaintif is no way concerned to the suit schedule property.

10.The other point which the defendant raised is that the name of the plaintif is not Kokkirapati Jhansirani but her surname is Kodamanchili.

Except making mere allegation in the written statement the defendants have not produced any piece of evidence either oral or documentary to show that the plaintif has disclosed her surname falsely wherein the registered document Ex.A1 is disclosing the photograph of the plaintif and her name as Kokkirapati Jhansirani. So without any proof it cannot be believed that the plaintif disclosed her surname wrongly.

11.The other defences that Ex.A1 was wrongfully executed by plaintif and 1st defendant. Infact there is no such property in existence and it was created only for wrongful gain. But to prove this allegation also they have not filed any single piece of document showing that there is no such property in R.S.No.185/6D which is the plaint schedule property.

As such this defence has also no value.

12.Though PW2 is mother-in-law of PW1, where the defendants failed to cross examine the plaintif and her witnesses to rebut her evidence and disprove her case by producing their evidence either oral or documentary, their version cannot be believed. It is an established

principal that where a party fails to enter into the witness box to prove

Page 10 of 14

O.S.No.192/2016, PJCJ, TPG

his case and subject him for cross examination an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also the defendant failed to enter into witness box and adduce her evidence to disprove the case of the plaintif.

13.The statement made by the defendants that the property which is sold to the 4th defendant is a separate property which is not related to the schedule property is showing that there was some issue with regard to the sale of property to the 4th defendant as such the plaintif approached the court that the defendants are trying to create sham and nominal documents for the schedule property. Though the plaintif did not file any document showing her contention over schedule property. Where the defendants failed to produce any evidence, except filing their pleadings the court cannot believe their words as

Ex.A1 is establishing the right of the plaintif over the schedule property.

14.In the light of above discussed circumstances where the defendants failed to rebut the evidence of plaintif. The version of the plaintif remains un-rebutted and unchallenged. Hence, the evidence of plaintif is creating a belief in her version that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, as such she is entitled for the permanent injunction in her favour against the defendants and their men and followers and supporters.

15.In the result; the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintif against the defendants, restraining the defendants, their men, followers and successors in interest from

Page 11 of 14

O.S.No.192/2016, PJCJ, TPG

ever interfering with the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Dictated to Stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court, this the 21st day of April, 2023.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I

Class Tadepalligudem.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: PW1 – Kokkiripati Jhansi Rani -none- PW2 – Tadigadapa Papamma

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1/: Registered partition deed dated 18-01-2013

For Defendants:: Nil

P.J.F.C.M.,T.P.G.

Page 12 of 14

O.S.No.192/2016, PJCJ, TPG

Plaint presented on :19-07-2016 Plaint filed on :21-07-2016

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

OF I CLASS::TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Kum.A.Naga Malleswari

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Tadepalligudem.

Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2023

O.S.No.192/2016

BETWEEN:

Kokkiripati Jhansirani W/o Lazar, aged 49 years, Venkatramannagudem, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. …Plaintif

AND

1. Marlapudi Veera Nagamma W/o NageswaraRao, aged 56 years, Uradallapalem village, D.No.1-115, Attili mandal, West Godavari District.

2. Kokkiripati Deena Swarupa Rani W/o Venkatrao, aged 44 years, Aganvadi teacher, D.No.2-283, Venkatramannagudem, Tadepalligudem.

3. Kokkiripati Surya Rao S/o Subbaiah, aged 70 years, Venkatramannagudem, Tadepalligudem. (case against D3 is abated as he died).

4. Reddy Srinivasa Rao S/o Krishnamurthy, aged 45 years, Vellampalli stage,Posemmapuramvillage,PeddatadipalliPanchayat, Tadepalligudem. …Defendants

The present suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendant praying to grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, followers, successors in interest not to interfere with the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and for costs.

VALUATION OF THE SUIT:-

As the suit is for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, followers and successors etc, from ever interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property the suit is valued at Rs.10,000/- U/s 26(c) of the APCF &SV Act, 1956.

A Court fee of Rs.786/- paid U/s 26(c) of APCF &SV Act, 1956

CAUSE OF ACTION:-suit arose when the plaintif and first defendant have succeeded the properties of their mother as per Hindu Succession Act; when both of them are enjoying the same without any interruption and both of them partitioned those properties under a registered partition deed dated 18-01-2013 and A schedule of partition deed fell to the share of first defendant and B schedule property fell to the share of the plaintif and since then the plaintif is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property; the defendants have no manner of right, title or possession over Page 13 of 14

O.S.No.192/2016, PJCJ, TPG

the schedule property and trying to dispossess the plaintif from the schedule property by creating a sham and nominal documents in favour of fourth defendant and since one week the defendants are proclaiming in the village that they will interfere with or meddle with the possession of the plaintif in the schedule property and where the plaint schedule property is situated at Venkatramannagudem village, Tadepalligudem mandal is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 20-03-2023 in the presence of Sri.K.Prasada Rao, the learned Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri.V.Venkanna, the learned Advocate for D2 and advocate for D1 remained ex-parte and D3 abated and upon hearing the counsel on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered DOTH ORDER AND DECRE as follows :

1. that the suit be and same is hereby decreed with costs;

2. that the granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintif against the defendants, restraining the defendants, their men, followers and successors in interest from ever interfering with the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property;

3. that the defendants do pay a sum of Rs.788/- to the plaintif towards institutional costs of the suit.

(Copy of plaint schedule and rough plan attached to decree)

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 21 st day of April, 2023.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM

MEMO OF COSTS.

For Plaintiff For Defendants

Stamp on Vakalat2-00No costs memo filed on either Plaint fees786-00side

Total :788-00

PJCJ.,T.P.G.

N.B: (the parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all the Exhibits which they wish to preserve, as record will liable to be destroyed after three years from this date (Rule 9 under Destruction of Record Act, 1917)

Page 14 of 14

--1--

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : TADEPALLIGUDEM.

