B.Appala Swamy

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : RAYADURG

Present: Sri B.APPALA SWAMY, Junior Civil Judge: Rayadurg.

Thursday, this the 19th day of April, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.108/2017

Between:

Kajjannagari Laluswamy S/o Late Talari Vannurappa, aged about 35 yrs, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Yarragunta village, Kanekal Mandal, Anantapuramu Dist.

…..… Plaintif

And

Talari Ranganna S/o Late Talari Vannurappa, aged about 43 yrs, Hindu working as Talari of Yaragunta village, Yarragunta village & Post, Kanekal Mandal Anantapuramu Dist.

…...... Defendant

This suit is came up on 17-4-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.C.T.Syamala, Advocate for plaintif and Sri C.Nagaraju and Sri S.Raghavendra, Advocates for defendant and having perusal the material and other circumstances available on record, till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note.

2.The Plaint averments in nutshell are as follows;

On 1-4-2015 the defendant herein borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintif in cash for his family and legal necessities and executed on demand promissory note in favour of the plaintif on the same day for the said amount agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% PA. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendant did not repay the amount covered under the said promissory note and interest there on or any part of the same. The plaintif there upon got issued a legal notice Dt.5-8-2017 to the defendant calling upon him to repay the said amount. But the defendant refused the said notice. The unserved cover was returned. The defendant is working as Village Talari (Government employee) and he is not entitled for any //2// benefit under the debt relief Act or any other law. The suit is filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Hence the suit.

3.The Defendant filed written statement and contended that the suit is bad in law and false in facts and it is neither just nor maintainable. All the allegations made in the plaint are specifically denied except those which are expressly admitted herein. All the allegations made in paras of the plaint that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintif on 1-4-2015 for his family necessities and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% PA and the defendant executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif are all specifically denied by this defendant. The defendant did not borrow the said amount of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintif on 1-4-2015. defendant did not execute any promissory note in favour of the plaintif at any time, particularly suit pronote on 1-4-2015. the suit pronote is fabricated and and got fabricated by the plaintif by forging the signature of the defendant in order to get wrongful gain from the innocent defendant. No consideration was passed to the defendant under the suit pronote. Attesters did not attest the suit pronote on the so called date of pronote. But plaintif obtained their signatures in pronote just prior to filing of the above suit. There are material alterations in the suit promissory note. Plaintif never made any demands to the defendant and they did not admit the transaction at anytime. All those false and unjust allegations are got up by the plaintif to suit the plaint. Suit amount is not correct and the interest claimed is excessive. So the suit is liable to be dismissed.

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

1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on this defendant ?

2. Whether the suit pronote is forged one ?

3. what relief ?

5.On behalf of plaintif, PW1 to PW.3 were examined and got marked

Ex.A1 to A3. On behalf of Defendant, DW.1 was examined and no documents were marked.

//3//

6.Heard arguments on both sides.

7. Issues 1 and 2: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, this Court inclined to answer Issues 1 and 2 together at once.

8.The main contention of the plaintif is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) on 1-4-2015 and executed suit promissory note on the said date by agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% PA. On repeated demands made by the plaintif and even after issuance of legal notice, the defendant did not make any payments either towards principle or interest. Hence the defendant is liable to pay the entire suit pronote debt with interest and costs. On the other hand, the defendant denied the entire case of plaintif and also denied the execution of suit promissory note in favour of plaintif by contending that the suit pronote is forged one. Hence, the initial burden to prove the execution of suit promissory note is on the plaintif.

9.In order to prove that the suit promissory note is executed by the defendant after receiving consideration, the plaintif himself examined as PW.1 and through him Ex.A1 to A3 were marked. Ex.A1 is original promissory note

Dt.1-4-2015 for Rs.20,000/-, Ex.A2 is legal notice Dt.5-8-2017 and Ex.A3 is unserved postal cover. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, that he almost all reiterated his plaint averments that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.20,000/- on 1-4-2015 for his family and legal necessities and executed Ex.A1 pronote by agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% PA and that in spite repeated demands made by the plaintif and even after issuance of legal notice, the defendant did not choose to pay the anything either towards principle or interest covered under Ex.A1. The defendant is working as Village

Talari , hence he is not protected under debt relief laws. The defendant is liable to pay the entire suit amount with interest as prayed for. During course of cross-examination of PW1 stated that the defendant is working as Village Talari and himself and defendant are belongs to same village and that the defendant //4// brought the printed proforma pronote for Ex.A1 and that Ex.A1 transaction took place at the house of one Shiva Reddy who is scribe of Ex.A1. The learned counsel for defendant suggested to PW.1 that the defendant never borrowed

Rs.20,000/- from the plaintif and never executed Ex.A1 pronote and that the plaintif forged the signature of defendant and filed this false suit.

10.To support oral evidence plaintif got examined PW.2 and PW.3 who are attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 are supported the oral evidence of PW.1 and deposed that in their presence the defendant borrowed Rs.20,000/- from the plaintif on 1-4-2015 and executed Ex.A1 pronote and that PW.2 is attestor and

PW.3 is scribe of ExA1. In spite of grilled cross-examination by learned counsel for the defendant nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW.1 to PW.3 to disbelieve their evidence regarding execution of Ex.A1 pronote and passing consideration there under.

11.When this Court carefully gone through the evidence of PW.1 to

PW.3 they unequivocally stated about the execution of suit promissory note by the defendant and passing of consideration there under. This factum has been vehemently denied by the defendant by taking plea that he never executed suit promissory note as contended by the plaintif and he never borrowed any amount. It is the specific contention of defendant that the suit pronote was forged one and it was brought it to existence by the plaintif with the help of attester and scribe for wrongful gain.

