Sri. Ande Venkata Nagaraju

OS.No.342/20221 II AJCJ Court, TNK

Dt:14.07.2023

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TANUKU

PRESENT: A.VENKATA NAGARAJU,

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANUKU.

Dated Friday, this the 14th day of July, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT. No.342/2022

Between:

Medapati Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o Late Subbireddy, Hindu, Male, 35 years, D.No.1-288, Venugopalaswamy temple street, Ubalanka, RVPalam mandal, Konaseema District. …Plaintiff

And

Dwarampudi Lakshmi Bai W/o Late Satyanarayana Reddy, Hindu, Female, House wife, 72 years, Sri Ranganayakulu Residency, Flat No.1, 4th floor, JVL Nagar, Near Gajula Pullarao House, Penugonda.

..Defendant

This Suit was coming on 27.01.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. V.Venkatesh, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendant having been set exparte, and upon perusing the record and 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 Under Order VII Rule 1 R/w Section 26 of

Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as CPC for brevity) for the relief of

Specific Performance of Contract based on the agreement of sale dated. 01.09.2021 alleged to be executed by the son of defendant in favour of the Plaintiff for the suit schedule property and directing the defendant to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration and to hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property to him and on their failure to do so, to execute a registered sale deed through Court and put the plaintiff in possession of the schedule property alternatively b) if for any reason the Hon’ble Court feels that the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of contract, to grant a decree for return of advance sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. and to grant

OS.No.342/20222 II AJCJ Court, TNK

Dt:14.07.2023

damages of Rs.5,00,000/- making a total of Rs.20,00,000/- with subsequent interest from the date of suit till realization and to grant costs of the suit.

2. The Brief facts of the plaint are that:

a) The plaintiff and defendant’s son by name Dwarampudi Sayeesh Reddy are distant relatives . The defendant is the mother of late Dwarampudi Sayeesh Reddy and only surviving legal heir to him as he died on 16.1.2022. The said deceased owns the plaint schedule properties situated in West Godavarri and Vijayanagaram

Districts. He used to do contract works at Vizag for his livelihood. During the corona time, he fell sick and his mother i.e defendant used to take care of him during his ailment. For his medical treatment the deceased wanted to sell away his properties and asked the plaintiff to purchase the schedule properties and also told him about the intended purchasers and their offers for the plaint schedule property intended to be sold. The plaintiff offered to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and as the sale consideration that was offered by the plaintiff is higher than others, the defendant agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff.

b) The plaintiff and deceased/Dwarampudi Sayeesh Reddy entered into

Agreement of sale on 01.09.2021 for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and an amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- was paid to the deceased as advance of the above sale agreement

before elders who signed as attestors and it was agreed to get the properties

registered by 30.4.2022 from the date of agreement and as per the draft that will be given by the plaintiff and sale deed will be executed on necessary stamps at the expense of plaintiff either in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of any other person as required by the plaintiff, by the deceased Dwarampudi Sayeesh Reddy. At that time, the original documents of the plaint schedule properties were handed over to the plaintiff as 3/4th of the sale consideration was paid as advance. The amount was spent by the defendant for medical treatment of deceased.

OS.No.342/20223 II AJCJ Court, TNK

Dt:14.07.2023

c) While the matter stood thus, the deceased unfortunately died on 16.01.2022 due to ill health and the deceased got no other legal heirs except defendant and the estate of the deceased devolved upon the defendant and she is in possession and enjoyment of the estate of the deceased and after the obsequies of deceased, the plaintiff personally and through mediators demanded her to register the property in his favour as per the agreement dt. 1.09.2021 and there is no answer from her.

d) Subsequently, the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and he made ready for balance sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and he informed the defendant personally and through mediators about the same. Though the time mentioned in the agreement i.e. 30.4.2022 is nearing, the defendant did not come forward to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration and for delivering the vacant possession of the plaint schedule properties. Then the plaintiff through attestors who acted as elders, demanded the defendant to come to register office to perform her part of contract as per agreement. The defendant requested to wait for another one month for registration and started evading the plaintiff.

e) Then the plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the defendant on 18.04.2022 informing her that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and requested the defendant to perform contract specifically as per the terms and conditions that were mentioned in the sale agreement dt.01.09.2021 being the sole legal heir of deceased and to register the schedule property by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- from plaintiff by visiting the

SRO Penugonda on or before 23.4.2022. The defendant received the said notice on 21.4.2022 and kept quite and that the defendant is trying to escape from registering the plaint schedule property as prices of the property were increased from the date

OS.No.342/20224 II AJCJ Court, TNK

Dt:14.07.2023

of agreement and her acts caused lot of mental agony and financial loss to the plaintiff.

f) The plaintiff further submits that he will not get any other property in the same locations for the same price and prices of the properties were increased from the date of agreement. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages in addition to the return of amount that was paid by the plaintiff on 01.09.2021 with 24% p.a. as an alternative relief against the defendant personally and with a charge against the properties in case if the Court pleases that the plaintiff is not entitled to specific relief that was prayed by him. Plaintiff is claiming damages of Rs.5,00,000/- being the loss occasioned to him due to breach of contract by the defendant. Hence the suit.

03. After registering the suit, the suit summons were issued to Defendant and same were served on him through Court and R.P personally served on 30.06.2022, but he did not enter his appearance and no vakalat filed on his behalf, thereby he set exparte on 25.08.2022

04. On behalf of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff is examined as PW.1, attestor Sri V.Veera

Raghava Reddy is examined as PW.2 and Scribe/A.N.K.P. Sekhar is examined as PW.3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.A.1 is the original suit agreement

dt. 01.09.2021, Ex.A.2 is office copy of legal notice dt. 18.04.2022, Ex.A.3 is original

served acknowledgment dt. 21.4.2022 and Ex.A4 is original death certificate of

Dwarampudi Sayeesh Reddy, dt. 31.1.2022.