PRESENT: Kum. A. NAGA MALLESWARI, Prl.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Tuesday, this the 25th day of April, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No. 992/2021

Between

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector, Nallajerla Police Station. ---Complainant

And

1. Tanem Jayaraju S/o Subbarao, aged 38 years, Muttarasi, Jagannadhapuram village, Nallajerla mandal.

2. Tanem Somalamma W/o Jayaraju, aged 35 years, Mutrasi, Jagannadhapuram village, Nallajerla mandal.

---Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing since 17.04.2023 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and of Sri P.H.V.N.S.Bhupal, Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallajerla PS, filed charge sheet against accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 8(b) of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 in Cr.No. 522/2021 of Nallajerla P.S.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that:

On 21-10-2021 at 12.00 noon on receiving credible information about illegal sale of I.D.liquor, the complainant I.Avanish, S.I. of Police,

Nallajerla Police secured the presence of mediators PW2-Juvvala

Sesharatnam along with his staff were rushed to Jagannadhapuram village found A1 and A2 were in possession of 6 liters of I.D arrack to sell the same higher prices for thier pecuniary gains. On that the S.I of Police separated 100 ml ID arrack in a bottle from them as a sample for chemical analysis and seized the above property worth Rs.1800/- in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report. The S.I of Police brought the accused along with seized property to the Police station. Basing on the mediators report, the S.I of Police, Nallejarla Police registered a case in Cr.No.522/2021 --2-- under section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 2020. Later, he visited the scene of offence, drawn rough sketch of the scene and examined witnesses and recorded their statements, after that he produced the accused

before the court seeking judicial custody. He sent the samples to the

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada for analysis and the analyst issued report stating that the sample is containing Indian Made Liquor. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.This court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act against A1 and A2.

4.On appearance of accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 Cr.P.C. A1 and A2 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C the substance of accusation made in the charge sheet was explained to them and they denied it as false. A Charge was framed under section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act, it was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MO.1 on its behalf.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. by granting an opportunity to offer their explanation on the incriminating material available against them, they denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (herein after referred as APP) and the learned counsel for accused. Perused the record.

8.The learned APP submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt the evidence of P.Ws1 to P.W3, the exhibits and material objects marked under Exs.P1 to P6 and MO.1 have substantially established the accusation, the mediator in whose presence the

I.D.liquor bottle was seized has supported the case and his evidence is amply --3-- corroborating the prosecution case and establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence he prays to punish the accused in the interest of justice.

9.On the other hand the learned defence counsel has submitted his arguments stating that there is no truth in the prosecution version, the case was foisted against them for their statistical purpose and there are no independent eye witnesses to the alleged offence and PW2 is the VRO who is also official witness. PW3 is the mediator and she deposed on her behalf on the influence of the police, there is no truth in her evidence, her admissions in the cross-examination reflects that fact. Except on the alleged mediators report her signature is not there on any of the seized I.D.liquor. She has not signed on the identity slips affixed to the samples to say that the alleged bottle was seized in her presence. The mediators report was also prepared at the police station by obtaining the signatures of the concerned. The investigating officer/PW3 failed to conduct investigation in a proper way, he just filed charge sheet without enquiring the true facts. There are several lacunas in his investigation and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Hence, by considering the same the accused may be acquitted in the interest of justice as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the charge under section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act that the accused were in possession of I.D.liquor for selling the same in higher rates?

POINT:

11.To prove the offence punishableunder Section 8 (b) of

A.P.Prohibition Act the prosecution has to prove that A1 and A2 were found in possession of 06 liters of I.D Arrack to sell the same higher prices. The prosecution has examined the independent mediators as PWs.1 and 2 in whose presence the alleged contraband was seized. The investigating officer was examined as PW4.

--4--

12.The prosecution has examined P.W1 as eye witnesses who said to be the witness to the seizure of I.D.Liquor from the accused. PW1 deposed that he do not know anything about the case and police did not examine them. His Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements were marked as Ex.P1.

13.He was cross examined by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor after obtaining permission of the court and posed questions that can be asked in the cross examination by the adverse party under section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. By cross examination also he could not elicit anything about the recovery of the property from the accused. He completely denied the prosecution version.

14.PW2/K.Santhi, Village Revenue Officer, GMSK, Jagannadhapuram village deposed that on 21-10-2021 at about 11.00 a.m on the request of the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallajerla P.S., then she along with her L.W.8 went to

Indira colony by accompanying the S.I. of Police for conducting raid and they rushed to Indira colony at Jagannadhapuram, on seeing them, A1 and A2 escaped from that place, caught hold them and got opened the bag and found 6 liters of I.D.liquor to sell the same higher prices to gain wrongful for their livelihood then S.I. of Police seized the said liquor from the possession of accused under the cover of Ex.P2/mediators report.

15.In the cross-examination, PW3 admitted that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality area. She further admitted that Police have not issued any summons against her while request her to act as mediator. She admitted that without obtaining the permission of Mandal Revenue Officer, she cannot participate in any riad. She admitted that she has not mentioned any land mark at the scene of offence to fix the alleged scene of offence at which side of Chadarasigunta village and the alleged scene of offence is situated. She admitted that she has not mentioned in Ex.P2 by which vehicle went to the scene of offence.

16.I.Avanish, Sub-Inspector who detected the case and filed charge sheet against the accused was examined as PW3, he deposed in his evidence that on 21-102-201 at abotu 10.00 a.m on credible information --5-- about sale of I.D.liquor, he secured the presence of mediators PW2 and LW8-

Juvvala Sesharatnam with his staff were proceeded to at the outskirts of

Jagannadhapuram village for conducting raid and found A1 and A2 at the scene of offence and on seeing them they escaped from that place then they caught hold them and found A1 and A2 illegally possession of 6 liters of I.D

Arrack. On enquiry, A1 and A2 confessed that they have been selling the

I.D.Arrack at higher price to gain profit in thier village. Then he verified the plastic over and found 6 liters of I.D arrack. He drew 100 ml of I.D Arrack as sample for the purpose of chemical analysis in a separate plastic bottle. Then he arrested the accused and seized the above said 6 liters of I.D Arrack under cover of mediators report in the presence of PW2 and LW8 and forwarded the accused along with seized property to their Police Station. He registered (Ex.P3) FIR and produced the accused before the court along with remand report seeking judicial custody. Later, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch (Ex.P4), examined witnesses and recorded their statements, drawn one bottle as sample under MO.1 and sent the same to the Chemical examiner, Kakinada with (Ex.P5) letter of advice and the analyst issued report under Ex.P6 stating that samples are Indian Made

Liquor after receiving proceedings from Deputy commissioner, Prohibition and Excise for the destruction of remaining property and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

17.PW4 in his cross-examination admitted that the scene of offence is situated in a residential area. He admitted that he has not issued any written summons to the mediators while requesting them to act as mediators. He further admitted that Ex.P2 is not containing the signatures of other raid party. He admitted that except mediators, the remaining raid party are their constables and except the raid party he has not examined any other independent persons. He further admitted that there is a delay of 4 days in forwarding the samples to the chemical examiner.