12.In order to prove the contention of defendant, he himself examined as DW.1 and deposed that the plaintif filed the false suit against him in order to get wrongful gain and that he did not borrow money from the plaintif and did not execute Ex.A1 in favour of plaintif and that he has no need to borrow money from plaintif. During cross-examination DW.1 admitted the signature on vakalathnama, written statement, chief affidavit and served postal acknowledgment but he denied the signature on Ex.A1. DW.1 admitted that he is used to sign as T.Ranganna and also B.Ranganna.

//5//

13.As discussed earlier the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 are trust worthy and the defendant failed to put forth necessary evidence to establish his defense. Except the bald averments in the written statement, the defendant did not put forth any satisfactory evidence to consider the defense taken by him in the written statement. Therefore, the mere defense that the plaintif forged signature of the defendant on the pronote by forging their signature cannot come to his rescue to accept the defense taken by him in the written statement.

14.The defendant further contended that the suit promissory note is a forged document and it was brought into existence at the instance of plaintif with the help of attester and scribe for wrongful gain. The plaintif by examining himself as PW.1 and examined PW.2 and PW.3 who are attester and scribe of Ex.A1 by relying on Ex.A1 to A3 could enlighten the Court on the points urged by him with regard to the execution of suit promissory note and successfully discharged the burden, then the onus shifted on the defendant.

Even then, the defendant not make any attempts to substantiate his contentions by taking the defense that the suit pronote is forged one and he is not executed Ex A1. Though the plaintif specifically contended that the promissory note contains his signature but the defendant did not even make any attempts to refer the disputed pronote to handwriting expert for the signature on the suit promissory note when these options are very much available to the defendant, even then for the reasons best known to him, he did not choose to avail it.

15.Thus, except his self-serving testimony, the defendant did not put forth any satisfactory evidence in support of his contentions. Even at the cost of repetition, after going through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by plaintif and also after considering the suit promissory note and the defence taken by defendant, it is crystal clear that the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 are not at all shattered and the plaintif could enlighten the Court about the execution //6// of suit promissory note by the defendant after receiving consideration with all probabilities and the defendant failed to establish his contentions that the suit promissory note is forged one. For all these reasons, these issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

16.Issue-3: In view of my findings on Issues-1 and 2, the suit is deserves to be decreed with costs. Therefore this issues are answered accordingly in favour of the plaintif.

In the result, suit is decreed with costs for

Rs.31,300/- (Rupees Thirty one thousand and three hundred only) with

subsequent interest at 12% per annum on the principle amount of

Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) from the date of suit till

the date of decree and there on at 6% per annum till the date of

realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 19th day of April, 2018.

SD/-B.APPALA SWAMY

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAYADURG.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For plaintif: For defendant:

PW.1 : K.LaluswamyDW.1: T.Ranganna PW.2 : K.P.Ranganna PW.3 : G.Shiva Reddy

Exhibits marked on behalf of Plaintif: Ex.A1 : Original suit Promissory note Dt.1-4-2015 for Rs.20,000/- Ex.A2 : Office copy of the legal notice Dt.5-8-2017 Ex.A3 : Unserved postal cover

Exhibits marked on behalf of defendant: -Nil-

ID/-BAS

J C J,

Rayadurg.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : RAYADURG

Present: Sri B.APPALA SWAMY, Junior Civil Judge: Rayadurg.

Thursday, this the 19th day of April, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.108/2017

Between:

Kajjannagari Laluswamy S/o Late Talari Vannurappa, aged about 35 yrs, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Yarragunta village, Kanekal Mandal, Anantapuramu Dist.

…..… Plaintif

And

Talari Ranganna S/o Late Talari Vannurappa, aged about 43 yrs, Hindu working as Talari of Yaragunta village, Yarragunta village & Post, Kanekal Mandal Anantapuramu Dist.

…...... Defendant

Suit for recovery of Rs.31,300/- being the amount of principle and interest due on pronote Dt.1-4-2015 executed by the defendant infavour of plaintif for Rs.20,000/- agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% per annum for subsequent interest and for costs.

Plaint presented on : 13-9-2017 Plaint numbered on : 23-9-2017

CAUSE OF ACTION:

Cause of action for the suit arose on 1-4-2015 when the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintif and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintif, when demands were made orally and on 5-8-2017 when the plaintif got issued a legal notice and on which date the defendant refused to receive the notice and all other days at Yerragunta village of Kanekal Mandal within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

PARTICULARS OF SUIT CLAIM: Amount borrowed on Rs. 20,000-00 Interest on Rs.20,000/- @ 24% PA from 1-4-2015 to 31-8-2017 Rs. 11,200-00 Legal notice chargesRs. 100-00 --------------------- Rs. 31,300-00 ----------------------

VALUATION AND COURT FEE: The value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is at Rs.31,300/- and a Court fee of Rs.1846/- is paid herewith under Sec.20 A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

//2//

This suit is came up on 17-4-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.C.T.Syamala, Advocate for plaintif and Sri C.Nagaraju and Sri S.Raghavendra, Advocates for defendant and having perusal the material and other circumstances available on record, till this day this court doth order and decree as follows:

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.31,300/- (Rupees Thirty one thousand and three hundred only) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on the principle amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and there on at 6% per annum till the date of realization and;

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.4163/- (Rupees Four thousand one hundred and sixty three only) towards costs of this suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 19th day of April,2017.

SD/-B.APPALA SWAMY

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAYADURG.

