SRI B.S Jag Jeevan Kumar

AS 36 of 2020 Partition

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT NALGONDA

PRESENT: SRI B.S.JAG JEEVAN KUMAR, B.Sc., LL.M.,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Monday, April 10, 2023

AS No.36 of 2020

BETWEEN:

Gantela Meenamma … Appellant

AND

1)Nallavelli Muthaiah

2)Nallavelli Venkataiah … Respondents

On appeal against judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda in OS No.159 of 2010

BETWEEN:

Nallavelli Muthaiah … Plaintiff

AND

1)Chinthakuntla Lalamma

2)Gantela Meenamma

3)Nallavelli Venkataiah … Defendants

Counsel for Appellant :Sri G.Anjaneyulu

Counsel for Respondent No.1:Sri E.Ramakrishna

Respondent No.2 remained ex parte on 9.2.2021

This appeal coming on 19.12.2022 for final hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the fmaterial on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

Apr 10 1 / 14 PDJ, NLG

AS 36 of 2020 Partition

Judgment

1.This appeal is by defendant No.2 in the suit for partition of 4 acres 30 guntas in S.No.15/E and 8 acres 13 guntas in S.No.298/A and AA of

Nasarlapally village, hereinafter called as “the suit lands”, into two equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaiintiff and defendant No.3 and is directed against judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 of the Court of

Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda in OS No.159 of 2010 decreeing the suit in

respect of 4 acres 30 guntas in S.No.15/E.

2.Defendant No.2 submitted that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died and that she filed the present appeal as party to the suit and as sole legal heir and successor to the deceased defendant No.1

3.The facts not in dispute are: The plaintiff and defendant No.3 are brothers. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are mother and daughter. Chinthakuntla

Narsaiah is the father of defendant No.1 and is the maternal grandfather of the plaintiff and defendant No.3. Narsaiah had no male issues. Venkamma, the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.3, is the daughter of Narsaiah through his first wife Veeramma and defendant No.1 is another daughter of

Narsaiah through his second wife Venkamma.

4.The case of the plaintiff is that he and defendant Nos.1 and 3 constitute joint family. They got the suit lands from their forefathers and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He demanded

Apr 10 2 / 14 PDJ, NLG

AS 36 of 2020 Partition

defendant Nos.1 and 3 for partition of the suit lands but they postponed it.

On 22.12.2009 he obtained certified copies of phanies and other documents pertaining to the suit lands and found that the revenue authorities illegally entered the name of defendant No.1 on her application that she was the only successor to her father Narsaiah and that defendant No.1 transferred some extent of the suit lands to defendant No.2 illegally. Finally, on 25.7.2010 he demanded for partition of the suit lands but defendant Nos.1 and 3 refused

Therefore, he filed the suit.

5.Defendant Nos.1 and 2 denied the case of the plaintiff and pleaded that the suit lands were self-acquired properties of Narsaiah. Defendant

No.1’s husband Thirgamalla Thirpathaiah purchased 9 acres 13 guntas in

S.No.298 from Narsaiah on 1.6.1960 under ordinary sale deed and later got executed registered sale deed No.83/65 dated 5.3.1965. The mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.3 predeceased Narsaiah and since then they have no relationship with the plaintiff and defendant No.3. Since the date of purchase, Thirpathaiah and after his death, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said 9 acres 13 guntas in S.No.298 and their names were mutated in the revenue record in the year 1977-78. Narsaiah, during his lifetime, sold 7 acres 38 guntas in S.No.15 to Dasari Ramachandram, Jangiti

Ramachandram and Jangiti Narsaiah and their names were recorded as cultivators in the revenue record. Ater the death of Narsaiah, patta of

S.No.15 was mutated in the name of defendant No.1 as the sole successor of

Apr 10 3 / 14 PDJ, NLG

AS 36 of 2020 Partition

Narsaiah. On the request of the said purchasers Dasari Ramachandram,

Jangiti Ramachandram and Jangiti Narsaiah, defendant No.1 executed registered sale deeds in their favour to half of the extent of the land in

S.No.15. As defendant No.1 retained patta of the suit land in S.No.15 in her name without registering documents in favour of Dasari Ramachandram,

Jangiti Ramachandram and Jangiti Narsaiah, defendant No.1 purchased the the said land from the said Dasari Ramachandram, Jangiti Ramachandram and

Jangiti Narsaiah again. In fact, no land was succeeded by defendant No.1 after the death of Narsaiah. It was further pleaded that without knowledge of filing of the suit, defendant No.1 alienated 4 acres 30 guntas in S.No.15/E under registered sale deed No.5533/2010 and third parties are in posssession of the same as such the third parties are necessary parties to the suit. The court-fee paid is not sufficient, for the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit under Section 34(1) of the Court Fees Act. Without seeking cancellation of registered documents and recovery of possession, the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff filed the suit to extract money from them.

6.Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:

1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit lands as prayed for?

2)To what relief?

Apr 10 4 / 14 PDJ, NLG

AS 36 of 2020 Partition

7.The plaintiff/PW1 reiterated his case and filed certified copy of pahani for 3 years 1955-56 to 1957-58, Ex.A1, and certified copies of pahanies for the years 1970-71, 1980-81 and 2008-09, Ex.A2. The plaintiff examined

Chettipally Ramulu R/o Nasarlapally as PW2 and he deposed that the plaintiff stayed with Narsaiah in Nasarlapally village till he attained the age of 18 years.