18.It is the case of the prosecution that they have seized 06 liters of

I.D.liquor from the possession of accused in the presence of PWs.1 and 2 and --6-- it has shown them as witnesses and examined them before the court. It is the contention of learned defence counsel that the prosecution failed to examine any local inhabitants to prove their version.

19.Non-mentioning of the reasons for not securing independent witnesses from the area at which seizure made is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case

reported on 27-11-2001 Yeduru Srinivasulu Reddy Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh observed that the prosecution has to bring on record while charging the accused that they have followed the procedure contemplated u/s. 100(4) of the code. If it fails to prove that they had followed such procedure the search and seizure becomes vitiate. Before making a search under this chapter the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or any other locality if no such inhabitants of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

20.The observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

State of UP Vs. Arun Kumar Gupta, reported in AIR 2003 SC 801. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited judgment observed that 'the

prosecution must offer reasonable explanation as to why they did not secure the residents of the houses in the immediate proximity of the alleged incident particularly when there was large number of people were present at the time of recovery.

21.In this case, it is not the case of the prosecution that the alleged place where the seizure was made is located in a remote area, and that there were no persons available at the time of alleged recovery. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said citation, this Court is of the opinion that non-securing of the residents of the locality to act as mediators makes this Court to disbelieve the very recovery of the contraband from the possession of the accused.

--7--

22.With regard to the seizure the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

Observed that if any seizure is made in contravention of Section 100 (4) of

Cr. P.C. entire seizure proceedings are deemed to have been vitiated. The observations of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the case of S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP, are very much relevant which are extracted hereunder:

“Admittedly PW-3 accompanied the police officials from Srikalahasti.

The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information they were right in taking mediators along with them where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place.

But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants.They must make sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., but excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under

Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general. That is genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

23.In the present case also the scene of offence is existing in busy locality and the police have not secured anyone as mediator from the scene of offence and they have not made any efforts for securing the mediators from the said place. Though the prosecution examined the independent mediator as PW2 who is Village Revenue Officer and she deposed about the alleged seizure and identified the accused, in her cross examination she admitted that she has not mentioned any land mark at the scene of offence to fix the alleged scene of offence that at which side of Jagannadhapuram village and the alleged scene of offence is situated. Moreover, the --8-- independent mediators have denied about the alleged seizure as such when the prosecution fails to show the exact palce of seizure it can be imagined on mere examining the mediator. She admitted that she know where the accused usually stands in the court hall hence with the observations the PW2 evidence is not believable.

24.According to prosecution the investigating officer has examined

PW1 at the scene observation and recorded his statement, but before the court he deposed that they he was not examined by the police and he do not know anything about this case, hence his evidence is also not giving any aid to the prosecution.

25.The entire case of the prosecution relied on the testimony of PW3 who is interested witness. PW3 is an investigating officer, who conducted the raid and investigation and filed charge-sheet. Hence, the above said evidence should be scrutinized carefully. He has not brought any proof before the court that at the alleged place the accused were selling the liquor by examining the inhabitant of that locality and there is no investigation on the point that where the accused secured the I.D.Liquor though he can trace the same in his interrogation. He admitted that he has not examined the nieghbours of the accused to prove the sale of Liquor by the accused. The identity slip is not containing the signature of accused to show that the I.D

Arrack was seized by PW3 at the alleged place and time from the accused.

Thus, except the testimony of interested witness and the confession of the accused which is not at all an evidence there is no material on record to prove that the accused has committed the offence.

26.There are several lacuna's and infirmities in the evidence of PW3.

His evidence cannot be believed unless there is corroboration from independent witness. Further, without there being any corroboration from independent witnesses, basing on the evidence of Police official, it is not safe to conclude that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused, Hence it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

--9--

27.IN THE RESULT, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 25th day of April, 2023.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

--10--

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1:Jonnada Srinu -- NONE -- PW2:K.Santhi PW3:I.Avanish, S.I. of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 Ex.P2:Mediators report Ex.P3:FIR Ex.P4:Rough sketch Ex.P5:Letter of advice Ex.P6:Chemical analysis report

F OR DEFENCE:-- NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: 6 lits of I.D Arrack

P.JFCM, TPG

--11--

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

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

FIRST CLASS : TADEPALLIGUDEM.

CALENDER CASE No.992/2021

1. Date of offence:21.10.2021

2. Date of complaint or report:21.10.2021

3. Date of apprehension of Accused :21.10.2021

4. Date of release on bail of Accused :23.10.2021

5. Date of commencement of trial:10.03-2023

6. Date of close of trial:20.03-2023

7. Date of sentence or Order:25-04-2023

8. Explanation of delay if any:No delay COMPLAINANT:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nallajerla Police Station.

ACCUSED:

1. Tanem Jayaraju S/o Subbarao, aged 38 years, Muttarasi, Jagannadhapuram village, Nallajerla mandal.

2. Tanem Somalamma W/o Jayaraju, aged 35 years, Mutrasi, Jagannadhapuram village, Nallajerla mandal.

Cr.No.:Cr.No.522/2021 Section of Law :Under Section 8 (b) of AP.Prohibition Act, 1968 Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of Court:Found not guilty

Sentence/Order:

IN THE RESULT, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

MO.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

Seal JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District through CD.

-- 1--

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

PRESENT: Ms. A. Naga Malleswari,

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of August, 2022

CALENDER CASE No. 944/2019 Between: The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Town Police Station. –-Complainant

And

1.Siddagani Satyanarayana @ Naga Babu, S/o Srinivasa Rao, A: 27 years, C: Gowda, Kondayya Cheruvu, Tadepalligudem Town

2.Siddagani Gowthami, W/o Nagababu, A: 23 years, C: Lambadi, Kondayya Cheruvu, Tadepalligudem Tow