TABLE OF COSTS

For PlaintifFor Defendant S.No. Rs.Rs. 1Vakalat 2-00 2Plaint fees 1846-00 3Advocate Fee2265-00Nil 4Process Fee50-00 5Typing charges -- Total4163-00

ID/-BAS

J C J,

RAYADURG.

Note: That the parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of exhibits if any which they may wish to preserve as the records are liable to be destroyed after 3 or 6 years from this date according to the nature of exhibits under the rules for destruction of records.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: RAYADURG

C.C.No.393/2014

DATE OFAPPREHENSION RELEASED COMMENCEMENT CLOSURE

REPORTRESULT

OFFENCEOF ACCUSEDON BAILOF TRIALOF TRIAL

4-3-144-3-1428-3-1428-3-146-3-201718-4-1823-4-18

COMPLAINANT:

State Rep.by: Inspector of Police, Rayadurg. Cr.No.53/2014.

ACCUSED:

1. Kapu Ramachandra Reddy, ML., Rayadurg,

2. G.Shankar Reddy, Rayadurg town,

3. Bujji Reddy, Garudachedu Village, Kanekal Mandal,

4. Maruthi, Uddehal Village, Bommanahal Mandal,

5. Jaya Rami Reddy, Kalekurthy Village, Kanekal Mandal,

6. Padbhanabha Reddy, Muridi Village, D.Hirehal Mandal,

7. Murali Mohan reddy, Muridi village, D.Hirehal Mandal,

8. G.Kantha Reddy, Gollap0alli Village,

9. Boya. Vannur Swamy, Siddapuram Village,

10. Narayana Reddy, B.T.P.Gummagatta Mandal,

11. Gonabhavi Sharmas, Rayadurg town,

12. Janardhana, Rayadurg town,

13. Madhava Reddy, Ayathapalli Village, Rayadurg Mandal,

14. Sudharshana Reddy, Somalapuram Village, D.Hirehal Mandal. OFFENCE: U/Sec.143, 188 IPC

FINDING: Found not Guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:

In the result, the accused No.1 to A14 are found not guilty for the offences U/S. 143, 188 of IPC, accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This case is taken on file on 18-11-2014. On 12-10-2015 Copies of documents furnished to A1 to A14. On 20-2-2017 accused were examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C and explained accusation made against them U/Sec.143, 188 IPC, they claimed to be tried. On 6-3-2017 trial commenced and closed on 18-4- 2018, PW.1 to PW.3 examined, Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. On 19-4-2018 Accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and Arguments heard. On 23-4-2018 Judgment

pronounced. Hence avoidable delay.

SD/-B.APPALA SWAMY

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF IST CLASS,

RAYADURG.

Copy submitted to:

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTAPURAMU.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:RAYADURG

PRESENT: SRI. B.APPALA SWAMY

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg.

Monday, this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

C.C.No.393/2014

Between:

State Rep.by: Inspector of Police, Rayadurg.

….....Complainant

And

1. Kapu Ramachandra Reddy, ML., Rayadurg,

2. G.Shankar Reddy, Rayadurg town,

3. Bujji Reddy, Garudachedu Village, Kanekal Mandal,

4. Maruthi, Uddehal Village, Bommanahal Mandal,

5. Jaya Rami Reddy, Kalekurthy Village, Kanekal Mandal,

6. Padbhanabha Reddy, Muridi Village, D.Hirehal Mandal,

7. Murali Mohan reddy, Muridi village, D.Hirehal Mandal,

8. G.Kantha Reddy, Gollap0alli Village,

9. Boya. Vannur Swamy, Siddapuram Village,

10. Narayana Reddy, B.T.P.Gummagatta Mandal,

11. Gonabhavi Sharmas, Rayadurg town,

12. Janardhana, Rayadurg town,

13. Madhava Reddy, Ayathapalli Village, Rayadurg Mandal,

14. Sudharshana Reddy, Somalapuram Village, D.Hirehal Mandal.

…........Accused

This case is came up on 19-4-2018 for final hearing before me in the Presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State and Sri G.Venkata Reddy, Advocate

for Accused and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court made the

following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Accused A1 to A14 are arraigned before this court for facing the trial for the charge punishable U/Sections 143, 188 IPC in Cr.No.53/2014 of Rayadurg

Circle. The Inspector of Police, Rayadurg Circle filed charge sheet U/Sec.173 (2)

Cr.P.C, the brief facts of the case of prosecution as follows:-

2.In view of ensuing Municipal and General Elections the 30 Police Act was promulgated from 3-3-2014 in Rayadurg Circle. Due to the above elections

B.Raghava Reddy SI of police identified trouble mongers belong to all //2// political called by police Rayadurg PS to bound over them for keeping good behavior information was laid before MEM, Rayadurg vide Cr.No.52/2014 U/s 107 Cr.PC , after knowing the same on the same day on 4-3-2014 at 2.00 PM, A1 lead the followers ie., A2 to A14 and some others staged dharna in front of the police station on public road by raising slogans against police and Government. The said mob is also enlightened about the 30 Police Act which was promulgated from 3-3-2014 in view of Municipal Election code and B.Raghava Reddy SI of police advised them to disperse from the place. But they did not disperse and continued their activities for about half an hour and their by violated the 30 Police Act. On the strength of report of B.Raghava Reddy SI of police, A.Sreenivasulu HC registered a case in

Cr.No.53/2014 U/s 143,188 IPC of Rayadurg PS on 4-3-2014 at 2.30 PM and investigated into. During the course of investigation N.Bhaskar Reddy CI of police,

Rayadurg PS, examined and recorded their statements of B.Raghava Reddy SI of police, Rayadurg PS, K.Janardhan SI of police, Bommanahal PS, B.Nabi Rasool SI of police, Kanekal PS, M.Ramanjaneyulu HC, Rayadurg PS, G.Ravi Prakash PC,

Rayadurg PS. On 28-3-2014 A1 to A14 were surrendered before the Hon’ble Court of JMFC, Rayadurg and obtain bail vide Dis.No.377 Dt.29-3-2014, after completion of investigation N.Bhaskar Reddy CI of police, Rayadurg PS filed Charge Sheet against

A1 to A14.