05. Heard the Counsel for the Plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

06. The Point for consideration is “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for ?

To substantiate the case of Plaintiff, the Plaintiff examined as PW1 and he filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of his chief examination by reiterating the

OS.No.342/20225 II AJCJ Court, TNK

Dt:14.07.2023

contents of the plaint into his chief examination affidavit. On his behalf of Exs.A1 to

A4 are got marked. Ex.A1 is the original suit agreement of sale dt.01.09.2021 alleged to be executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dt. 18.04.2022, Ex.A.3 is original served acknowledgment dt. 21.4.2022 and Ex.A4 is original death certificate of Dwarampudi Sayeesh Reddy, dt. 31.1.2022.

07. On behalf of the plaintiff, the attestor of Ex.A1 namely V.Veera Raghava Reddy is examined as PW.2 and he filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and same is found to be the contents of chief examination affidavit of

PW.1.

08. On behalf of the plaintiff, the scribe of Ex.A1 namely A.N.K.P. Sekhar is examined as PW.3 and he filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and same is found to be the contents of chief examination affidavit of

PW.1.

09. Perused the averments made in the plaint as well as the evidence of the plaintiff. Perused the Exs.A1 to A4 which are filed by the plaintiff on his behalf. After perusal of the same, it is found that the Ex.A1 was executed by the deceased son/Dwarampudi Sayeesh Reddy of defendant in favour of the plaintiff for sale of suit schedule property and that he had received the sale consideration amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff under Ex.1 in the presence of PW.2 and PW.3.

Therefore, the execution of Ex.A1 by the deceased, who is the son of defendant in favour of the plaintiff for sale of suit schedule property and receiving the sale consideration from the plaintiff.

10. Since the defendant is remained exparte and since the evidence of PW.1 to

PW.3 are unchallenged and undiscredited, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is proved his case that though the deceased son of defendant executed

Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff for sale of suit schedule property, he is evading to execute

OS.No.342/20226 II AJCJ Court, TNK

Dt:14.07.2023

the regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for the suit schedule property. Therefore, this court is opined that the plaintiff is entitled to get the regular registered sale deed from the defendant for the suit schedule property based on Ex.A1. Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff and against the

Defendant.

11. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. The defendant is directed to execute the register sale deed in favour of the plaintiff conveying the rights over the suit schedule property and hand over the possession over the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff within three (3) months from the date of judgment. If the defendant fails to do so, the plaintiff is entitled to get the register sale deed for the suit schedule property through process of law.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II directly on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14th day of July, 2023

Sd/- A.Venkata Nagaraju

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TANUKU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1: M.Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy None PW.2: V.Veera Raghava Reddy PW.3: A.N.K.P. Sekhar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A.1/-- Original suit agreement dt. 01.09.2021 Ex.A.2/-- Office copy of legal notice dt. 18.04.2022 Ex.A.3/-- Original served acknowledgment dt. 21.4.2022 Ex.A.4/- Original death certificate of Dwarampudi Saiyeesh Reddy, dt. 31.1.2022. FOR DEFENDANT: Nil.

Id/- A.V.N II AJCJ/TNK.

OS.No.342/20227 II AJCJ Court, TNK

Dt:14.07.2023

Plaint presented on : 29.04.2022 Plaint filed on : 02.05.2022

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TANUKU

PRESENT: A.VENKATA NAGARAJU,

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANUKU.

Dated Friday, this the 14th day of July, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT. No.342/2022

Between:

Medapati Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o Late Subbireddy, Hindu, Male, 35 years, D.No.1-288, Venugopalaswamy temple street, Ubalanka, RVPalam mandal, Konaseema District. …Plaintiff

And

Dwarampudi Lakshmi Bai W/o Late Satyanarayana Reddy, Hindu, Female, House wife, 72 years, Sri Ranganayakulu Residency, Flat No.1, 4th floor, JVL Nagar, Near Gajula Pullarao House, Penugonda.

..Defendant

This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff Under Order VII Rule 1 R/w Section 26 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as CPC for brevity) for the relief of Specific Performance of Contract based on the agreement of sale dated. 01.09.2021 alleged to be executed by the son of defendant in favour of the Plaintiff for the suit schedule property and directing the defendant to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration and to hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property to him and on their failure to do so, to execute a registered sale deed through Court and put the plaintiff in possession of the schedule property alternatively b) if for any reason the Hon’ble Court feels that the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of contract, to grant a decree for return of advance sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. and to grant damages of Rs.5,00,000/- making a total of Rs.20,00,000/- with subsequent interest from the date of suit till realization and to grant costs of the suit..

Value of the Suit for the purpose of Court fee and Jurisdiction:

Relief of Special performance of agreement of sale dt.01.09.2021 valued at….. Rs. 20,00,000/-

or Alternative relief

For the relief of return of the amount paid as advance sale consideration is.. Rs. 15,00,000/-

The relief of damages .. Rs. 5,00,000/-

OS.No.342/20228 II AJCJ Court, TNK

Dt:14.07.2023

On which a Court fee of Rs.22,426/- is paid on the higher relief under Section 39(a) and Section 6 of Sub Sec.1 Article I of A.P.C.F and SV Act.

Cause of Action for the suit arose on 01.09.2021 when the only son of defendant entered into an agreement of sale of plaint schedule properties and agreed to sell the schedule properties for Rs.20,00,000/- to the plaintiff and executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff by receiving part of sale consideration at Penugonda at the house of defendant in the presence of the attestors and scribe and on all the dates when the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and informed the same to the defendant personally and through mediators and requested her to register the plaint schedule properties being the sole legal heir of deceased and on 18.4.2022 when the plaintiff got issued a registered notice through his advocate to perform their part of contract and on 21.4.2022 when the defendant received the notice and kept quite at Kantheru village and part in Vijayanagaram District where the plaint schedule properties are situated and part of the plaint schedule properties and the defendant are residing are all within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

This Suit was coming on 27.01.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. V.Venkatesh, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendant having been set exparte, and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

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

2.that the defendant is hereby directed to execute the Register Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff conveying the rights over the suit schedule property and hand over the possession over the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff within three (3) months from the date of judgment. If the defendant fails to do so, the plaintiff is entitled to get the register sale deed for the suit schedule property through process of law;

3. that if the defendant fails to do so, the plaintiff is entitled to get the register sale deed for the suit schedule property through process of law;

4. that the Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 49,788/- (Rupees Forty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Eight Only) towards costs of the suit and the Defendant do bear his own costs (No costs memo filed).