3.Pothireddy Rajaram, S/o Nagaeswara Rao, A: 40 years, C: Kapu, Kothibomma Centre, Tadepalligudem Town. --- Accused This case is coming on 03.08.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sri. A. Ravi Prasad, Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri K.V.V.Satyanarayana, Counsel for the A1 to A3; the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Town Police Station filed charge sheet against Accused.1 to A3 for the offences under Section 3, 4 and 5 (c) of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as I.T.P. Act) in Cr. No. 333/2019 of Tadepalligudem Town P.S.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.12.2019 on receiving credible information, LW.7, Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Town P.S. Now the point for determination is that: whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused the offences punishable u/sec 3,4,5 and 7 of immoral traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Accused.1 and 2 running brothel den and doing prostitution with Accused.3 and they indulged in prostitution. On interrogation, Accused.1 and 2 confessed that they were running a brothel den at the scene of offence and procured one victim/LW1 for the sake of prostitution and earning money and eking their livelihood and Accused.3 came there to have sexual pleasure and said confession of accused was recorded under the cover of mediator report and LW.7 arrested accused and also took custody of one victim women and brought them to the police station and along with seized property ie. Rs.1500/-, Rs.1500/- and Rs.500/- from Accused.1 to 3 and Rs.3000/- from rescued- victim-women, total cash of Rs.6,500/- and he registered a case in Cr.No.333/2019 under Section. 3,4,5 and 7 of ITP Act, 1956 of Tadepalligudem Town PS against accused and sent them for judicial remand. LW.7 also sent the victim women to protection home and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused 1 to 3.

3. On 31-12-2019 cognizance was taken for the offence under section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of I.T.P. Act against Accused.1 to 3.

4. After appearance of accused No. 1 to 3, copies were furnished to them under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C) and accused were -- 2-- examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation made in the charge sheet was explained to them in Telugu for which accused denied as false. Charges under section 3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(b) and 7(2) of I.T.P. Act are framed against Accused.1 to 3, the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In the course of trial prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., by granting an opportunity to offer their explanation on the incriminating material evidence available against them which the accused denied as false and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard the learned A.P.P and learned defence counsel. Perused record.

8. Now the point for determination are:

Whether the prosecution was able to bring home guilt of Accused.1 to 3 for the offences under sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. POINT No.1: The case of prosecution is that on 11/12/2019 at 05:30 P.M LW-7. CI of Tadepalligudem Town P.S received credible information about running of brothel by Accused 1 and 2 in a rented house at Plot No.208 belonging to Karri. Ravindra Kumar, Satyavathi Nagar, Tadepalligudem, then immediately he rushed to the said house along with two mediators and staff, there he found the accused 1 and 2 and the victim woman and 3rd accused, on interrogation Accuse 1 and 2 confessed that they were running brothel house. A3 confessed that he used to visit the house of A1 and A2 for prostitution and the police found A3 and Pw1 while committing prostitution and seized an amount of Rs 1,500/- each from Accused 1 and 2 and Real MI Mobile phone, Rs 500/- cash from A3 and Rs 3,000/- from rescued woman/PW1, under the cover of mediators report.

10. To prove the case of prosecution the prosecution has shown Lws 1 to 7 as witnesses and it examined PWs 1 to 5 before the court. The evidence of LWs.4 and 6 was given up by the Ld.APP to prevent repetition and to save the time of the court Among Pws. 1 to 6, Pws. 1 and 2 turned hostile to the prosecution. To prove the case of prosecution, it has to establish that Any person who - a) being the tenant, leaser, occupier or person in charge of any premises, uses or knowingly, allows any other person to use, such premises or any part thereof as a brothel or (b) being the owner, leaser or land lord of any premises or the agent of such owner, leaser or land lord, lets the same or any part thereof with the knowledge that the same or any part thereof in intended to be used as a brothel, or wilfully a party to the use of such premises or any part thereof as brothel. Sec 4:- Punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution: (1) Any person over the age of 18 yrs who knowingly lives, wholly or in part on the earnings of the prostitution of (any other person) shall be punishable with imprisonment or for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which many extend to one thousand rupees.

Sec 5: Procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution:

(1) Any person who -

(a) procures or attempts to procure a person, whether with or without his consent for the purpose of prostitution; (or)

(b) induces a person to go from any place, with the intent that he may for the purpose of prostitution become the inmate of, or frequent, a brothel: (or) -- 3--

c) takes or attempts to take a (person) or causes a person to be taken from one place to another with a view to (his) carrying on or being brought up to carry on prostitution (or)

d) causes or induces a (person) to carry on prostitution. Sec 7: Prostitution or in or in the vicinity of public places:

1) Any (Person) who carries on prostitution and the person with whom such prostitution is carries on, in any premises:-

(a) which are within the area or areas, notifies u/sub-section(3)

(b) which are within a distance of two hundred meters of any place of public religious worship, educational institution, hostel, hospital, nursing home or such other public place of any kind as may be notified in this behalf by the commissioner of police or

magistrate in the manner prescribed.

Here in the present cases the allegation made against A1 and A2 is that they were running brothel house in their rented house by procuring the victim PW1 and thereby living on the earnings of prostitution and the allegation made against A3 is that he indulged in prostitution by paying amount.

11. Though the prosecution has examined Pws1 to 5, Pws1 and 2 turned hostile and the only evidence available on record, is the evidence of the PW3/the house owner, PW4/ the mediator and investigating officer.

12. PW4 deposed that he participated in the raid and by accompanying the police he went to the alleged scene of offence and directly went to first floor and found that the doors were found closed and knocked the doors and the doors were opened then they found the accused 1 and 2 in the corridor and found the Accused No.3 and the victim woman/PW1. The accused 1 and 2 confessed that they were running brothel house by securing women and customers and on that day they secured PW1 and Accused No.3 came as customer and prior to Accused No.3 two other customers came for fulfilling sexual desire and each paid Rs.2,000/-. The police seized the said amount and also seized one Moods Company Condom Satchet and Real MI android phone, mediators report was prepared in his presence.

13. The evidence of PW5 is that on receipt of information he rushed to the house of A1 and 2 Plot No.208 Satyavathi Nagar, Tadepalligudem along with his staff Pcs Appa Rao, Mohan and WPC Vijaya Lakshmi and mediators PW4 and LW6 Chigurupati.Nageswara Rao, there he found the accused at first and 2nd accused after interrogatory her they entered into a room and found the 3rd accused and PW1 in half nude position position and after interrogation PW5 seized an amount of Rs 1,500/- each from Accused 1 and 2 and Real MI Mobile phone, Rs 500/- cash from A3 and Rs 3,000/- from rescued woman/PW1, under the cover of mediators report and brought them to their police station and registered a case in Cr.No:333/2019 U/Sec 3,4,5, and 7 of ITP Act and produced the accused before the honourble court and handed over the PW1 to her mother. He observed the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, later after completion of investigation he filed charge-sheet against the accused.