Defendant No.3 also stayed in the house of Narsaiah. Since 25 years the plaintiff and defendant No.3 have been staying in New Brahmanapally village,

Madgula Mandal. The funeral of the plaintiff’s mother Venkamma was done in Nasarlapally village. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are not absolute owners and

Venkamma is equal shareholder along with defendant No.1. The suit lands are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 3 and are being enjoyed by them jointly. The plaintiff demanded for partition of the suit lands but defendant Nos.1 and 3 refused.

8.On the other hand, defendant Nos.1 and 2 examined defendant No.2 as

DW1 and filed registered sale deed No.83/1965 along with its certified copy and translated copy as Ex.B1, certified copy of faisal patti for the year 1977-78 as Ex.B2 and certified copies of pahanies for the years 1959-60, 1965-66, 1970-71, 1975-76, 1981-82, 1985-86, 1990-91, 1995-96, 2000-01, 2006-07 and 2008-09 as Ex.B3. DW1 reiterated their defense.

9.Jangiti Ramachandram’s grandson Jangiti Venkataiah was examined as

DW2 and he deposed that his grandfather Ramachandram purchased the land

Apr 10 5 / 14 PDJ, NLG

AS 36 of 2020 Partition

in S.Nos.14 and 15 from Narsaiah. Without registering the land, Narsaiah died.

Later defendant No.1 purchased the land from his grandfather

Ramachandram. As patta was not mutated in the name of his grandfather

Ramachandram, the name of defendant No.1 continued in the revenue record.

His father Mallaiah’s name was mutated in ROR for the remaining extent.

Since the last 8 years, G.Ramulu has been in possession of the suit land in

S.No.15.

10.Dasari Ramachandram’s son Mallaiah was examined as DW3 and he also deposed that his father Ramachandram purchased the land in S.Nos.14 and 15 from Narsaiah. Without registering the land, Narsaiah died. Later defendant

No.1 purchased the land from his father Ramachandram. As patta was not mutated in the name of his father Ramachandram, the name of defendant

No.1 continued in the revenue record. His father Ramachandram’s name was mutated in ROR for remaining extent. His father Ramachandram died about 15 years back. Since the last 8 years, G.Ramulu has been in possession of the suit land in S.No.15.

11.On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court accepted the plea and the evidence of the plaintiff and disbelieved the defence and the evidence of defendant Nos.1 and 2 as regards 4 acres 30 guntas in S.No.15/E and held in paras 63 and 64 of its judgment that the said land of 4 acres 30 guntas in S.No.15/E is the property of Narsaiah, that

Apr 10 6 / 14 PDJ, NLG

AS 36 of 2020 Partition

admittedly the said Narsaiah died intestate as such the said land shall devolve on his two daughters, Venkamma and defendant No.1, and that the plaintif and defendant No.3 being legal heirs of Venkamma are entitled to take one share together out of the said land and finally decreed the suit in respect of the said land.

12.Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.2 preferred the present appeal contending that Venkamma, the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.3, predeceased her father Narsaiah. Succession opened after the death of Narsaiah. By the date of death of Narsaiah, defendant

No.1 alone was surviving. As per Rule 2 of Section 10 of the Hindu Succession

Act, the surviving sons and daughters and the mother of the intestate shall each take one share. Therefore, defendant No.1 alone became successor to

Narsaiah and her name was rightly mutated in the revenue record as succesor in respect of the land in S.No.15. It was further contended that to prove the sale of 7 acres 38 guntas land in S.No.15 by Narsaiah to Dasari Ramachandram,

Jangiti Ramachandram and Jangiti Narsaiah and to prove repurchase of the suit land of 4 acres 30 guntas in S.No.15/E, defendant No.1 filed Ex.B3, pahanies, wherein the names of the said Dasari Ramachandram, Jangiti

Ramachandram and Jangiti Narsaiah were recorded as purchasers, and examined Dws2 and 3. PW1 admitted in the cross-examination that his grandfather sold part of the land in S.No.15. As per Section 58 of the

Evidence Act, the said admission is sufficient proof and it requires no further

Apr 10 7 / 14 PDJ, NLG

AS 36 of 2020 Partition

evidence. It is clear that the suit land of 4 acres 30 guntas land in S.No.15/E was not succeeded by Venkamma and defendant No.1. The trial Court failed to appreciate the entries in Ex.B3, the said admission of PW1 and the evidence of Dws2 and 3. Therefore, the appeal is to be allowed by dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit land of 4 acres 30 guntas in S.No.15/E.

13.On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that PW2 supported the version of the plaintiff/PW1. Ex.A1, pahanies for 1955-56 to 1957-58, show the name of Yellaiah in the columns of ownership and possession in respect of 7 acres 38 guntas in S.No.15/E as shareholder.

Ex.A2, pahanies for 1970-71 and 1980-81, show the name of Narsaiah in the columns of ownership and posession and the mode of acquisition as hereditary. Exs.A1 and A2 clearly show that the said land was acquired by

Narsaiah from his father Yellaiah. Even defendant Nos.1 and 2’s documents,

Ex.B3, i.e., pahani for the year 1959-60 shows the name of Yellaiah as owner and posessor and pahanies for the years 1965-66 and 1970-71 show the name of Yellaiah in owner’s column as shareholder to an extent of 4 acres 30 guntas in S.No.15/E and in the pahanies for 1981-82 and 1985-86, the mode of acqusition of the said land is mentioned as hereditary. On proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court passed the decree in respect of the suit land of 4 acres 30 guntas in S.No.15/E.