(Copy of Plaint Schedule attached hereunder)

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 14th day of July, 2023.

Sd/- A.Venkata Nagaraju

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANUKU

OS.No.342/20229 II AJCJ Court, TNK

Dt:14.07.2023

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

1. Stamp on Vakalat 2-00 2 Stamps on Process 60-00 No Cost memo filed

3. Plaint fee 22,426-00

4. Pleaders fee 27,300-00

5. Typing charges 50-00

Total: 49,788-00

Id/- A.V.N II AJCJ/TNK

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TANUKU.

PRESENT: Sri Ande Venkata Nagaraju

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TANUKU

Thursday, this the 6th day of April, 2023

Calendar Case No. 714/2015

Between

Medicherla Srimannarayana, S/o Bhaskara Rao, Hindu, Male, Aged 32 years, Cultivation, R/o Velagadurru, Undrajavaram Mandal & P.S. … Complainant. AND

1.Kolanuvada Rama Krishnam Raju S/o Sitarama Raju, Hindu, Male, Aged 65 years, Cultivation, R/o Velagadurru , Undrajavaram Mandal and P.S. (A1)

Mudunuri Murali Krishnam Raju, S/o Ramachandra Raju, Hindu, Male, Aged 53 years, Cultivation, R/o Velagadurru, Undrajavaram Mandal and P.S (A2)

(This Court took cognizance against A.2 only)

… Accused

This case is coming on 23.03.2023 for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri M.K.Narayana Murthy, Ld. Counsel for complainant and of Sri K.Anantha Padmanabham, Ld. Advocate for Accused No.2, perusing the material available on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The complainant by name Medicherla Srimannarayana filed this private complaint against the accused, for the offence under Sections 323, 448, 511, 506(2) r/w 34 Indian Penal Code with the following allegations:

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

a) The complainant owns some land at Velagadurru village and Kolanuvada

Rama Krishna Raju is the southern side neighbour of the complainant’s land and

Mudunuri Murali Krishnam Raju/Accused is the Eastern side neighbour of the complainant’s land. The complainant has raised coconut trees and coke in his land.

Kolanuvada Rama Krishna Raju raised coconut and banana garden in his land.

Mudunuri Murali Krishnam Raju/Accused raised coconut and coke crops in his land.

Both the accused tried to purchase the property from the complainant and in that connection they brought pressure not only on the complainant but also on his father.

2

The complainant as well as his father were not willing to sell away their property. Ever sicne both the accused bore grudge against him and they have been altercating and quarrelling with the complainant without any justifiable cause.

On 01.08.2014 at about 4.00 PM, when the complainant was at his feiled,

Kolanuvada Rama Krishna Raju and Accused/Mudunuri Murali Krishnam Raju along with their followers came to the complainant and made an acquisition stating that the complainant poked their banana plants with some instrument and caused damage to their banana plants and while they saying so, tried to pounce upon the complainant and tried to beat the complainant with their hands, intimidated the complainant that they would cut away the coconut plants and coke plants and thereby cause severe loss to the complainant. The complainant tried his best to pacify the accused, but the accused did not hear the words of the complainant, and also scolded him in filthy language and stated that he could tell anybody about their highhanded acts. The complainant afraid of accused and he got issued registered notice on 04.08.2014 through his advocate calling for explanation and if any further offence is committed by the accused damages will be claimed. Both the accused wantonly and willfully made to return the notice.

On 19.08.2014 at about 10.00 PM, Kolanuvada Rama Krishnam Raju and

Mudunuri Murali Krishnam Raju/Accused along with other two persons trespassed into the house premises of complainant and knocked the doors of complainant’s house and shouted loudly infilthy language demanding him to come out from he hsoue. They also stated that they know how to open the door by saying about the issuance of advocate notice to them. The mother of the complainant opened the window and on seeing the accused questioned them about their highhanded acts, in the mean while, the complainant arose from the sleep and saw the accused from window. The accused and other two persons were having sticks in their hands. Then the complainant afraid of the accused that if he opens the door the accused might have cause grievous injury or the complainant would have been killed by the accused as such he gone away from his house by opening the rear door. The accused intimidated the complainant while 3 knocking the door that they would kill him. Hence, the complainant presented a report to the Undrajavaram P.S against the accused. The Undrajavaram Police have not take any action till today, though the complainant approached them several times, as the accused are highly influenced persons. Hence , the complainant filed the report before the court against the accused.

On receipt of endorsed complaint from the Court, the SHO , Undrajavaram P.S.

registered a case in Cr.No.14/2015 u/sec. 323, 448, 511, 506(2) IPC r/w 34 IPC and 156(3) Cr.P.C. and took up investigation. During investigation, ASI proceeded to

Velagadurru village, visited the house of LW.1, observed the same, prepared rough sketch and examined LWs.1 to 6 and recorded their 161(3) Cr.p.C. statements.

Thereafter, The SHO, Undrajavaram P.S. notice was given to Complainant for “Mistake of Fact” . Finally, he concluded that no offence took place as alleged by LW.1 and this is a fit case to refer as false. Then the complainant came forward before the Court for objections and filed a protest petition before the Court against the Accused. Basing on the protest petition, this Court conducted detailed enquiry by recording the statements of LWs.1 and 2, and that my learned Predecessor took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 506 IPC against Mudunuri Murali Krishnam

Raju/Accused No.2 only and issue summons to Accused.

4. On appearance of Accused copies of case documents are furnished to him as contemplated U/sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter refer to as

Cr.P.C for the sake of brevity).

5. When the accused No.2 is examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C. with regard to offence alleged against him by explaining the accusation leveled against him, for which, he did not plead guilty of the offence under section 448, 506 IPC and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 & 2 and Ex.P1 &

Ex.P4 are marked. Ex.D.1 marked on behalf of defence.