14. According to prosecution case accused is residing as tenant in the house of one Karri. Ravindra Kumar S/o Late Seshagiri, the police examined the mother of Ravindra Kumar as PW2 she stated that she heard some galata and saw that police arrested the accused 1 and 2 and two other persons and later she came to know that they were arrested for running brothel house and for committing of prostitution.

15. The victim woman rescued by the police on the date of raid was examined as PWs. 1 and the brother of PW2 who is neighbour of the scene of offence was examined as PW2 and they both turned hostile and stated that they do not know anything about the -- 4-- case.

16. Learned APP cross-examined PWs. 1 and 2 after obtaining permission u/sec 154 of Indian Evidence Act by posing questions that can be asked by the adverse party during cross-examination and even by cross-examining also the Ld.APP failed to elicit anything favourable to prosecution case, except marking the signature of PW1 and their statements.

17. Coming to the evidence of PW3 she stated that by hearing the galata at her house main gate she went outside from the house and saw that the police arrested the accused and later she came to know that the accused were arrested on the allegation of commission of prostitution.

18. In her cross-examination she admitted that she donot know that the accused were arrested on the allegation of commission of prostitution till police informs her. When the statement of PW2 and 3 are recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C verified it can be seen that they stated that the son of PW3 and PW2 purchased single storied building and the front portion belongs to the son of PW3 and the back portion belongs to him and he has been residing in that portion. PW3 also stated that she let out their portion to the accused. That means the house which was let out to the accused is the front portion where as the mediators report is disclosing that they found the accused in the 1st floor. As such there is contradiction in the prosecution story with regard to the place of offence.

19. According to the evidence of PW5 the mediator report was prepared at the scene of offence on the station laptap by their constable Appa Rao. It was not stated where the printout of the said report was obtained, further the said report is not containing the signatures of the raid party and the investigating officer has not examined the raid party and not recorded their statements. Even the signature of the WPC is also not there on the report. It is creating a doubt whether the said mediators report was prepared at the scene of offence and also on the conducting of raid at the stated palce and time.

20. As per section 15 of the act every police officer or special officer before conducting search without warrant shall record the grounds his belief and then enter into the premises and conduct search. But in this case no such grounds were mentioned by the investigating officer prior to entering into the premises.

21. Before conducting search the inspecting officer shall call upon at least two independent witnesses from the inhabitants of that locality in which one must be compulsory a woman. The investigating officer any issue written order against any inhabitant while asking to witness the search.

22. The inspecting officer while conducting search under this act he shall be accompanied by at least two women police officers. Any woman or girl who is removed from the premises shall be interrogated in the presence of women police officer, if woman police officer is not available the interrogation shall be made in the presence a lady member of any welfare institution or recognization.

23. Here in the present case none of the above conditions were compiled by the investigating officer. Though it was stated that one WPC accompanied PW5 and participated in the raid, her signature is not there on the mediators report to show that she also participated in the raid, further her statement was also not recorded by PW5 showing her participation in the raid. Thus there are several lacunas and inconsistencies in the investigation and also in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

-- 5--

24. PW.1 the victim also turned hostile stating that her signatures were obtained on some blank papers when she went to the police station on some work. The prosecution failed to establish that where the accused were residing whether in the first floor or in the front portion of the building. Further the rough sketch Ex.P8 is not showing that the alleged scene of offence is situated near by any education institution or place of worship as notified under sec 7 of the Act.

25. Further, Pws 4 and 5 admitted that the identity slips affixed on the Mos. 1 to 6 were not containing the signatures of the accused 1 to 3 to show that those were recovered from the accused.. Thus in view of admission made by the Pws. 4 and 5 is further creating a strong doubt about conducting of raid and seizing of alleged cash, condom and mobile phone from the possession of accused.

26. Thus, the version of prosecution becomes dis-believable, where the victim herself is denying the prosecution case and it is not safe to conclude against the accused basing on the inconsistent evidence of investigating officer and the confession of the accused which is not at all an evidence in the eye of law. Hence the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused 1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt.

27. IN THE RESULT, the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/sec 3,4,5 and 7 of Immoral traffic (prevention) Act, 1956, and they (accused 1 to 3) are acquitted u/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C, the bail bonds of accused 1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months u/sec 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Gr.III, transcribed him, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court, this the 10 th day of August, 2022.

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1 : G.Satyanarayana -NONE- PW2 : N.Chittibabu PW3 : A.N.V.Sambasiva Rao PW4 : K.Srinivasa Rao, investigation officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1/01-05-2015 : Signature of PW2 on mediator report Ex.P2/01-05-2015 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P3/01-05-2015 : Mediator report Ex.P4/01-05-2015 : FIR Ex.P5/01-05-2015 : Rough sketch

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-- NIL --

I AJFCM, TPG.

-- 6--

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: TADEPALLIGUDEM.

CALENDER CASE No. 944/2019

1. Date of offence:11.12.2019

2. Date of complaint or report:11.12.2019

3. Date of apprehension of Accused :11.12.2019

4. Date of release on bail of Accused :A1 to A3 released on 16.12.2019

5. Date of commencement of trial:25.04.2022

6. Date of close of trial :26.07.2022

7. Date of sentence or Order:10.08.2022

8. Explanation of delay if any:Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution

COMPLAINANT: State: Represented by the Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Town Police Station.

ACCUSED:

1.Siddagani Satyanarayana @ Naga Babu, S/o Srinivasa Rao, A: 27 years, C: Gowda, Kondayya Cheruvu, Tadepalligudem Town

2.Siddagani Gowthami, W/o Nagababu, A: 23 years, C: Lambadi, Kondayya Cheruvu, Tadepalligudem Tow

3.Pothireddy Rajaram, S/o Nagaeswara Rao, A: 40 years, C: Kapu, Kothibomma Centre, Tadepalligudem Town.

Cr.No.:Cr.No. 333/2019 Tadepalligudem Town P.S. Section of Law :Under Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of I.T.P. Act Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of Court:Found not guilty

Sentence/Order:

IN THE RESULT, the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/sec 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral traffic (prevention) Act, 1956, and they (accused 1 to 3) are acquitted u/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C, the bail bonds of accused 1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months u/sec 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Seal I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District.

--1--

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : TADEPALLIGUDEM.

PRESENT: Kum. A. NAGA MALLESWARI,

I ADDIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDL JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Wednesday, this the 19th day of April, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.1007/2022

Between

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector, Nidamarru Police Station.