3.This case is taken on file for the offence punishable U/S 143, 188 IPC, against A1 to A14.

4.On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of the case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused No.1 to 14 were examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C for the offence U/S 143, 188 of IPC, the sum and substance of accusation was read-over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was ordered for trial.

//3//

6.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PW.1 to

PW.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. After the completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C for which they denied incriminating material against them and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

9.Now the point for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.143, 188 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.Point: -

It is the case of prosecution that A1 to A14 formed into unlawful assembly and went to police station, Rayadurg and staged dharna infront of the police station by raising slogans against police and Government and violated Sec.30

Police Act which is punishable U/Sec.143, 188 of IPC.

10.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PW.1 to

PW.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4. As seen from evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 that, on 4-3-2014 at about 2.00 PM while they were present in circle office, Rayadurg along with other Sub Inspectors of police in the circle, Circle Inspector of Rayadurg and discussing about forth coming Municipal elections, MPTC elections, ZPTC elections and General Assembly Elections 2014. about bind over trouble mongers belongs to all political parties. On that issue A1 who was the then MLA of Rayadurg constituency along with A2 to A14 who are his followers formed into unlawful assembly came to police station Rayadurg and raised loud slogans against police and Government. On hearing the slogans PW.1 , Inspector of Police and other SI of police were present in the meeting came to main gate of police station. PW.1 informed the accused that they are not supposed to raise slogans as elections code //4// was in force. In spite of that A1 to A14 participated in Dharna by raising slogans.

PW.1 addressed a letter to Dy. Superintendent of Police, Kalyandurg to take action against accused who are participated in dharna by violating the code of conduct.

Sec.30 Police Act was in force from 3-3-2014 to 1-4-2014. PW.1 gave Ex.P1 report to

PW.3 along with Ex.P2 proceedings of Sub Divisional Police officer, Kalyandurg about promulgations of 30 Police Act Dt.2-3-2014.

11.During cross-examination PW.1 stated that he know the accused prior to registration of the crime. he do not remember the number of persons bind over in Cr.No.54/2014 and they were belongs to which political parties and that except

A2 he do not remember whether other accused were bind over in Cr.No.54/2014.

During cross-examination PW.2 admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality as all the Government offices are located surrendered to the police station and that the public used to attend Government offices nearby police station on their work. The learned counsel for accused suggested to PW.2 that the accused never participated in dharna in front of the police station and that at the pressure of the then minister

Raghuveera Reddy one false case is foisted against accused.

12.PW.3 deposed that, on 4-3-2014 at 2.30 PM while he was present in the police station he received Ex.P1 report with P2 proceedings of SDPO Kalyandurg and on the strength of report, he registered a case in Cr.No.53/2014 U/s 143,188 IPC of

Rayadurg PS and issued Ex.P3 FIR. Later he examined PW.1 and PW.2, K.Janrdhan SI of police Bommanahal PS, B.Nabi Rassool SI of police D.Hirehal PS, B.Sudhakar SI of

Police Kanekal PS, G.Ravi Prakash PC 2419 and recorded their detailed statements.

A1 to A14 surrendered before the Hon'ble Court and released on bail, after completion of investigation Bhaskar Reddy Inspector of Police laid charge sheet. The learned counsel for accused PW.3 that he not examined the witnesses as stated by him and that at the instruction of Sub Divisional police officer by name Venugopal he prepared the statements of witnesses and that the accused have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that at //5// political pressure one false case was foisted against accused and that he is not entitled to register crime for the offence U/s 188 IPC.

12.As seen from evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 that the accused and his followers came to police Circle office, Rayadurg and staged dharna infront of police station and raised slogans against the police and Government. PW.1 SI of Police

Rayadurg informed the accused that Sec.30 Police Act is in force and not permitted to hold dharna and meeting but the accused and his followers raised slogans and did not heed the words of PW.1 SI of police.

13.It is admitted fact that A1 is the then MLA of Rayadurg constituency on behalf of YSR congress party and the Congress Party is ruling party at State and

Center. As seen from evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 that while the meeting is going on in Circle office, Rayadurg along with all SI of police, Rayadurg Circle and discussing about forthcoming elections for MPTC, ZPTC and General Assembly Elections, the accused No.1 to 14 came to police station and raised slogans against the

Government and police, even PW.1 informed about the force of Sec.30 Police Act. It is admitted fact that the Government offices ie. Municipal Office, Thasildar Office,

Treasury and Mandal Parishad office are located very nearer to the scene of offence and many number of persons used to come to Government offices on their personal work and the other independent witnesses also available at scene of offence. As seen from evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 that even PW.1 informed about 30 Police Act is in force the accused staged dharna and raised slogans. Though PW.1 and 2 stated about proceedings of SDPO of Kayandurg about Sec.30 Police Code is in force but they did not state where and when they promulgated the said proceedings under Ex.P2, though Ex.P2 there is a specific endorsement from SDPO to promulgate the same in town NEWS paper and vide publicity to be given. The contention of the accused is that they never participated in dharna infront of police