Therefore, the appeal has to be dismissed.

Apr 10 8 / 14 PDJ, NLG

AS 36 of 2020 Partition

14.The above said rival submissions give rise to the following points for determination in the present appeal:

1)Whether Narsaiah sold 7 acres 38 guntas in S.No.15 to Dasari

Ramachandram, Jangiti Ramachandram and Jangiti Narsaiah?

2)Whether defendant No.1 purchased the suit land of 4 acres 30 guntas in S.No.15/E from the said Dasari Ramachandram, Jangiti

Ramachandram and Jangiti Narsaiah?

3)Whether defendant No.1 is sole successor to the suit land of 4 acres 30 guntas in S.No.15/E?

4)Whether the suit land of 4 acres 30 guntas in S.No.15/E is liable for partition?

5)Whether the judgment and the decree under challenge warrant interference from this Court?

Point No.1:

15.DW1 admitted that the suit schedule property was inherited by

Narsaiah from his father Yellaiah. In the pahani of 1970-71/Ex.B3, the name of

Narsaiah was recorded as hissedar and the names of Dasari Ramachandram,

Jangiti Ramachandram and Jangiti Narsaiah were recorded as cultivators in respect of 7 acres 38 guntas in S.No.15/EE. The same entries are found in the pahanies of 1975-76 and 1981-82/Ex.B3 and pahani of 1980-81/Ex.A2.

Narsaiah’s name was recorded as khatadar and possession column was kept

Apr 10 9 / 14 PDJ, NLG

AS 36 of 2020 Partition

blank in the pahani of 1985-86/Ex.B3. Only in the pahani of 1990-91/Ex.B3, the names of Dasari Ramachandram, Jangiti Ramachandram and Jangiti

Narsaiah were recorded as possessors and the nature of their possession was recorded as purchasers. In the subsequent pahanies – 1995-96, 2000-01, 2006- 07 and 2008-09/Ex.B3, the name of defendant No.1 was recorded as pattadar of 4 acres 30 guntas in S.No.15/E. It is settled that mere entries in the revenue records will not create any title over property.

16.It is true, PW1 stated in the cross-examination that his gradfather

Narsaiah sold part of the land in S.No.15, but he denied the suggestion that

Narsaiah sold 4 acres 30 gunts in S.No.15 to D.Ramachandram,

J.Ramachandram and J.Narsaiah under simple sale deed and since then they have been in possession of the same. From the said admission of PW1, one cannot conclude that Narsaiah sold 7 acres 38 guntas in S.No.15 to Dasari

Ramachandram, Jangiti Ramachandram and Jangiti Narsaiah.

17.Neither DW2 nor DW3 filed any documents to show that Dasari

Ramachandram, Jangiti Ramachandram and Jangiti Narsaiah purchased 7 acres 38 guntas in S.No.15 from Narsaiah. In the absence of such evidence, it must be held that the trial Court was right in holding that defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed to prove the alleged sale of the land in S.No.15 by Narsaiah to

Dasari Ramachandram, Jangiti Ramachandram and Jangiti Narsaiah. The point is accordingly answered.

Apr 10 10 / 14 PDJ, NLG

AS 36 of 2020 Partition

Point No.2:

18.Admittedly, there is no deed evidencing the alleged purchase or repurchase of the land by defendant No.1 from Dasari Ramachandram, Jangiti

Ramachandram and Jangiti Narsaiah. The pahanies/Ex.B3 show that the name of defendant No.1 was recorded as pattadar of 4 acres 30 guntas in S.No.15/E from 1995-96. DW1 stated in the cross-examination that her mother/defendant No.1 got patta for the suit property as she inherited the same from her father Narsaiah. In the circumstances, the trial Court was right in holding that the alleged repurchase of the suit land of 4 acres 30 guntas in

S.No.15/E by defendant No.1 from Dasari Ramachandram, Jangiti

Ramachandram and Jangiti Narsaiah was also not proved by defendant Nos.1 and 2. The point is accordingly answered.

Point Nos.3 and 4:

19.PW1 admitted that his mother Venkamma predeceased Narsaiah. It was contended defendant No.1 became the sole successor to the suit land of 4 acres 30 guntas in S.No.15/E as Venkamma predeceased Narsaiah.

20.The said contention cannot be accepted. As per Section 8 of the Hindu

Succession Act, the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve firstly, upon the heirs being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule; secondly, if there is no Class I heir, then upon the heirs being the relatives

Apr 10 11 / 14 PDJ, NLG

AS 36 of 2020 Partition

specified in Class II of the Schedule; thirdly, if there is no heir of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased. As per Section 9, among the heirs specified in the Schedule those in Class I shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs, those in the first entry in Class II shall be preferred to those in the second entry; those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry; and so on in succession.

21.Heirs in Class I are: son; daughter; widow; mother; son of a pre- deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; widow of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre- deceased son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; widow of a pre- deceased son of a pre-deceased son.

22.Section 10 deals with distribution of property among heirs in Class I of the Schedule. It provides that the property of an intestate shall be divided among the heirs in class I of the Schedule in accordance with the following rules:

Rule 1: The intestate’s widow, or if there are more widows than one, all

Apr 10 12 / 14 PDJ, NLG

AS 36 of 2020 Partition

the widows together, shall take one share.