---Complainant

And

Irrinki Ramakrishna S/o Seshagirirao, aged 46 years, Chanmilli village, Nidamarru mandal. ---Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing since 10.04.2023 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and of Sri

A.Ramu, Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nidamarru PS, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of

A.P.Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 in Cr.No.193/2022 of Nallajerla P.S.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:-

On 22-10-2022 at 8-00 a.m. on receiving credible information about illegal selling of liquor bottles, PW3-K.Gurayya, S.I. of Police, Nidamarru P.S along with his staff P.C.2176, H.C.1716/Lws1 and 2 rushed to near Yellamma

Cheruvu gattu of Chanmilli village found accused were illegally possession of illicit liquor 10 liquor bottles i.e 1) Royal Palace Whisky 180 ml -2 bottles, 2)

Dara House XO brandy 180 ml -7 bottles and 3) Classic Bluse Whisky 180 ml – 1 bottle worth Rs.1500/- to sell the same on high rates for his pecuniary gains. On seeing the Police, he tried to escape from that place by leaving the bag. On that S.I of Police seized the liquor bottles and after separate a bottle for chemical analysis under cover of occurrence report. Basing on the occurrence report, he regsitered a case in Cr.No.193/2022 under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 and investigated into. During the --2-- course of investigation, he visited the scene of offene, prepared rough sketch and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements He sent the samples to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada for analysis and the analyst issued report stating that the sample is containing Indian Made Liquor. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.This court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 34(a)of A.P. Excise Act against the sole accused.

4.On appearance of accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him under section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C the substance of accusation made in the charge sheet was explained to him and he denied it as false. A Charge was framed under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, it was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and MOs.1 to 3 on its behalf.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. by granting an opportunity to offer his explanation on the incriminating material available against him, he denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (herein after referred as APP) and the learned counsel for accused. Perused the record.

8.The learned APP submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt the evidence of P.Ws1 to 3, the exhibits and material objects marked under Exs.P1 to P7 and MOs.1 to 3 have substantially established the accusation and their evidence is amply corroborating the prosecution case and establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence he prays to punish the accused in the interest of justice.

9.On the other hand the learned defence counsel has submitted his arguments stating that there is no truth in the prosecution version, the case --3-- was foisted against him for his statistical purpose and there are no independent eye witnesses to the alleged offence. The investigating officer/PW3 failed to conduct investigation in a proper way, he just filed charge sheet without enquiring the true facts. There are several lacunas in his investigation and inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Hence, by considering the same the accused may be acquitted in the interest of justice as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the charge under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968 that the accused was in possession of liquor bottles for selling the same in higher rates?

POINT:

11.To prove the offence punishableunder Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise

Act, 1968 the prosecution has to prove that the accused was found in illegally possession of 10 liquor bottles to sell teh same in higher price to get wrongfulgain. The prosecution has examined the independent mediators as

PWs1 and 2 in whose presence the alleged contraband was seized. The investigating officer was examined as PW3.

12.The prosecution has examined P.W1 and 2 as eye witnesses who have said to be the witnesses to the seizure of I.D.Liquor from the accused.

PWs.1 and 2 both deposed that they do not know anything about the case and police did not examine them. Their 161 Cr.P.C. statements were marked as Exs.P1 and P2.

13.They both were cross examined by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor after obtaining permission of the court and posed questions that can be asked in the cross examination by the adverse party under section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. By cross examination also he could not elicit anything about the recovery of the property from the accused. They completely denied the prosecution version.

--4--

14.PW3/K.Gurayya, Sub-Inspector who detected the case and filed charge sheet against the accused was examined as PW3, he deposed that on 22-10-2022 at about 7.30 p.m on credible information about sale of liquor, he along with his staff P.C.2176, H.C.1716 went to the Yellamma Cheruvu gattu of Chanmilli village, on seeing them, the accused escaped by leaving bag at that palce which is containing 1) Royal Palace Whisky 180ml-2 bottles, 2)

Dara house XO brandy 180 ml – 7 bottles and 3) Classic Blue whisky 180 ml -1 bottle. Then he seized the above said bag and enquired about the person escaped from the scene of offene and the neighbouring persons have stated that the person is Yerrinki Rama Krishna. There he prepared Police proceedigns report/Ex.P3 and also drawn one bottle from each brand for the purpose of chemical analysis and returned their staton along with seized property and registered a case in Cr.No.193/2022 under section 34(a) of AP

Excise (Amendment) Act. He examined the raid party LW1/PC2176 and

H.C.1760 at their Police Station and recorded their statements. On 23-10- 2022 he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch/Ex.P5 and examined Pws1 and 2 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he arrested the accused and sent for judicial custody. On 29-10-2022 he forwarded the sample to the RFSL, Kakinada for chemical analysis/Ex.P6 and received Ex.P7/Chemical analysis report and after receiving proceedings from Deputy commissioner, Prohibition and Excise for the destruction of remaining property and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

15.In his cross-examination PW3 admitted that the details from which shop the accused purchased the alleged seized liquor bottles and also he has not investigated that from whom he purchased the property and to whom he sold the liquor bottles adn also not conducted any identification paraded with the persons through whom he has identified the accused. He has not seized alleged bag in which the accused was possessing the liquor bottles. He further admitted that the alleged scene of offence is situated on the road leading from Chanmilli to Ganapavaram, Bavaipalem and it is a busy locality. He admitted that the similar bottles are available in the open --5-- market and identity slip affixed Mos 1 to 3 are not containing the signature of the accused and also date of seized.

16.It is the case of the prosecution that they have seized 10 of liquor bottles from the possession of accused in the presence of PWs.1 to 3 and it has shown them as witnesses and has examined them before the court. It is the contention of learned defence counsel that the prosecution failed to examine any local inhabitants to prove their version.

17.Non-mentioning of the reasons for not securing independent witnesses from the area at which seizure made is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case

reported on 27-11-2001 Yeduru Srinivasulu Reddy Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh observed that the prosecution has to bring on record while charging the accused that they have followed the procedure contemplated u/s. 100(4) of the code. If it fails to prove that they had followed such procedure the search and seizure becomes vitiate. Before making a search under this chapter the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or any other locality if no such inhabitants of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

18.The observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

State of UP Vs. Arun Kumar Gupta, reported in AIR 2003 SC 801. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited judgment observed that 'the

prosecution must offer reasonable explanation as to why they did not secure the residents of the houses in the immediate proximity of the alleged incident particularly when there was large number of people were present at the time of recovery.