Rayadurg and that one false case is foisted against the accused with the political pressure. Admittedly prosecution not examined any other independent witness except the police officials, though the scene offence is located in busy locality and //6// many number of independent witnesses were available. The contention of the accused is that PW.3 Head Constable who registered the crime is not entitled to registered crime for the offence U/s 188 IPC. There is a bar U/s 195 (1) ( a) (i) that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable U/s 172 to 188 IPC, except on the complaint in writing of public servant concerned, or some other public servant to whom he is administrative subordinate. As seen from evidence of PW.3 that PW.1 came to police station and gave Ex.P1 report and he obtained Ex.P2 proceedings from SDPO Kalyandurg after addressing letter. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 and 2 that the Sub Divisional officer Kalyandurg promulgated 30

Police act in view of forth coming elections in 2014. The DSP Kalyandurg did not file any compliant before the court regarding the alleged occurrence and not authorized to any his subordinate to file complaint. Ex.P2 contains an endorsement to sI of police Rayadurg to promulgate the same in town in NEWS papers vide publicity to be given. PW.1 and PW.2 did not state at area Ex.P2 proceedings were promulgated and not stated through which mode Ex.P2 proceedings was promulgated.

Therefore PW.3 is not competent to register crime for the offence U/s 188 IPC.

Except the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 there is no other independent evidence to show that accused came to police station and staged dharna infornt of police station with unlawful assembly and violated the promulgation order which is punishable U/s 143,188 of IPC. Upon the forgoing discussion this court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilty of accused No.1 to 14 for the offence U/s 143, 188 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

In the result, the accused No.1 to A14 are found not guilty for the offences U/S. 143, 188 of IPC, accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

SD/-B.APPALA SWAMY

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg //7//

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: B.Raghava Reddy SI of police None PW.2: M.Ramanjineylu HC PW.3: A.Sreenivasulu HC.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Report of PW.1 Nil Ex.P2: Proceeding copy of SDPO, Kalyandurg Ex.P3: FIR in Cr.No.53/2014 Ex.P4: Rough sketch.

Material Objects Marked:

Nil

ID/-BAS JMFC.

RAYADURG.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS; RAYADURG

C.C.No.366/2016

COMMENCE-CLOSE

DATE OFAPPREHENSIONRELEASED

REPORTMENT OFOFRESULT

OFFENCEOF ACCUSEDON BAIL

TRIALTRIAL

Intervening night of15-7-162-11-16–27-3-1811-4-1824-4-18 13/14-7-16

BETWEEN:

State Rep.by: Inspector of Police, Rayadurg Circle. Cr.No.100/2016.

DESCRIPTION OF ACCUSED:

1. Talari Kristappa, aged 41 yrs, S/o Mareppa, Boyageri, near new bus stand, Kalyandurg town.

2. Pujari Eswar @ Ayyappa, aged 18 yrs, S/o Late Shankarappa, Pujarigeri, Kalyandurg town.

OFFENCE: Sec. 411 of IPC. - Dishonestly receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen.

FINDING: FOUND NOT GUILTY

SENTENCE OR ORDER:

In the result, accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the

offence u/sec.411 IPC accordingly they are acquitted u/s 248 (1) Cr.PC and

A1 and A2 who are in judicial custody are order to release forthwith, if

they are not required in any other cases. MO.1: one sada gold necklace

wg.about 30.06 grams was given to PW.1 for interim custody in

Cr.MP.No.347/2017 Dt.1-3-2017 shall holds good.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This case is taken on file on 29-12-2016. On 11-4-2017 Copies of documents were furnished to accused. On 19-3-2018 accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and explained accusation made against them U/S 411 IPC, they denied the offence and claimed to be tried. Trial commenced on 27-3-2018 and closed on 11-4-2018. PW.1 to PW.7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6, MO.1 were marked, prosecution side evidence closed on 11-4-2018. On 23-4-2018 Accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and Arguments heard. On 24-4-2018 Judgment

pronounced. Hence avoidable delay.

SD/-B.APPALA SWAMY

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RAYADURG

Copy submitted to: THE HON'BLE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

ANANTAPURAMU.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: RAYADURG

PRESENT: Sri B.APPALA SWAMY

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of April' 2018.

C.C.No.366/2016

Between:

State Rep.by: Inspector of Police, Rayadurg Circle.

….......Complainant

And

1. Talari Kristappa, aged 41 yrs, S/o Mareppa, Boyageri, near new bus stand, Kalyandurg town.

2. Pujari Eswar @ Ayyappa, aged 18 yrs, S/o Late Shankarappa, Pujarigeri, Kalyandurg town.

…...........Accused

This case is came up on 23-4-2018 for final hearing before me in the Presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State and Sri T.Ramanjineyulu and Sri A. Anjineyulu, Advocates for A1 and A2 and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

Accused A1 and A2 are arraigned before this court for facing the trail, for the charges punishable U/Sec.411 of IPC. The Inspector of Police, Rayadurg

Circle, as filed report U/Sec.173 (2) Cr.P.C., against accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.457,380 or 411 of IPC in Cr.No.100/2016 of Rayadurg Circle.