Rule 2: The surviving sons and daughters and the mother of the intestate shall each take one share.

Rule 3: The heirs in the branch of each pre-deceased son or each pre- deceased daughter of the intestate shall take between them one share.

Rule 4: The distribution of the share referred to in Rule 3 -

(i) among the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased son shall be so made that his widow (or widows together) and the surviving sons and daughters gets equal portions; and the branch of his predeceased sons gets the same portion;

(ii) among the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased daughter shall be so made that the surviving sons and daughters get equal portions.

23.In view of the said provisions, the suit land of 4 acres 30 guntas in

S.No.15/E left by the deceased Narsaiah shall devolve on defendant No.1 and also on plaintiff and defendant No.3. Defendant No.1 being surving daughter shall take one share and the plaintiff and defendant No.3 being heirs in the branch of the predeceased daughter shall take between them one share.

Apr 10 13 / 14 PDJ, NLG

AS 36 of 2020 Partition

The plaintiff and defendant No.3 shall get equal portions in one such share.

Therefore, the trial Court was right in concluding that the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit land of 4 acres 30 guntas in S.No.15/E left by Narsaiah into two equal shares and that the plaintiff and defendant No.3 together are entitled for allotment of one such share. The points are accordingly answered.

Point No.5:

24.In view of the findings on point Nos.1 to 4, this point is to be answered against defendant No.2 and in favour of the plaintiff and is answered accordingly.

25.In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent No.1.

Prepared, pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April 2023.

Principal District Judge

Appendix of Evidence

Nil

Judge

Apr 10 14 / 14 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 163 of 2020 Grievous Injury

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

[PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE] AT NALGONDA

PRESENT: SRI B.S.JAG JEEVAN KUMAR, B.Sc., LL.M.,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Wednesday, April 19, 2023

MV OP NO.163 of 2020

BETWEEN:

Ravinderan Sudesh Kumar … Petitioner

AND

1)Chiluveru Ganesh

2)Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its General Manager, VC and MD Camp Office, Pandith Nehru bus station, Vijayawada of Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. … Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:Sri R.Bhupal Reddy

Counsel for Respondent No.1:Sri A.Yalamandayya

Counsel for Respondent No.2:Sri N.Bheemarjun Reddy

This petition coming on 13.4.2023, 17.4.2023 and 18.4.2023 for final hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal has made the following:

ORDER

The petitioner claims compensation of Rs.15 lakh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the driver and the owner of APSRTC bus

No.AP16Z0468 for the injuries allegedly sustained in road accident occurred on 11.2.2019 at about 2.30 am on NH 65 at the outskirts of

Apr 19 1 / 12 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 163 of 2020 Grievous Injury

Muthyalammagudem village.

2.The case of the petitioner is that on 10.2.2019 at about 10.30 pm, he boarded the bus at Vijayawada to go to Hyderabad. On 11.2.2019 at about 2.30 am, the bus reached the outskirts of Muthyalammagudem village and then the 1st respondent drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed tanker lorry No.TS33T2345 from its back side, as a result, he and other passengers in the bus sustained grievous injuries. The bus conductor and two other injured passengers died in the hospital. The police of Kattangur registered a case in Crime No.36 of 2019 against the 1st respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC. He sustained left distal femur fracture comminuted with intra articular extension and other grievous injuries all over his body. He was shifted to Kamineni Institute of Medical

Sciences, Narketpally, was treated as inpatient, was operated for fixing the fracture and was discharged after long period of treatment. He took follow up treatment in KIMS and other private hospitals, was aged 38 years and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing business. He spent Rs.4 lakh for his treatment, medicines and extra nourishment. Despite the treatment, he got permanent disability. He is unable to stand or walk for a longer time and is unable to do business as prior to the accident. Therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay him the compensation claimed.

3.The 1st and 2nd respondents in their counters denied the case of the

Apr 19 2 / 12 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 163 of 2020 Grievous Injury

petitioner. The 1st respondent pleaded that he was having driving licence and that even if there is any accident, the 2nd respondent being the owner of the bus alone is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent pleaded that the accident occurred due to gross negligence on the part of the tanker driver and that the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as the petitioner failed to implead the owner and the insurer of tanker No.TS33T2345. Both the respondents alternatively pleaded that the compensation claimed is excessive.

4.Based on the above said pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1)Whether accident occurred on 11.2.2019 at about 2.30 hours on

NH 65, at the outskirts of Muthyalammagudem village, due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus No.AP16Z0468 by the 1st respondent?

2)Whether the petitioner received injuries in that accident?

3)Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

4)To what relief?

5.The petitioner, to prove his claim, examined himself as PW1 and filed

Apr 19 3 / 12 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 163 of 2020 Grievous Injury

certified copies of FIR with complaint, medical certificate, scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch of scene, accident information report and charge-sheet as Exs.P1 to P5, discharge summary and disability certificate as Exs.P6 and P7 and medical bills and X-Ray films as Exs.P8 and P9.

Dr.Rakesh Reddy, Orthopedic Surgeon of Janahitha Hospital, Hyderabad was examined as PW2, Dr.Y.Bhanu Rekha, Professor and Head of the Department of Orthopedic, Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally, as PW3 and Dr.Ch.Chandra

Krishna, Orthopedic Surgeon, CHC, Malkajgiri and Member of Medical Board,

CHC, Malkajgiri as PW4. Xerox copy of case-sheet of the petitioner was marked as Ex.C1 through PW3. Ex.C1 is now referred as Ex.X1.