19.In this case, it is not the case of the prosecution that the alleged place where the seizure was made is located in a remote area, and that there were no persons available at the time of alleged recovery. Therefore, in view --6-- of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said citation, this Court is of the opinion that non-securing of the residents of the locality to act as mediators makes this Court to disbelieve the very recovery of the contraband from the possession of the accused.

20.With regard to the seizure the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

Observed that if any seizure is made in contravention of Section 100 (4) of

Cr. P.C. entire seizure proceedings are deemed to have been vitiated. The observations of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the case of S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP, are very much relevant which are extracted hereunder:

“Admittedly PW-3 accompanied the police officials from Srikalahasti.

The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information they were right in taking mediators along with them where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place.

But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants.They must make sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., but excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under

Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general. That is genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

21.In the present case also the scene of offence is existing in busy locality and the police have not secured anyone as mediator from the scene of offence and they have not made any efforts for securing the mediators from the said place. Though the prosecution failed to examine the mediators.

--7--

22.According to prosecution the investigating officer has examined

PWs1 and 2 at the scene observation and recorded their statements, but

before the court they deposed that they were not examined by the police

and they do not know anything about this case, hence their evidence is also not giving any aid to the prosecution.

23.The entire case of the prosecution relied on the testimony of PW3 who is interested witness. PW3 is an investigating officer, who conducted the raid and investigation and filed charge-sheet. Hence, the above said evidence should be scrutinized carefully. He has not produced the details from which shop the accused purchased the alleged seized liquor bottles and he has not investigated that from whom the accused purchased property and to whom he sold the liquor bottles though he can trace the same in his interrogation, he has not examined the neighbors of the accused to prove the sale of liquor by the accused. The identity slip is not containing the signature of accused to show that the liquor was seized by PW3 in his presence at the alleged place and time from the accused. Thus, except the testimony of interested witness and the confession of the accused which not at all an evidence there is no material on record to prove that the accused has committed the offence.

24.There are several lacuna's and infirmities in the evidence of PW3.

His evidence cannot be believed unless there is corroboration from independent witness. Further, without there being any corroboration from independent witnesses, basing on the evidence of Police official, it is not safe to conclude that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused, Hence it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

25. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

--8--

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 19th day of April, 2023.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

PPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1:Ghantasala Nageswara Rao -- NONE -- PW2:Ghantasala Venkanna PW3:K.Gurayya, S.I of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P3:Police proceedings Ex.P4:FIR Ex.P5:Rough sketch Ex.P6:Letter of advice Ex.P7:Chemical analysis report F OR DEFENCE:-- NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: Royal Palace Whisky 180 ml MO2: Daara House XO brandy 180 ml MO3: Classic Blue Whisky 180 ml

P.JFCM, TPG

--9--

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : TADEPALLIGUDEM.

CALENDER CASE No.1007/2022

1. Date of offence:22.10.2022

2. Date of complaint or report:22.10.2022

3. Date of apprehension of Accused :22.10.2022

4. Date of release on bail of Accused :28.10.2022

5. Date of commencement of trial:21.03-2023

6. Date of close of trial:06.04-2023

7. Date of sentence or Order:19-04-2023

8. Explanation of delay if any:No delay COMPLAINANT:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nidamarru Police Station.

ACCUSED:

Irrinki Ramakrishna S/o Seshagirirao, aged 46 years, Chanmilli village, Nidamarru mandal.

Cr.No.:Cr.No.193/2022 Section of Law :Under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of Court:Found not guilty

Sentence/Order:

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, is any shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437(A) Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

Seal JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TADEPALLIGUDEM.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari District through CD.

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Kum.A.Naga Malleswari,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tadepalligudem.

Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2023

O .S.No.469/2022

Between:

Mutyala Nageswara Rao S/o Subbarao, aged 67 years, Retired employee, Alval, Brundavan colony, Dr.No.1-23-18-15/4 Adhar No.332497783927, cell No.9440679315, Rangareddy District, Telangana.

..Plaintiff.

And

1. Mutyala China Buchiyya S/o late Venkanna, aged 75 years, Hindu, Agriculture, House No.13-2-14, Uppakapadu, Ungutur mandal, West Godavari District.

2. Mutyala Nageswara Rao S/o China Buchiyya, aged 46 years, Hindu, Agriculture, H.No.13-2-14, Uppakapadu, Ungutur mandal, West Godavari District.

3. Mutyala Venkayya @ Venkateswara Rao S/o China Buchiyya, aged 41 years, Hindu, Agriculture, House No.13-2-14, Uppakapadu, Ungutur mandal, West Godavari District.

4. Mutyala Suri @ Suryachandra Rao S/o China Buchiyya, aged 36 years, Hindu, Agriculture, H.No.13-2-14, Uppakapadu, Ungutur mandal.

5. Mutyala Tata Rao S/o Nageswara Rao, aged 60 years, Hindu, Agriculture, H.No.12-12-7, Uppakapadu, Ungutur mandal.

..Defendants

This suit coming on 27-03-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Ramakrishna Parama Hamsa, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants praying this Court to declare that the defendants are not having any land in the eastern side of the plaint schedule property; consequential injunction restraining the defendants, their men, followers, assignees, relations and friends not to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over Ac.0.10 cents of the schedule property and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows; the plaintiff’s father by name Mutyala Subbarao is the original owner of the plaint schedule property. Thereafter, the plaintiff’s father Mutyala Subbarao died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and two female by name 1)

Gopireddi Annapurna, 2) Adapa Chandrakanta. Subsequently, the plaintiff and his sisters intended to partition the schedule property to avoid future difference and misunderstandings. Accordingly “A” schedule fell to the share of the plaintiff, “B” schedule fell to the share of the elder sister and “C” schedule fell to the share of the younger sister and subsequently on 20-03- 2021 a partition deed came into existence. Since then the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Subsequently the plaintiff offered to sell the part of the plaint schedule property in Uppakapadu Revenue in R.S.No.446/2A Ac.0.42 cents and

Badampudi Revenue R.S.No.444A Ac.0.10 cents total Ac.0.52 cents and as per the partition deed dated 20-03-2021 there was Ac.0.62 cents. But the defendants 1 to 4 who is no other than father and sons falsely claiming

Ac.0.10 cents without any manner of right or possession. The plaintiff is having right and possession of Ac.0.10 cents but as the defendants falsely claiming right of Ac.0.10 cents. The plaintiff is constrained to execute a sale deed dated 14-07-2022 with regard to Ac.0.52 cents instead of Ac.0.62 cents. The 5th defendant is joined as necessary party even there is no specific disputes with regard to the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is having still Ac.0.10 cents in the eastern side of the schedule property. The defendants are not having right or possession over the part of the schedule property of Ac.0.10 cents. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3.On 20-10-2022 though summons were served on defendants 1 to 5 personally, they called absent and no representation. Service is held sufficient. But the defendants neither appear before the Court nor engaged any advocate and choose to file written statement. Hence, the defendants 1 to 5 are set exparte.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and third party was examined as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to 5. The plaintiff reported no further evidence. Hence, the plaintiff evidence is closed.

5. Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed for?

POINT :

7.To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got filed his chief affidavit incorporating all the averments of the plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is the original partition deed between plaintiff and his sisters; Ex.A2 is the original sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the Paluri Siva Ravi Kumar;

Ex.A3 is the mee-seva copy of 1-B adangal copy in favour of the plaintiff;

Ex.A4 is the original pattadar passbook in the name of the plaintiff and

Ex.A5 is the valuation of property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also got examined P.W.2/Ganta Satyanarayana, who is 3rd party in this suit, who filed his chief-affidavit supporting the case of plaintiff.

8.On the other hand, plaintiff by examining himself as P.W.1 and also a 3rd party as P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A-1 to Ex.A5 proved his case. The defendant did not even choose to cross examine P.Ws1 and 2 and did not adduce any evidence before the Court. The contents of chief affidavits of

P.Ws1 and 2 became unchallenged. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as the defendants are not having any land in the eastern side of the plaint schedule property and also the plaintiff is entitled for consequential injunction in his favour restraining the defendants, their men, followers, assignees, relatives and friends not to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over Ac.0.10 cents of the schedule property.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants declaring that the defendants are not having any land in the eastern side of the plaint schedule property;

The defendants, their men, followers, assignees, relatives and friends are restrained by way of granting permanent injunction from ever interfering into the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over

Ac.0.10 cents of the schedule property.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 21 st day of April, 2023.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

P.W.1: Mutyala Nageswara Rao

P.W.2: Ganta Satyanarayana

FOR DEFENDANTS : Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 :Original partition deed between plaintiff and his sisters. Ex.A-2 :Original sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of Paluri Siva Ravi Kumar Ex.A-3 :Mee-seva copy of adangal in favour of plaintiff Ex.A-4 :Original pattadar pass book in favour of the plaintiff Ex.A-5 :valuation of property in favour of the plaintiff.

FOR DEFENDANTS : Nil

PJCJ,TPG.

Plaint presented on : 19-09-2022 Plaint filed on : 20-09-2022

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::TADEPALLIGUDEM

Present: Kum.A.Naga Malleswari,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tadepalligudem.

Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2023

O .S.No.469/2022

Between:

Mutyala Nageswara Rao S/o Subbarao, aged 67 years, Retired employee, Alval, Brundavan colony, Dr.No.1-23-18-15/4 Adhar No.332497783927, cell No.9440679315, Rangareddy District, Telangana.

..Plaintiff.

And

1. Mutyala China Buchiyya S/o late Venkanna, aged 75 years, Hindu, Agriculture, House No.13-2-14, Uppakapadu, Ungutur mandal, West Godavari District.

2. Mutyala Nageswara Rao S/o China Buchiyya, aged 46 years, Hindu, Agriculture, H.No.13-2-14, Uppakapadu, Ungutur mandal, West Godavari District.

3. Mutyala Venkayya @ Venkateswara Rao S/o China Buchiyya, aged 41 years, Hindu, Agriculture, House No.13-2-14, Uppakapadu, Ungutur mandal, West Godavari District.

4. Mutyala Suri @ Suryachandra Rao S/o China Buchiyya, aged 36 years, Hindu, Agriculture, H.No.13-2-14, Uppakapadu, Ungutur mandal.

5. Mutyala Tata Rao S/o Nageswara Rao, aged 60 years, Hindu, Agriculture, H.No.12-12-7, Uppakapadu, Ungutur mandal.

....Defendants

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants praying this Court to declare that the defendants are not having any land in the eastern side of the plaint schedule property; consequential injunction restraining the defendants, their men, followers, assignees, relations and friends not to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over Ac.0.10 cents of the schedule property and for costs.

VALUATION OF THE SUIT:-

Suit for declaration and permanent injunction over the schedule property, the suit is valued U/s 24(b) of APCF & SV Act.

As per the Registrar value is Rs.18,00,000/- and thus Ac.0.10 cents of land comes to Rs.1,80,000/- on which one half comes to Rs.90,000/-.

On which a C.F. of Rs. 3176/- is paid U/Sec. 24 (b) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

CAUSE OF ACTION:-Cause of action for the suit arose when the father of the plaintiff purchased the schedule property and enjoyed as of right for considerable period; when the said person died intestate, when the plaintiff and his sisters partitioned the schedule property on 20-03-2021; when the plaintiff offered to sell the plaint schedule property and on 14-07-2022 executed a sale deed and when the defendants objection claiming falsely that they are having Ac.0.10 cents of land without manner of right or possession; when the defendants 1 to 4 proclaiming in the village and threatening to interfere with the schedule property and occupy the same and where the defendants 1 to 5 are residing and where part of the schedule property is situated at Uppakapadu within the jurisdiction of this Court. This suit coming on 27-03-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Ramakrishna Parama Hamsa, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows :

1.that the suit be and same is hereby decreed with costs;

2.that the declaring the defendants are not having any land in the eastern side of the plaint schedule property;

3.that the defendants, their men, followers assignees, relatives and friends are restrained by way of granting permanent injunction from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over Ac.0.10 cents of the schedule property.

4.that the defendants do pay a sum of Rs.5338/- to the plaintiff towards costs of the suit.

(Copy of plaint schedule and plan attached to decree) Given under my hand and Seal of the Court, 21st day of April, 2023

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TADEPALLIGUDEM

MEMO OF COSTS.

For Plaintiff For Defendants Stamp on Vakalat 2-00No cost memo filed on either side. Plaint fees 3186-00 Pleader fees 2000-00 Process 150-00 Total costs : 5338-00

PJCJ, TPG