4

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A2 was examined under section 313

Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution, for which, he denied and reported no defense evidence.

8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for Complainant and Ld. Counsel for accused and perused the documents made available on record.

9. Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution proved the

guilt of the A2 for charge under Sections 448, 506 IPC, beyond all reasonable

doubts?

10. This is a case of alleged trespass into dwelling house, and made attempt to cause simple hurt and criminal intimidation that said to be occurred on 1.8.2014 at about 4.00 PM and again on 19.8.2014 at about 10.00 PM, at Velagaddurru village of

Undrajavaram Mandal and reported through this Court on 06.02.2015 at 10.30 AM, wherein the complainant alleged against Kolanuvada Rama Krishnam Raju and Mudunuri

Murali Krishnam Raju/Accused stating that so called Kolanuvada Rama Krishnam Raju and Mudunuri Murali Krishnam Raju/Accused asked him to dispose his land to them and when he refused to do so, the accused started disputing with him and by revealing the same, the accused trespassed into his premises and tried to beat him and also threatened him for dire consequences.

11. On 27.02.2015 the SHO, Undrajavaram P.S. filed a final report as the case was a “Mistake of fact”, after investigation police filed referred charge sheet there is no prima facie it was a mistake of fact. Proceedings of the Sub Dividional Police Officer, Kovvur reported as a “False Case”.

12. In the present case, on suspect of Kolanuvada Rama Krishnam Raju and

Mudunuri Murali Krishnam Raju/Accused poked coco plants which are belongs to complainant and also 80 coconuts are pocked and cut by Kolanuvada Rama Krishnam

Raju and Mudunuri Murali Krishnam Raju/Accused in the evening at 4.00 PM on 21.10.2016. Ex.P3 is unserved registered notice dt. 6.8.2014 and Ex.P4 is the original 5 receipt issued by postal department dt. 23.9.2014. After investigation charge sheet filed as “Mistake of Fact”.

13. In the present case complainant lodged a complaint against Kolanuvada Rama

Krishnam Raju and Mudunuri Murali Krishnam Raju/Accused on suspicion only. PW.1 did not see the Kolanuvada Rama Krishnam Raju and Mudunuri Murali Krishnam

Raju/Accused and other two persons in the darkness and that to admitted by complaint.

14. PW.1 stated in his cross examination that some unknown persons pocked the banana trees existed in the fields of Indukuri Pedavenkata Raju and that some unknown persons used to poke banana trees on several occasions including in agricultural fields of Mudunuri Murali Krishnam Raju/Accused. To his knowledge, three members in his village by name Mudunuri Ramachandra Raju and he do not know, whether any person in their respective families by name Mudunuri Murali Krishnam

Raju. He denied the suggestions that 2nd accused is not Mudunuri Murali Krishnam

Raju but his name is Murali Mohan Prasad Raju and he do not know whether 2nd accused name is Mudunuri Mohana Prasad Raju. Though, he got knowledge about his name is Mudunuri Mohana Prasad Raju, but he intentionally incorporated his name in

Private complaint in view of Prevailing disputes between their families. He also admitted in her cross exdaination that on the postal cover it appears that the registered post has been returned due to insufficient address. He further states that no coridial terms between his family and the family his paternal uncles. He has also lodged another criminal ase against his paternal uncle Medicherla Surya Prakash Rao on suspicion that he might have poked banana trees in his fields. He also denied the suggestion that in Ex.P2 legal notice he did not mention the overt acts of Kolanuvada

Rama Krishna Raju and Mudunuri Murali Krishnam Raju/A.2 in the alleged incident.

PW.1 admitted that he did not state the names of said persons in his statement in SR

No.2864/2015 and did not state Kolanuvada Rama Krishna Raju and Mudunuri Murali

Krishnam Raju/A.2 and his followers came to him and questioned that he poked their banana trees and saying so they pounced upon him and ried to beat him. He also 6 denied that he did not state in his statement in SR No.2864/2015 that Kolanuvada

Rama Krishna Raju and Mudunuri Murali Krishnam Raju/A.2 threatened to do away his life and will cause his damage to his crops. There is six feet of vacant site in front of his house, on the alleged incident, Kolanuvada Rama Krishna Raju and Mudunuri Murali

Krishnam Raju/A.2 and two others came to his house, but he did not see the said persons because of darkness. PW.1 admitted in her cross examination that his mother observed Kolanuvada Rama Krishna Raju and Mudunuri Murali Krishnam Raju/A.2 through window.

15. PW.2 deposed that at about 5 years ago on the same day at 10.00 pm, on hearing loud noice, she opened the window and observed Kolanuvada Rama Krishna

Raju and Mudunuri Murali Krishnam Raju/A.2 and others came , who are abusing his son/PW.1 and questioned them as to why they abusing his son. In the mean time,

PW.1 woke up and escaped from there due to fear of Accused.

16. In the present case, except the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 there is no evidence placed by complainant. Basing on the sole witness testimony, the Court cannot inclined to give sentence to Accused No.2. Thus, this court is of the view that the prosecution is failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

17.In the result, Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 448, 506 IPC and thereby he is acquitted for the same under section 255(1) of

Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bond of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for period of six months as per section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 6th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- A.Venkata Nagaraju

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Tanuku.

7

//Appendix of Evidence//

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence : PW.1 :Medicherla Srimannarayana None PW.2: Medicherla Kasi Surya Ratnam //Exhibits marked //

For Prosecution :

Ex.P.1: Notice got issued by Undrajavaram P.S (It was marked at the time of recording the evidence in SR No.2864/2015) Ex.P.2 : Office copy of legal notice dt. 4.8.2014 Ex.P.3: Unserved registered noticed dt. 6.8.2014 & 7.8.2014 Ex.P4: Original receipt issued Postal department dt .23.9.2014

For Defence: Ex.D.1 is certified copy of FIR vide Cr.No.143/2016 along with charge sheet of Undrajavaram P.S

Id/- A.V.N II AJMFC, Tanuku 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF WEST GODAVARI

Calendar case No.714/2015 tried by the II Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Offence: 01.08.2014 Report: 06.02.2015 Taken on file: 21.08.2015 Apprehension: -- Release on bail: -- Commencement of trial: 05.03.2020 Closure of trial: 25.01.2023 Sentence of Order date: 06.04.2023

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT

Medicherla Srimannarayana, S/o Bhaskara Rao, Hindu, Male, Aged 32 years, Cultivation, R/o Velagadurru, Undrajavaram Mandal & P.S.