6.On 5.12.2022 the 2nd respondent’s counsel reported no evidence on behalf of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent and his counsel remained absent and the evidence of the 1st respondent was closed on 12.12.2022.

7.On issue No.1, there is only the evidence of PW1 and the crime record.

PW1 reiterated the manner of accident as pleaded. The 1st respondent did not cross-examine PW1. In the cross-examination by the 2nd respondent,

PW1 stated that he was sitting in the second line of the rows from back side of the bus. He did not file the bus ticket. He added by stating that he lost all his belongings including the ticket, in the accident. He was traveling from

Vijayawada to Hyderabad. The bus hit the stationed lorry. He was unable to recollect as to how he sustained fracture injury to his leg. The bus did not

Apr 19 4 / 12 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 163 of 2020 Grievous Injury

turn turtle. He denied the suggestion that the lorry was stationed without parking lights and without taking precautions and the accident occurred due to the fault of the lorry driver and not due to the fault of the bus driver. He did not know whether any signs or indications were puton the road by the lorry driver as a measure of precautions after parking the lorry on the road.

8.There is no cross-examination of PW1 on Exs.P1 to P5. Ex.P5 shows that the police, after investigation, filed charge-sheet against the 1st respondent for causing the death of 3 persons: (1) Patharlapally Appayamma, (2) Panthangi Ramakrishna and (3) Veerapaneni Ranga Rao, and for causing grievous injuries to the petitioner and 2 others: (1) Borra Durga Chary and (2)

Pulloori Brahma, and simple injuries to 11 persons: (1) Kommineni Laxmi, (2)

Chikkala Vasuki Devi, (3) Gummadi Samba Siva Rao, (4) Sambangi Banupriya, (5) Och Srinvasa Rao, (6) Akula Anil Kumar, (7) Dega Jaya Ram, (8)

Annabathula Gopi, (9) Lamke Rathnam and (10) Puligadda Shailaja and (11)

Gummadi Shyam Nagababu by his rash and negligent driving of the bus on 11.2.2019 at 2.30 am at the outskirts of Muthyalammagudem village.

9.No rebuttal evidence was adduced by the contesting respondents. In the absence of rebuttal evidence and in view of the evidence of PW1 and

Exs.P1 to P5, issue No.1 has to be decided in favour of the petitioner and against the contesting respondents and the issue is accordingly decided.

Apr 19 5 / 12 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 163 of 2020 Grievous Injury

10.As regards the injuries received, the treatment taken for the injuries and the expenditure made for the treatment, there is evidence of Pws 1 to 3 and Exs.P2, P6, P8, P9 and X1.

11.As per Ex.P2, the petitioner complained of left knee joint pain due to

RTA at 2.30 am on 11.2.2019 and the doctor who examined the petitioner did not find any external injuries, but X-Ray opinion was left femur fracture, grievous injury. PW1 denied the suggestion that he managed to get medical record to claim compensation from the RTC.

12.PW1 denied the suggestions that after the accident he was completely cured and he was in a position to work by sitting on chair, that he did not incur expenditure for his treatment as pleaded and that the medical bills are created for the purpose of the petition.

13.PW3/Dr.Bhanu Rekha’s evidence is that on 11.2.2019 the petitioner came to their hospital/Kamineni Hospital with left distal femur comminuted fracture with intra articular extension. On 16.2.2-019 the petitioner was operated with MIPPO plating for left distal femur. On 23.2.2019 the petitioner was discharged at his request. She produced Ex.X1 and further stated that Ex.P2 was issued by their hospital. In the cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that the injuries are simple in nature and that Ex.P2 was issued to help the petitioner.

Apr 19 6 / 12 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 163 of 2020 Grievous Injury

14.PW2/Dr.Rakesh Reddy’s evidence is that on 6.2.2020 the petitioner was admitted in Janahitha Hospital with post operated infected atrophic non- union of distal end femur left with implants in situ. The petitioner was operated one year back elsewhere. The petitioner was unable to bear weight on the left lower limb and had pain and tenderness at the distal end femur.

The petitioner was admitted and was diagnosed as having infected non-union distal end femur left side. On 7.2.2020 the petitioner was operated. The old implant was removed and fixation was done with 11 hole condylar plate under spinal anesthesia. Planned for secondary bone grafting after one month. On 11.2.2020 the petitioner was discharged with satisfactory result.

Exs.P6 and P8 were issued by their hospital. The total bill amount is

Rs.1,62,892/-.

15.The 2nd respondent cross-examined PW2 and PW2 denied the suggestions that Exs.P6 and P8 were issued to help the petitioner, that the injuries are simple in nature and that the bills are highly excessive.

16.The evidence on record shows that the petitioner sustained left distal femur comminuted fracture with intra articular extension. The petitioner was hospitalized from 11.2.2019 to 23.2.2019 and underwent operation for fixing the fracture with implant on 16.2.2019. The said fracture did not unite and was infected. The petitioner was again hospitalized from 6.2.2020 to 11.2.2020 and was operated for removal of the old implant and for fixing new

Apr 19 7 / 12 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 163 of 2020 Grievous Injury

implant. For about one year the petitioner suffered from the said injury.

The nature of the injury justifies for grant of Rs.60,000/- to the petitioner for ‘pain, suffering and trauma’.