1.The brief facts of the report are as follows: -

On 13-7-2016 at about 7.00 PM Vadde Chittemma left her house by locking doors and went to Pulakunta village of Gummagatta Mandal to attend a function and returned on 14-7-2016 at about 7.00 AM, she noticed that some unknown offenders gained entrance into the house of Vadde Chittemma situated in

Church area, Rayadurg town in between the said period by broke open the locks of //2// doors of the house and committed theft of one gold necklace weighing about 3 tolas kept in the showcase amidst sarees and a CD player kept near the TV stand both worth of Rs.77,000/- and decamped with booty. On 13-7-2016 at 5.00 PM Vadde

Chittemma came to police station and preferred report to B.Mahanandi SI of police about the occurrence. B.Mahanandi SI of police registered a case in Cr.No.100/2016

U/s 457,380 IPC of Rayadurg PS and B.Chalapathi Rao Inspector of Police, Rayadurg

Circle took up further investigation. During the course of investigation B.Chalapathi

Rao Inspector of Police, Rayadurg Circle, examined Vadde Chittemma, Vadde

Venkatesulu, K.Ramanjineyulu and Vadde Govinda and inspected the scene of offence, drawn a rough sketch of the scene of offence and prepared scene of offence observation mahazar. During the course of investigation on 2-11-2016, on credible information B.Chalapathi Rao Inspector of Police, Rayadurg Circle apprehended the accused at YSR Cross, Rayadurg town under suspicious circumstances and seized the gold necklace concerned in this case from the possession of A2 under cover of mahazar in the presence of Abdul Rahiman and

G.C.Harmas Hussain on the basis of confession of A1 and arrested the accused at 9.30 AM and sent them for remand. On 3-11-2016 T.Vannurappa, VRO has conducted identification parade of property with Vadde Chittemma in which she identified the stolen property, which was recovered from the accused as of her own, after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s 457,380 or 411 IPC.

2.This case is taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec. 411 of IPC against A1 and A2.

3.After the appearance of the accused before this court, copies of the case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

//3//

4.The accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., for the offence U/Sec.411 of IPC, they denied the same. Charges U/Sec. 411 of IPC is framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, this case was ordered for trial.

5.To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.7 got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, MO.1. On behalf of defence, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6.After the completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., to explain them the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against them, they denied the same reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.

8.Now the points for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge U/s 411 IPC ?

9.As seen from the evidence of PW.1 who is defacto complaint in this case, resident of Church area of Rayadurg town that, about one and half year back

PW.2 who is her husband went to Hospet on cable work and herself, three sons went to Pulakkunta village of Gummagatta to attend function after duly locked the house and that on the next day at 7.00 AM they return back and noticed that the lock of house was break open and also found missing of one gold necklace weighing about 3 tulas and CD player total worth of Rs.77,000/-, immediately she informed the same to her husband through Govindu over phone. On the next day herself and

PW.2 went to police and gave Ex.P1 report. After four months of report she //4// identified MO.1 gold necklace at Thasildar Office in the presence of PW.5. PW.2 who is husband of PW.1 deposed that about one and half year back he went to

Hospet on cable work, PW.1 locked the doors of house and went to Pulakunta village along with their children to attend function. On the next day she came and noticed that some unknown offenders gained entrance and committed theft of MO.1 and CD player total worth of Rs.77,000/-. Himself and PW.1 went to police station and gave report. PW.6 deposed that on 15-7-2016 at about 5.00 PM while he was present in the police station PW.1 came and presented Ex.P1 report, the same is registered case in Cr.No.100/2016 U/s 457,380 IPC of Rayadurg PS and issued Ex.P5

FIR. Further investigation took up by PW.7. PW.7 deposed that on 15-7-2016 he took up further investigation in this case and secured PW.1 and PW.2 and recorded their statements . On the same day at about 6.30 PM he along with PW.1 and PW.2 proceeded to the scene of offence which is house of PW.1 and PW.2 situated at

Church area of Rayadurg town. He observed the scene of offence and drawn Ex.P6 rough sketch. Where he examined K.Ramanjineyulu, V.Govindu and recorded their statements. on 22-11-2016 he arrested A1 and A2 in the presence of PW.3 and

PW.4 independent mediators and seized MO.1 gold necklace and the accused confessed about their guilt but PW.1 and PW.2 did not identified the accused. PW.3 and PW.4 who are independent mediators also not supported the case of prosecution and they stated that they cannot identified the accused. The prosecution not examined any eye witness at scene of offence to show that the accused gained their entrance into the house of PW.1 and PW.2 and committed theft of MO.1. Therefore there is no evidence that the A1 and A2 committed theft of

MO.1 from the house of PW.1 and PW.2.

10.With regard to seizure of case property in this case ie., MO.1, the prosecution examined PW.3 and PW.4 who are independent mediators and PW.7 who is Inspector of Police Rayadurg Cirlce. As seen from the evidence of PW.7

B.Chalapathi Rao Inspector of Police Rayadurg that on 2-11-2016 at about 7.00 AM, while he was present at police station he received credible information about //5// the availability of accused in the case at YSR cross. Immediately he secured PW.3 and PW.4 through ASI of police as a mediators and proceeded to YSR cross along with staff and mediators, where they conducted vehicle checking, at about 8.00 AM they noticed one TATA ACE luggage auto coming from Kalyandurg road towards

Rayadurg. On seeing the police the TATA ACE stopped at a distance of 50 feet and the accused get down from TATA ACE and tried to escape. PW.7 B.Chalapathi Rao inspector of police caught hold them with the help of staff, on questioning A1 and

A2 in the presence of PW.3 and PW.4 they revealed their names and identification, residential particulars and that A1 and A2 voluntarily confessed that they gained entranced into the house at church area by break open the lock and committed theft of MO.1 and CD player and that they sold away CD player to unknown person at Kalyandurg, while they coming to Rayadurg to dispose of gold chain at Bellary police caught hold them. On further questioning A1 produced MO.1 gold necklace and the same was identified as case property in Cr.No.100/16 of Rayadurg PS and he seized the same under cover of Ex.P7 in the presence of PW.3 and PW.4. Later he along with accused and mediators return to police station along with seized property.