NAME OF THE ACCUSED

1.Kolanuvada Rama Krishnam Raju S/o Sitarama Raju, Hindu, Male, Aged 65 years, Cultivation, R/o Velagadurru , Undrajavaram Mandal and P.S. (A1)

2.Mudunuri Murali Krishnam Raju, S/o Ramachandra Raju, Hindu, Male, Aged 53 years, Cultivation, R/o Velagadurru, Undrajavaram Mandal and P.S (A2) (This Court took cognizance against A.2 only)

Offence : Section 448, 506 IPC

Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :

In the result, Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 448, 506 IPC and thereby he is acquitted for the same under section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bond of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for period of six months as per section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sd/- A.Venkata Nagaraju

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TANUKU

Copy submitted to The Hon’ble I Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

TANUKU

Present: - Sri A.Venkata Nagaraju

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Tanuku

Thursday, this the 6th day of April, 2023

CALANDER CASE NO.579/2013

Between : State: Rep. by its Sub Inspector of Police, Attili Police Station …. Complainant

And

1.Gudala Narasamma

2.Gudala Venkatarao

3. Gudala Srinu, S/o Venkatarao, 30 years, C/s Balija, Yerraneeligunta village of Attili Mandal

4.Gudala Seethamma

5.Kadali Danamma (The case against A.3 was split up from CC No.593/2008)

(The case against A.1, A.2, A4 & A5 are ended in acquittal vide CC

No.593/2008 dated 06.01.2015) …. Accused No.3

This case is coming on 04.04.2023 for final disposal before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri A.S.S.Markandeyulu, Advocate for the A.3 and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Attili P.S. laid the charge sheet in Cr.No.84/2007 to punish the accused A.1 to A.5 under Sections 324, 323 & 506(2) r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :

The LW.1 (Katta Veeramma) and accused families are belongs to same community.

They are residents of Yerraneeligunta village of Attili Mandal. LW.1/Katta Veeramma house is existed by the western side of the accused house. LW.1 and accused families have got house boundary disputes since a long time and in pursuance of the said disputes, they frequently altercated to each other. On 23.12.2007 evening again the 2 complainant family and accused families are disputed each other, on that dispute,

Gudala Venkata Rao A.2 beat the LW.1 with stick over her head and inflicted injuries to her and remaining accused A.1 and A.3 to A.5 are beat her with hands and legs and on that dispute, threatened with dire consequences. Then LW.1 lodged a report in Attili

Police station against the Accused. Basing on the said report, LW.7/Sd.Ahmed-SI of

Police registered a case in Cr.No.84/2007 u/s 324, 506(2) r/w 34 of IPC of Attili Police station and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, he examined LW.1 & 2 and sent the LW.1 to

Government Hospital, Tanuku for treatment on the night of 23.12.2007. On 24.12.2007, LW.7 visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined LWs.3 to 5 i.e. Gudala Veera Lakshmi, Sumathi, Pechetti Jhansy Lakshmi and collected the evidence against the accused. Thereafter, he arrested the accused A.1 to A.5 on 3.3.2008 and sent them to judicial custody. Finally, Dr.S.Indira Devi-CAS who rendered treatment of LW.1, issued wound certificate and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.

3. My learned Predecessor took cognizance against the accused for the offence under Secs.324, 323, 506 (2) r/w 34 IPC.

4. On appearance of Accused, case copies were furnished to the them under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for which they denied the offence, and the charge under Secs.324 IPC against A.2, Charge u/Sec. 323

IPC against A.1, A3 to A5 and Charge under Section 506 IPC against A1 to A5 were framed, read over and explained to them in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in CC No.593/2008.

5. As NBW was pending against A.3 since long time, on 05.12.2013, this

Court split up the case against A3 from CC No.593/2008 and numbered as CC

No.579/2013. Later, this Court addressed a letter to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge,

West Godavari, Eluru to treat the case as Long Pending case. Accordingly, this Court received Orders from the Hon’ble Court to treat the case as LPC against A.3 and numbered as LPC 5/2018 dt.10.08.2018. On 01.04.2019, accused voluntarily 3 surrendered and filed Petition U/sec. 70(2) Cr.P.C. to recall NBW and the same was dismissed and remanded to judicial custody. In view of the securing the presence of accused No.3, the LPC proceedings are closed and the case is restored to its Original matter CC No.579/2013.

6. In this case, on 04.04.2023 the learned APP filed a memo stating that the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 which was recorded in CC No.593/2008 against A.1, A2, A3 and

A.5 and the same may be considered in this case i.e. CC No.579/2013 also and accordingly, this Court considered the memo filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and taken evidence of PWs.1 to 6 in CC No.593/2008 in this case.

7. Basing on the evidence recorded in CC No.593/2008, A3 was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, for which he pleaded not guilty denying the incriminatory evidence spoken against him. On behalf of accused, no defence witnesses were examined, and no documents marked.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is –

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the Accused No.3 for

the offence u/sec. 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against A3 beyond

reasonable doubt ?

10. P O I N T :- The case of the prosecution that all the accused are residing to the left side house of the PW.1 and they have boundary disputes since long back with the accused. On 23.12.2007, PW.1 along with one Mangamma were returning from their fields to their house, A.1 abused her in filthy language. Though, PW.1 went to their house since PW.1 has to pass through the house of the accused if she want to fetch water from Panchayat Tap . On that she was going, A.1 caught hold of tuft of hair and dragged her on ground and A.2 beat her with stick on her head and A.1, A.3 to A.5 beat her with hands and legs indiscriminately. On that LW.2 came and took them to

Attili Police station and Attili Police referred her to Govt., area Hospital, Tanuku for treatment.