17.Ex.P8, bills for Rs.1,62,892/-, is proved through PW2. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to claim the said amount of Rs.1,62,892/- under the head ‘medical expenses’.

18.PW1 gave his occupation and income as pleaded. In the cross- examination he stated that he is self-employed and admitted that he did not file income proof. As per Ex.P4, the petitioner was aged 40 years and was working as Medical Representative. For maintaining himself and for maintaining his family, the petitioner must have worked hard and must have earned not less than Rs.15,000/- per month. In the circumstances, the petitioner’s income is assessed as Rs.15,000/- per month.

19.Femur fracture would take 4 to 6 months to unite. But the fracture to the petitioner did not unite and was infected. After one year, the petitioner got removed the old implant and got fixed new implant. The evidence of

PW2 further shows that secondary bone grafting was planned and Ex.P5, discharge card, shows that secondary bone grating was done on 16.3.2020 under spinal anesthesia and the petitioner was discharged on 20.3.2020.

During the said period, the petitioner must have lost his earnings and must

Apr 19 8 / 12 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 163 of 2020 Grievous Injury

have spent considerable amounts for transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges and the same are estimated at Rs.2,00,000/-.

20.To prove the alleged disability, PW4/Dr.Ch.Chandra Krishna was examined and disability certificate, Ex.P7, issued by the Medical Board, CHC,

Malkajgiri was filed.

21.PW4’s evidence is that on 10.12.2019 they examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically, verified the previous reports of the petitioner and issued Ex.P7 certifying that the petitioner is suffering from temporary physical (locomotor/orthopedic) disability and that the disability is in relation of his left lower limb, impaired reach, and the sub-type of disability is post tramuatic sequel limbs.

22.PW4 further stated that reassessment of the case was recommended after two years and the percentage of disability is 45. Further, the petitioner meets the following physical requirements for discharge of his duties: F – can perform work by manipulating with fingers, PP – can perform work by pulling and pushing, L – can perform work by lifting, KC – can perform work by kneeling and crouching, B – can perform work by bending, S – can perform work by sitting, ST – can perform work by standing, W – can perform work by walking, RW – can perform work by reading and writing. PW4 denied the suggestion that without examining the petitioner’s previous records, they

Apr 19 9 / 12 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 163 of 2020 Grievous Injury

issued Ex.P7 and that the disability assessed is excessive.

23.The petitioner did not produce his income particulars pre and post accident. It is not shown that the petitioner could not work as medical representative and lost his job. The evidence on record shows that the disability suffered by the petitioner was only temporary. The petitioner did not go for reassessment of his case after two years. PW4 did not state that the medical board examined the petitioner after two years of Ex.P7 and reassessed the disability. It is not known whether the petitioner still suffers from any physical disability but the facts and circumstances show that the petitioner suffered from temporary disability of 45% at the age of 44 years in respect of his left lower limb till 10.12.2021. In the circumstances, it is just and proper to award Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner for the sufferings undergone by him till 10.12.2021.

24.For the foregoing reasons, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.6,22,892/- as compensation to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Issue Nos.2 to 4 are accordingly decided.

25.In the result, the respondents, jointly and severally, within a month from this day, deposit into this Tribunal the compensation amount of

Rs.6,22,892/- with costs and pending and future interest at 7.5% per annum.

On deposit, the petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the entire amount.

Apr 19 10 / 12 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 163 of 2020 Grievous Injury

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. The petition is accordingly partly allowed.

Prepared, pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this the 19thday of April 2023.

CHAIRMAN

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERFOR RESPONDENTS

PW1Sri Ravinderan Sudesh Kumar Nil PW2Dr.Rakesh Reddy PW3Dr.Y.Bhanu Rekha PW4Dr.Ch.Chandra Krishna

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.P1CC of FIR with complaint Ex.P2CC of medical certificate Ex.P3CC of scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch of scene Ex.P4CC of Form No.54 Ex.P5CC of charge-sheet Ex.P6Discharge summary issued by Janahitha Hospital, Hyderabad Ex.P7Disability certificate Ex.P8Medical bills Ex.P-9X-Ray films

Apr 19 11 / 12 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 163 of 2020 Grievous Injury

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THIRD PARTY

Ex.X1Xerox copy of case-sheet of the petitioner

CHAIRMAN

Apr 19 12 / 12 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 164 of 2020 Grievous Injury

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

[PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE] AT NALGONDA

PRESENT: SRI B.S.JAG JEEVAN KUMAR, B.Sc., LL.M.,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Wednesday, April 19, 2023

MV OP NO.164 of 2020

BETWEEN:

Gummadi Syam Nagababu … Petitioner

AND

1)Chiluveru Ganesh

2)Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its General Manager, VC and MD Camp Office, Pandith Nehru bus station, Vijayawada of Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. … Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:Sri R.Bhupal Reddy

Counsel for Respondent No.1:Sri A.Yalamandayya

Counsel for Respondent No.2:Sri N.Bheemarjun Reddy

This petition coming on 13.4.2023, 17.4.2023 and 18.4.2023 for final hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal has made the following:

ORDER

The petitioner claims compensation of Rs.4 lakh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the driver and the owner of APSRTC bus

No.AP16Z0468 for the injuries allegedly sustained in road accident occurred

Apr 19 1 / 8 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 164 of 2020 Grievous Injury

on 11.2.2019 at about 2.30 am on NH 65 at the outskirts of

Muthyalammagudem village.