11.To corroborate the evidence of PW.6 the prosecution examined PW.3 and PW.4 who are independent mediators to establish seizure of MO.1 from the possession of accused and confession of accused under cover of Ex.P7. But PW.3 and PW.4 who are independent mediators did not support the case of prosecution and they deposed that, they never acted as mediators and police never seized MO.1 from possession of accused in their presence and police never arrested accused in their presence under cover of Ex.P7 and they do not know the contents of Ex.P7 but they admitted their Ex.P2 and P3 signatures on Ex.P7 and stated that police obtained their signatures in the police station. PW.5 VRO deposed that on 23-11- 2016 at 10.00 AM he conducted property identification of MO.1 with PW.1 at request of police and PW.1 identified MO.1 among similar ornaments like MO.1 and he prepared Ex.P4 property identification mahazarnama.

//6//

12.Except the evidence of PW.7 there is no independent corroborative evidence regarding seizure of MO.1 from the possession of accused and confession of accused before PW.7. It is the case of prosecution that accused confessed before

PW.7 CI of police, Rayadurg PW.3 and PW.4 who are independent mediators that they committed theft of MO.1 and CD player from the house of PW.1 and PW.2 at

Church area of Rayadurg town but the mediators ie., PW.3 and PW.4 deposed that police obtained their signature in the police station and they were not present at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of MO.1. The learned APP cross examined

PW.3 and PW.4 regarding their presence at the time of seizure and confession of accused regarding the occurrence, but nothing was elicited from their mouth to support the case of prosecution. As per Sec.25 Indian Evidence Act, no confession made to police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offence.

Except the evidence of PW.7 who is police officer there is no independent corroborative evidence to establish that MO.1 was recovered from the possession of accused which is stolen property in this case which was recovered under cover of

Ex.P7 seizure mahazar to establish the charge U/s 411 IPC. Upon forgoing discussion this court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence U/s 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

In the result, accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the

offence u/sec.411 IPC accordingly they are acquitted u/s 248 (1) Cr.PC and

A1 and A2 who are in judicial custody are order to release forthwith, if

they are not required in any other cases. MO.1: one sada gold necklace

wg.about 30.06 grams was given to PW.1 for interim custody in

Cr.MP.No.347/2017 Dt.1-3-2017 shall holds good.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, the 24th day of April, 2018.

SD/-B.APPALA SWAMY

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAYADURG.

//7//

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: Vadde Chittamma None PW.2: Vadde Venkatesulu PW.3: Adbul Rahiman PW.4: G.Sarmas PW.5: Talari Vannurappa, VRO PW.6: B.Mahanandi, SI of police. PW.7: B.Chalapathi, CI of police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Report of PW.1 Nil Ex.P2: Signature of PW.3 on Confession, arrest and seizure Mahazar Ex.P3: Signature of PW.4 on Confession, arrest and seizure Mahazar Ex.P4: Property identification Mahazar Ex.P5: First Information Report in Cr.No.100/2016 Ex.P6: Rough sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

MO.1: one sada gold necklace wg.about 30.06 grams

ID/-BAS JMFC.

RAYADURG

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : RAYADURG

Present: Sri B.APPALA SWAMY Junior Civil Judge: Rayadurg.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of April, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.21/2018

Between:

Venkata Reddy S/o Late Patil Govinda Reddy, aged 63 yrs, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Lakshmi Bazar, Rayadurg town, Now r/ at R.B.Vanka village and Post, Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapuramu Dist.

…......... Plaintif

and

G.Nagaraju S/o Dasari Anjinaiah, aged about 35 yrs, Hindu, Business, R/o S.Kothapalli village and Post, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapuramu Dist.

…........... Defendant

This suit is came up on 23-4-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Nagaraju and Sri S.Raghavendra, Advocate for plaintif and defendant remained ex-parte and having perusal the material and other circumstances available on record, till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note.

2.The Plaint averments in nutshell are as follows;

On 13-3-2012 the defendant herein borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintif for his financial necessities at Rayadurg and on the even date he executed an on demand promissory note in favour of plaintif agreeing to repay the said sum on demand with interest @ 24% PA. Thereafter on the demands made by the plaintif, the defendant herein paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- to him on 10-3-2015 towards the above promissory note amount and on the even date, he got endorsed the said payment on the overleaf of the promissory note. After that in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif also, the //2// defendant herein did not pay the outstanding balance to the plaintif, by postponing the same under one pretext or the other. The defendant is doing business, so that he is not entitled to the benefits of any of the agricultural debt relief laws and he has to pay the interest at the contract rate. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant remained exparte at the stage of appearance.

4.Heard the plaintif's counsel.

Now the Point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit

claim as prayed for ?

5. On behalf of plaintif, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 and A2 were marked. None were examined and no document were marked on behalf of defendant.

6.In order to prove the case of plaintif, the plaintif himself examined as PW.1 and he reiterated the plaint averments in his evidence. To support and substantiate his contentions, the plaintif got marked Ex.A1 and

A2. Ex.A1 is Original Promissory note Dt.13-3-2012 for Rs.30,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif and Ex.A2 is Part payment endorsement dt.10-3-2015 on the overleaf of the promissory note for payment of Rs.1000/-.

7.PW1 deposed that, the defendant had borrowed an amount of

Rs.30,000/- on 13-3-2012 from him for his financial at Rayadurg and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% PA, on demand by the plaintif and accordingly the defendant had executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintif on the same day. Thereafter on the demands made by the plaintif, the defendant herein paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- to him on 10-3-2015 towards the above promissory note amount and on the even date, he got endorsed the said payment on the overleaf of the promissory note. After that in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendant did not pay //3// the outstanding balance to the plaintif, by postponing the same under one pretext or the other. The entire principle amount and the interest is due towards the suit promissory note. The defendant is not protected under any debt relief laws. The evidence of PW1 was left unchallenged and unrebutted.