11. For proving the allegations against the accused, Pw.1 herself examined and she also cross examined but she did not sign on the deposition and went away. Though her 4 evidence was eschewed and who are the eye witnesses to the accident i.e PWs.2, 3 and

PW.4 did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile.

12. Pw.5 who is a Doctor examined the PW.1 found the following injuries. 5 cm X 5 cm contusion seen on right side fore head and she gave opinion that the injury is simple in nature and it might be caused due to blunt object and the age of injury is 0-6 hours. Ex.P.5 is the Wound certificate.

13. Though the medical evidence is available on record but due to non signing of

PW.1 on her deposition that the said evidence will not be taken into consideration. The said evidence is supporting to the evidence of PW.5. Hence, only basing on the medical evidence this court is not inclined to convict the accused and further the prosecution also given up the LW.2 Katta Srinu who is the eye witness to the incident and who separated the PW.1 and accused by the time of incident and who brought the hospital and providing the treatment. This material witness is not examined for proving of the offence. It is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. So the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused and did not take any steps for obtaining signature of

PW.1, so also recall of the PW.1 and it is also one of the ground that the accused and they are boundary disputes between them there is a chance to implicate the case falsely on basing on the said disputes. So it is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.

As the prime accused is acquitted in CC No.593/2008 by the Predecessor of this Court and gone through the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, no incriminating evidence available on record against A.3. Hence, I am inclined to acquit the Accused No.3.

14. In the result, Accused No.3 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 323, 506(2) r/w 34 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by

me in open court this the 6th day of April, 2023.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TANUKU .

5

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : Katta Veeramma None.

P.W.2 : Gudala Veera lakshmi

Pw.3 : Guduri Sumathi

PW.4 : Pechetti Jhansy Lakshmi

Pw.5 : Dr. S.Indira Devi

PW.6 : Sri Ahmed

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/ -- Police report Ex.P2/ 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.2 recorded by the police Ex.P3/ - 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3 recorded by the police Ex.P4/ - 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.4 recorded by the police Ex.P5/ - Wound certificate Ex.P6/ -- Original FIR Ex.P7/ -- Rough sketch

For Defence: NIL.

IIAJFCM /Tanuku 6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF WEST GODAVARI

Calendar case No.579/2013 tried by the II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence 23.12.2007 Report 23.12.2007 Taken on file 09.09.2008 Apprehension 3.3.2008 Release on bail 3.3.2008 Commencement of trial 12.9.2014 Closure of trial 04.04.2023 Sentence or order 06.04.2023

Explanation for delay: As NBW was pending against A.3 since long time, on 05.12.2013, this Court split up the case against A3 from CC No.593/2008 and numbered as CC No.579/2013. Later, this Court received Orders from the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge’s Court, Eluru to treat the case as LPC against A.3 and numbered as LPC 5/2018 dt.10.08.2018. On 01.04.2019, accused voluntarily surrendered and filed Petition U/sec. 70(2) Cr.P.C. to recall NBW and the same was dismissed and remanded to judicial custody. In view of the securing the presence of accused No.3, the LPC proceedings are closed and the case is restored to its Original matter CC No.579/2013. In this case, on 04.04.2023 the learned APP filed a memo stating that the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 which was recorded in CC No.593/2008 against A.1, A2, A3 and A.5 and the same may be considered in this case i.e. CC No.579/2013 also and accordingly, this Court considered the memo filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and taken evidence of PWs.1 to 6 in

CC No.593/2008 in this case and posted for 313 examination. Then A.3 was examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C.

and posted for arguments. Heard both sides. For judgment adjourned to 06.04.2023. Name of the complainant State: Rep. by its Sub Inspector of Police, Attili Police station. Name of the Accused

1.Gudala Narasamma(A.1)

2.Gudala Venkatarao (A.2)

3. Gudala Srinu, S/o Venkatarao, 30 years, C/s Balija, Yerraneeligunta village of Attili Mandal (A.3)

4.Gudala Seethamma(A.4)

5.Kadali Danamma (A.5) (The case against A.3 was split up from CC No.593/2008)

(The case against A.1, A.2, A4 & A5 are ended in acquittal vide CC

No.593/2008 dated 06.01.2015)

Crime No. : 84/2007 of Attili P.S Offence : Section 323, 506(2) r/w 34 of IPC Finding : Found not guilty Sentence or Order : In the result, the Accused No.3 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 323, 506(2) r/w 34 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond and sureties of the accused shall stand cancelled.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TANUKU Copy submitted to The Hon’ble I Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

7

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, TANUKU

PRESENT: SRI ANDE VENKATA NAGARAJU

II ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

TANUKU

Friday, this the 14th day of July, 2023)

Calendar Case No.423/2019

Between:

The State- Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Undrajavaram Police Station …Complainant

And

Kunche Veerraju S/o Ammiraju, Aged 31 years, Kapu, D.No.1-116/1, Ramalayam street, Surapuram of Nidadavole Mandal … Accused No.1

This case is coming on 12.07.2023 for final hearing before me, in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri K.S.Somanadha Reddy and of Kum. Shaik Mothi, Ld. Counsels for the Accused, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Undrajavaram P.S filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.176/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of

Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act-1961.

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

The marriage of LW.1/Kunche Rama Lakshmi was performed with A1 on 20.02.2011 at Sri Rama Sahita Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Teple at Nidadavole, as per Hindu caste customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of LW.1 gave an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards dowry, presented 12 sov. gold and besides given

Rs.1,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and also Rs.1,00,000/- towards

Adapaduchu lanchanams to A1 for the welfare of LW.1 and development of the same. After the marriage, she joined with A.1 at her in-laws house at Surapuram village with paraphernalia worth of Rs.2,00,000/-. Only few days accused saw the

LW.1 fairly. Later, A.1 started harassment by addicted to all bad vices, used to insist her to bring additional dowry of Rs.7,00,000/- and tortured her both physically and mentally pestering her to sell away the property of Ac.0.50 cents of land, which was stand in the name of her and that as per the demand of A1, the 2 parents of LW.1 sold away the same and given the entire sale consideration to A1.