2.The case of the petitioner is that on 10.2.2019 at about 10.30 pm, he boarded the bus at Vijayawada to go to Hyderabad. On 11.2.2019 at about 2.30 am, the bus reached the outskirts of Muthyalammagudem village and then the 1st respondent drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed tanker lorry No.TS33T2345 from its back side, as a result, he and the other passengers traveling in the bus sustained grievous injuries. The bus conductor and two passengers died in the hospital. The police of Kattangur registered a case in Crime No.36 of 2019 against the 1st respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC. He sustained fracture simple traumatic right 1/3rd distal femur and other grievous injuries all over his body. He was shifted to Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences,

Narketpally and from there, he was shifted to Time Hospitals, Vijayawada as his condition was serious. He was treated as inpatient, was operated for fixing the fracture and was discharged after long period of treatment. He took follow up treatment in KIMS and other private hospitals. He was aged 27 years and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing business. He spent

Rs.1.5 lakh for his treatment, medicines and extra nourishment. Despite the treatment, he got permanent disability. He is unable to stand or walk for a longer time and he is unable to do his business as prior to the accident.

Apr 19 2 / 8 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 164 of 2020 Grievous Injury

Therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation claimed.

3.The 1st and 2nd respondents in their counters denied the case of the petitioner. The 1st respondent pleaded that he was having driving licence and even if there is any accident, the 2nd respondent alone being the owner of the bus is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent pleaded that the accident occurred due to gross negligence on the part of the tanker driver and that the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as the petitioner failed to implead the owner and the insurer of tanker No.TS33T2345. Both the respondents alternatively pleaded that the compensation claimed is excessive.

4.Based on the above said pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1)Whether accident occurred on 11.2.2019 at about 2.30 hours on

NH 65, at the outskirts of Muthyalammagudem village, due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus No.AP16Z0468 by the 1st respondent?

2)Whether the petitioner received injuries in that accident?

3)Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

Apr 19 3 / 8 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 164 of 2020 Grievous Injury

4)To what relief?

5.The petitioner, to prove his claim, examined himself as PW1 and filed certified copies of FIR with complaint, medical certificate, scene of offence panchanama with rough sketch of scene and charge-sheet as Exs.P1 to P4 and copy of discharge summary and medical bills as Exs.P5 and P6. No further evidence was adduced though sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner. On 7.11.2022 the petitioner’s evidence was closed and the petition was posted for the evidence of the 1st respondent. No evidence was adduced by the 1st respondent. On 14.11.2022 the 1st respondent and his counsel remained absent and the evidence of the 1st respondent was closed.

On 5.12.2022 the 2nd respondent’s counsel reported no evidence on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

6.On issue No.1, there is only the evidence of PW1 and the crime record.

PW1 reiterated the manner of accident as pleaded. The 1st respondent did not cross-examine PW1. In the cross-examination by the 2nd respondent,

PW1 stated that he was sitting in the third seat behind the seat of conductor.

He did not file the bus ticket. He did not file petition against the tanker’s owner and insurer. He denied the suggestion that the bus driver was not at fault and the accident occurred due to the fault of the tanker driver.

Apr 19 4 / 8 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 164 of 2020 Grievous Injury

7.There is no cross-examination of PW1 on Exs.P1 to P4. Ex.P4 shows that the police, after investigation, filed charge-sheet against the 1st respondent for causing the death of 3 persons: (1) Patharlapally Appayamma, (2) Panthangi Ramakrishna and (3) Veerapaneni Ranga Rao, and for causing grievous injuries to 3 persons: (1) Ravindram Sudesh Kumar, (2) Borra Durga

Chary and (3) Pulloori Brahma, and simple injuries to the petitioner and 10 others: (1) Kommineni Laxmi, (2) Chikkala Vasuki Devi, (3) Gummadi Samba

Siva Rao, (4) Sambangi Banupriya, (5) Och Srinvasa Rao, (6) Akula Anil Kumar, (7) Dega Jaya Ram, (8) Annabathula Gopi, (9) Lamke Rathnam and (10)

Puligadda Shailaja, by his rash and negligent driving of the bus on 11.2.2019 at 2.30 am at the outskirts of Muthyalammagudem village.

8.No rebuttal evidence was adduced by the contesting respondents. In the absence of rebuttal evidence and in view of the evidence of PW1 and

Exs.P1 to P4, issue No.1 has to be decided in favour of the petitioner and against the contesting respondents and the issue is accordingly decided.

9.As per Ex.P2, the petitioner complained of pain in right hip joint due to

RTA at 2.30 am on 11.2.2019 and the doctor who examined the petitioner did not find any external injuries. PW1 spoke of the injuries received, the treatment taken for the injuries and the expenditure made by him for the treatment. He denied the suggestion that he received only simple injuries and that he managed to get medical record to claim compensation from the

Apr 19 5 / 8 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 164 of 2020 Grievous Injury

RTC.

10.The petitioner filed discharge summary issued by Time Hospitals

Private Limited, Vijayawada, Ex.P5, which shows that he was diagnosed as having fracture simple traumatic right 1/3rd distal femur, that he was hospitalized till 18.2.2019, that he underwent ORIF with IL nailing for right femur and that he was advised to come for follow up treatment on 1.3.2019.