8.By considering the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the plaintif, he clearly enlightened the Court about the execution of suit promissory note by the defendant in favor of plaintif after receiving cash consideration. As the plaintif proved the execution of promissory note by the defendant and passing consideration therein, he is entitled to recover the amount due under the suit promissory note together with interest.

In the result, suit is decreed with costs for Rs.71,276/- (Rupees Seventy one thousand two hundred and seventy six only) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on the principle amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and there on at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 24th day of April, 2018.

SD/-B.APPALA SWAMY

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAYADURG.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:-

PW.1: Venkata ReddyNone

Exhibits marked on behalf of Plaintiff

Ex.A1: Original Promissory note Dt.13-3-2012 for Rs.30,000/-. Ex.A2: Part payment Endorsement Dt.10-3-2015 for Rs.1000/- on the back of Ex.A1.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defendant

– Nil – ID/-BAS

J C J,

Rayadurg.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : RAYADURG

Present: Sri B.APPALA SWAMY Junior Civil Judge: Rayadurg.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of April, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.21/2018

Between:

Venkata Reddy S/o Late Patil Govinda Reddy, aged 63 yrs, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Lakshmi Bazar, Rayadurg town, Now r/ at R.B.Vanka village and Post, Rayadurg Mandal, Anantapuramu Dist. …......... Plaintif

and

G.Nagaraju S/o Dasari Anjinaiah, aged about 35 yrs, Hindu, Business, R/o S.Kothapalli village and Post, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapuramu Dist.

…........... Defendant

The plaintif filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.71,276/- being the principle and interest due on a pronote Dt.13-3-2012 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.30,000/- agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% PA for subsequent interest and for costs.

Plaint presented on : 05-3-2018 Plaint numbered on : 14-3-2018.

CAUSE OF ACTION:

Cause of action for the suit arose on 13-3-2012 when the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintif at Rayadurg by executing the suit promissory note in his favour, on 10-3-2015 when the defendant paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the plaintif towards the above promissory note amount and got endorsed the same on the over leaf of the promissory note, when the demands made by the plaintif to the defendant for payment of the outstanding balance and when the defendant postponed the same under one pretext or the other and all at within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble court. PARTICULARS OF SUIT CLAIM:

1. Amount borrowed on Rs.30,000-00

2. Interest on Rs.30,000/- @ 24% PA from 13-3-2012 to 10-3-2015.Rs.21,540-00 ------------------- Total Rs.51,540-00 Less: Paid on 10-3-2015Rs. 1,000-00 ------------------- Rs.50,540-00 //2//

Add:Interest on Rs.29,000/- @ 24% PA from 11-3-2015 to 5-3-2018Rs.20,736-00 ------------------ Total Rs.71,276-00 ------------------

VALUATION AND COURT FEE: The value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.71,276/- and a Court fee of Rs.2866/- is paid U/s 20 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

This suit is came up on 23-4-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Nagaraju and Sri S.Raghavendra, Advocate for plaintif and defendant remained ex-parte and having stood over for consideration and having perusal of the material and other circumstances available on record, till this day, this court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

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

2. That the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.71,276/- (Rupees Seventy one thousand two hundred and seventy six only) with subsequent interest at 12% Per annum on the principle amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and there on at 6% per annum till the date of realization,

3. That the defendants do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.4883/- (Rupees Four thousand nine hundred and thirty three only) towards costs of this suit and do bear his own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 24th day of April, 2018.

SD/-B.APPALA SWAMY

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAYADURG.

TABLE OF COSTS.

S.No.For PlaintifFor Defendant Rs.Rs.

1.Stamp on Vakalat2.002.00

2.Plaint fees 2866.00--

3.Process fee45.00--

4.Pleaders fees1920.00--

5.Type charges50.00--

6.Writing charges----

7.Publication fee---- Total :-4883.002.00

ID/-BAS

J C J,

RAYADURG.

Note: That the parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of exhibits if any which they may wish to preserve as the records are liable to be destroyed after 3 or 6 years from this date according to the nature of exhibits under the rules for destruction of records.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE , RAYADURG.

PRESENT:-SRI B.APPALA SWAMY

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAYADURG.

Thursday, this the 19th day of April, 2018.

O.S.No.88/2016

Between:-

Suvarnamma W/o K.Lakshmi Reddy, aged about 40 yrs, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Pulakunta Village and Post, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapuramu Dist.

.................. Plaintiff

and

1. Talakai Lakshmanna S/o Late Pedda Hanumappa, aged about 50 yrs,

2. Chinnappa Reddy S/o Late Hanumantha Reddy, aged about 50 yrs.

Both are Hindus, Cultivation, R/o. Pulakunta Village and Post, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapuramu Dist.

…......... Defendants

Suit filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, family members, relatives, followers, heirs, executants and assignees from interfering into the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the over the suit schedule property and for costs.

This suit coming on this day before me at the stage of framing of issues in the presence of Sri C.Nagaraju and Sri S.Raghavendra, Advocates for plaintiff and Sri

M.S.Harikrishna Rao, Advocate for Defendant No.2 and suit against D1 is dismissed for default and this court delivered the following:- // J U D G M E N T //

IA.188/18 is allowed the suit is advanced from 12.6.2018 to 19.04.2018,

the plaintiff filed memo stating that he is not press the suit. Hence suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced in open court this the 19th day of April' 2018.

SD/-B.APPALA SWAMY

Junior Civil Judge Rayadurg.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFDEFENDANTS

NIL NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Nil

ID/-BAS

J C J.