After some period, A1 again demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.7 lakhs and then she expressed her inability. Then A1 took away the gold ornaments of

Lw.1 for his lavishes, when she questioned the same, A1 beat her mercilessly and demanded her to give divorce; In the mean while, she became progeny and got aborted after some period and later she joined in Apollo hospital, Kakinada and after she stayed at her parent’s house for 9 months. After that LW.1 has joined with A.1 at in-laws house. Then all the Accused conspired together with each other tortured her in several ways, beat her indiscriminately, necked out her from their house. Then the matter was placed before the elders, elders admonished him, but he did not hear the words of elders and also said that they would perform another marriage to A.1, if LW.1 not bring additional dowry as demanded by them. A1 taunt and rebuke LW.1 and ill-treated and tortured her severally by demanding additional dowry of Rs.7,00,000/-, all the accused beat her mercilessly and tried to set fire on LW.1, on hearing the cries, the neighbours came and rescued her from the hands of accused and sent her to her parents house and there was no other go she filed a report against the Accused.

b) Basing on her report, LW.8-K.Gangadha Rao- SI of Police registered a case in Cr.No.176/2018 under Section 498-A, 406, 420 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 r/w 156(3) Cr.P.C. and investigated into this case. During investigation, he visited the scene of offence, inspected the same, prepared rough sketch, examined the prosecution witnesses and recorded their 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements, served notices u/sec. 41(A) (i) Cr.P.C to the A1 and gave his undertakings stating that he would appear before the Court as and when ordered and later, the LW.8/SI of Police satisfied with his undertakings and released him. During further investigation, since the allegations not made out against A2 to A6, the names of A2 to A6 were deleted from the list of accused and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against A.1 only, for the offences, indicated above.

3. This court took Cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P. Act against Accused only.

4.On appearance of Accused, copies of case documents are furnished to him as contemplated U/sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3

5. Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation leveled against him and charges for the offence under sections 498-A, 323 of IPC, have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PWs.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.3/Jagatha Tulasi Narayanamma, LW.4/Gandrothu Surendra,

LW.5/Vakalapudi Satyanarayana @ Chandrababu Naidu, LW.6/Tirumalla Veera

Venkata Satyanarayana, LW.7/Nimmala Rambabu and LW.8/K.Gangadhara Rao-SI of Police, Tanuku, cited in the charge sheet.

7. Since there is no incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of Accused as required under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Now the point that arises for determination is___ Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused of the offences under Section 498-A, 323 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point: According to prosecution, the law was set into motion against

Accused based on the report given by PW.1 to the police. But, PW.1 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile and she deposed that her marriage was performed with Accused at Sri Rama Sahitha Satyanarayana Swamy

Temple, Nidadavole as per Hindu rites and customs. She do not know what was presented to the accused at the time of her marriage. After marriage, they settled marital life at Surapuram and they lived happily for some time. She further deposed that there are some differences arose in between herself and Accused

No.1 and the matter was put before the elders and they resolved it and obtained her signature on Ex.P1 by elders. She further deposed that she identified her signature on Ex.P1, but she do not know the contents therein. She further testified that she do not know the further facts of the present case and police never examined her and recorded her statement. PW.2 who is the father of PW.1 deposed in similar lines of PW.1 and also stated that he do not know the further facts of present case.

4

11. Since PWs.1 and 2 did not support the case of prosecution, learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine them and during cross-examination PWs.1 & 2 having stated before police denied the contents of their statements as required under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and the same was marked as Exs.P2 to P3. As PWs.1 & 2 did not support the case of prosecution, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of other witnesses including the investigating officer. The fact remains, the only evidence available on record is that of PWs.1 & 2 coupled with Exs.P1 to P3. A perusal of the said evidence of PWs.1 & 2 coupled with Exs.P1 to P3 this Court is of view that absolutely no incriminating evidence is placed on record by prosecution to connect

Accused of the offences with which he is charged. In the absence of any incriminating evidence to the effect that PW.1 was subjected to harassment and also sustained any injuries in the hands of Accused, it cannot be said that Accused is guilty of the offences with which he is charged. In that view of the matter, this

Court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt of

Accused of the offences with which he is charged and he is accordingly entitled to acquittal.

12. In the result, Accused is not found guilty of the offence under Section 498-

A, 323 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 14th day of July, 2023.

Sd/- A.Venkata Nagaraju

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Tanuku

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: PW1: K.Rama Lakshmi - None– PW.2: J.Satyanarayana

EXHBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on the complaint. --NIL-- Ex.P.2:.161(3) of Cr.P.C statement of PW.1. Ex.P3: 161(3) of Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 MOS marked: NIL

II A.J.F.C.M/TNK 5

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO:423/2019 ON THE FILE OF II

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: TANUKU.

Date of

Offence Complaint ApprehRelease CommenceClose of Sentence of or report ension on bail -ment of trial Order of trial accused Prior to 11.10.2018 -- -- 11.07.2023 11.07.2023 14.07.2023 11.10.2018

Explanation for delay: NIL

Name of the Complainant:

State Represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Undrajavaram Police Station.

Name of the Accused:

Kunche Veerraju S/o Ammiraju, Aged 31 years, Kapu, D.No.1-116/1, Ramalayam street, Surapuram of Nidadavole Mandal

Crime No.176/2018

Finding: Found not guilty

Result: In the result, Accused is not found guilty for of the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- A.Venkata Nagaraju

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Tanuku

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru

OS.No.570/20221II AJFCM, TNK.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TANUKU

PRESENT: SRI.A.VENKATA NAGA RAJU,

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TANUKU.

Tuesday, this the 04th day of April, 2023.

Original Suit No.570/2022

Between Pasalapudi Malleswara Rao, S/o.Venkatarao, Hindu, Male, 35 Years, Business, Door no.4-76B, Peravali Village and Mandal. … PLAINTIFF

And

Koppisetti Lovaraju, S/o. Chantibabu, Male, 50 years, Business, Door no.652, Nakkulamma Gudi Veedhi, Navakadrawada village, Kondavaram post, Pethapuram mandal East Godavari District, Pethapuram DMC. … DEFENDANT

This Suit was coming on 23.03.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Muni Swamy, Counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendant having been set exparte, and upon hearing the Counsel for the Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. This Suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of the Suit

Promissory Note debt of Rs.1,24,900/- [Rupees One Lakh Twenty Four

Thousand and Nine Hundred only ] being the Principal and Interest due on the

Promissory Note, dated 10.08.2021 executed by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and for subsequent interest, and Costs.

02. The averments in the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Plaintiff on 10.08.2021 for his family debts and on the even date and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Peravali village and agreeing to repay the same together with interest thereon at 24% per annum either to plaintiff or to his order on demand. The plaintiff demanded the defendant through personally and mediators for repayment of the amount due under the promissory note, but he postponed the same

OS.No.570/20222II AJFCM, TNK.

on one pretext or other. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued a notice on 04.07.2022 to the defendant calling upon him to repay the debt amount due under the suit pronote.

But, the defendant refused to receive the same and returned as unserved on 07.07.2022 and kept quiet. Hence the suit.

03. The suit summons were issued to Defendant through RP refused as unserved, but he did not enter his appearance and no vakalat filed on his behalf, thereby hewas set exparte on 06.02.2023.

04. On behalf of the Plaintiff, he himself examined as the PW.1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3.

05. Heard the Counsel for the Plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

06. The Point for consideration is “Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the

Suit Claim as prayed for ?

07. POINT:- [a] To establish his contentions, the Plaintiff had examined himself as the

PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. He deposed in Chief Examination in accordance with his contentions. As the Defendant has remained Ex-parte, it can be said that the evidence of the PW.1 has remained undiscredited and unchallenged.

[b] It would be relevant to refer the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff under Exs.A1 to Ex.A3. Ex.A1 is the Original Suit Promissory Note, dated 10.08.2021 executed by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.A2 is the

Office copy of Legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant on 04.07.2022,

Ex.A3 is the Unserved notice dt.15.07.2022.

[c] Since the Defendant has remained ex-parte in the Suit, it can be said that an adverse inference can be drawn against him to the effect that he has admitted the case of the Plaintiff. Hence, it can be said that the Plaintiff is able to establish that

OS.No.570/20223II AJFCM, TNK.

Ex.A1 was executed by the Defendant.

[d] Therefore, by virtue of the unrebutted evidence of the PW.1 coupled with the Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, this Court concludes that the Plaintiff proved the execution of Suit

Promissory Note under Ex.A1. Hence, the Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the Suit

Claim, as prayed for, from the Defendant. Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

08. In the result, the Suit is decreed with Costs, directing the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,24,900/- [Rupees One Lakh Twenty Four Thousand and Nine Hundred only ] with subsequent interest at 12% Per Annum from the date of filing of the Suit till the date of Decree, and thereafter, with future interest at 6% Per

Annum from the date of Decree till the date of realization on the Principal Sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One lakh only].

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III directly on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 04th day of April, 2023.

II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANUKU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW.1 : Pasalapudi Malleswara Rao NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1:Original Suit Promissory Note, dated 10.08.2021 executed by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-.

Ex.A2:Office copy of Legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant dt.04.07.2022.

Ex.A3:Unserved notice dated.15.07.2022.

FOR DEFENDANT

-NIL-

II AJCJ/TANUKU

OS.No.570/20224II AJFCM, TNK.

Plaint Presented on : 17.08.2022 Plaint filed on : 20.08.2022

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TANUKU

PRESENT: SRI.A.VENKATA NAGA RAJU,

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TANUKU.

Tuesday, this the 04th day of April, 2023.

Original Suit No.570/2022

Between Pasalapudi Malleswara Rao, S/o.Venkatarao, Hindu, Male, 35 Years, Business, Door no.4-76B, Peravali Village and Mandal. … PLAINTIFF

And

Koppisetti Lovaraju, S/o. Chantibabu, Male, 50 years, Business, Door no.652, Nakkulamma Gudi Veedhi, Navakadrawada village, Kondavaram post, Pethapuram mandal East Godavari District, Pethapuram DMC. … DEFENDANT

This Suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of the Suit Promissory Note debt of Rs.1,24,900/- [Rupees One Lakh Twenty Four Thousand and Nine Hundred only ] being the Principal and Interest due on the Promissory Note,

dated 10.08.2021 executed by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff agreeing to repay

the same with interest at 24% per annum and for subsequent interest, and Costs..

Value of the Suit: Rs. Ps

Principal amount due under suit pronote 1,00,000-00

Add: Interest thereon @ 24% p.a. from 10.08.2021 to 24,400-00 16.08.2022. Add notice charges 500-00

Total: 1,24,900-00

On which a court fee of Rs.3,726/- is paid under Sec.20, Art.1(b) & (c) of Schedule I of APCF & SV Act, 1956.

CAUSE OF ACTION for the suit arose on 10.08.2021, when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and on the even date, when the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and on all the subsequent dates, when the plaintiff demanded the defendant for repayment of the debt due under the above said promissory note debt at Tanuku village, where the transaction took place and plaintiff and where the parties to the suit are residing within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

OS.No.570/20225II AJFCM, TNK.

This Suit was coming on 23.03.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Muni Swamy, Counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendant having been set exparte, and upon hearing the Counsel for the Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court doth order and decree as follows :

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

2. That the defendant to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,24,900/- [Rupees One Lakh Twenty Four Thousand and Nine Hundred only ] with subsequent interest at 12% Per Annum from the date of filing of the Suit till the date of Decree, and thereafter, with future interest at 6% Per Annum from the date of Decree till the date of realization on the Principal Sum of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One lakh only].

2.That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff an amount of 6,632-00 (Rupees Six Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Two Only) towards costs of the suit and that the defendant do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil. (No costs memo filed). Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 04th day of April, 2023.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Rs. Ps.

1. Vakalath 2-00

2. Court fee stamp duty 3,726-00 No costs memo filed

3. Process 80-00

4. Pleaders fee 2724-00 5.Type Charges 100-00

Total: 6632-00

II AJCJ

TNK