Ex.P5 shows that Dr.Jagadesh Nallamothu did the surgical correction of long bone fracture. But the said doctor was not examined. Further, none from

Time Hospitals was examined to prove Ex.P5 and also Ex.P6.

11.In the absence of such evidence and in view of Ex.P4, it must be held that the petitioner received only one simple injury in the accident.

12.PW1 gave his occupation and income as pleaded. He did not file his income proof and denied the suggestion that he did not suffer any loss of income due to the accident. As per Ex.P4, the petitioner was student of CA

Final Year. In the circumstances, it must be held that the petitioner was non- earning person.

13.The evidence on record shows that the petitioner received only one simple injury and must have been treated as outpatient. The nature of the injury justifies for grant of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner for ‘pain, suffering

Apr 19 6 / 8 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 164 of 2020 Grievous Injury

and trauma’ and for ‘transportation’ and ‘medicines’ and the petitioner is entitled to claim the said amount from the respondents, jointly and severally.

Issue Nos.2 to 4 are accordingly decided.

14.Disability is pleaded but it is not proved and therefore the petitioner’s claim on that aspect cannot be considered.

15.In the result, the respondents, jointly and severally, within a month from this day, deposit into this Tribunal the compensation amount of

Rs.20,000/- with costs and pending and future interest at 7.5% per annum.

On deposit, the petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the entire amount.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. The petition is accordingly partly allowed.

Prepared, pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of April 2023.

CHAIRMAN

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERFOR RESPONDENTS

PW1Sri Gummadi Syam Nagababu Nil

Apr 19 7 / 8 PDJ, NLG

MV OP 164 of 2020 Grievous Injury

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.P1CC of FIR with complaint Ex.P2CC of medical certificate Ex.P3CC of scene of offence panchanama with rough sketch of scene Ex.P4CC of charge sheet Ex.P5Copy of discharge summary Ex.P6Medical bills

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

Nil

CHAIRMAN

Apr 19 8 / 8 PDJ, NLG

GW OP 3 of 2023 Sale of children’s

property

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NALGONDA

PRESENT: SRI B.S.JAG JEEVAN KUMAR, B.Sc., LL.M.,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Saturday, April 15, 2023

GW OP NO. 3 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

Ravula Shiva Kumar … Petitioner

AND

To whomsoever it may concern … Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner:Sri T.Yadagiri

This petition coming on 10.3.2023 for final hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made the following:

ORDER

1.Father through the present petition filed under Sections 8 to 10 and 29(a) of the Guardians and Wards Act and Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and

Guardianship Act, seeks to appoint him as guardian of his three minor sons, namely, (1) Ravula Praveen Kumar, 17 years (DoB 23.9.2006), (2) Ravula

Bhimeshwar, 16 years (DoB 17.10.2007), and (3) Ravula Mohan Krishna, 13

Apr 15 1 / 4 PDJ, NLG

GW OP 3 of 2023 Sale of children’s

property years (DoB 28.3.2010), and to permit him to sell the property mentioned in the schedule, for the welfare and benefit of his three minor sons.

2.Notice was published in the Eenadu daily dated 31.1.2023 and was affixed to the Court house, schedule property and residence of the children.

None opposing the petition was present on 24.2.2023 and on subsequent dates of hearing.

3.Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he purchased the schedule property from its owner Karntati Ravinder in the names of his three minor sons vide registered sale deed No.11851 of 2018 dated 4.8.2018. They are not getting any yield from the schedule property and it is not suitable for immediate construction of residential house. The petitioner is intending to sell away the schedule property and to purchase an open house plot in another area with the sale proceeds in the names of his three minor sons for better appreciation of its value and for the future welfare of his three minor sons.

Therefore, he filed the petition.

4. The petitioner, to prove his case, examined himself as PW1 and filed true copy of registered sale deed bearing No.11851 of 2018 dated 4.8.2018 and original bona fide certificates of his three minor sons as Exs.P1 to P4.

5.The evidence on record proves the case of the petitioner and the petition deserves to be allowed but on conditions.

Apr 15 2 / 4 PDJ, NLG

GW OP 3 of 2023 Sale of children’s

property

6.On the petitioner executing a bond in a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with one surety in a like sum favoring this Court (i) to sell the schedule property after public notice, (ii) to file certified copy of registered sale deed for the schedule property after its sale and (iii) to file certified copy of registered sale deed for the property after its purchase in the name of his three minor sons: (1) Ravula

Praveen Kumar (DoB 23.9.2006), (2) Ravula Bhimeshwar (DoB 17.10.2007) and (3) Ravula Mohan Krishna (DoB 28.3.2010) or to file before this Court the FDR for the whole amount received after sale of the schedule property or for the balance amount if the property is purchased with a part of the sale proceeds, the petitioner is appointed as guardian of his three minor sons: (1) Ravula

Praveen Kumar, (2) Ravula Bhimeshwar and (3) Ravula Mohan Krishna and is permitted to sell the schedule property. The petition is accordingly allowed.

Prepared, pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of April 2023.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

SCHEDULE

Open House plot No.16 within S.No.643 in Ward No.4 and Block No.11, inside residential zone, measuring 256.00 sq. yards = 214.42 sq. mtrs situated at near Ruby colony, Nalgonda Town and District, bounded by: North – plot

No.15, South – plot No.17, East – 20’ wide road and West – 20’ wide road.

JUDGE

Apr 15 3 / 4 PDJ, NLG

GW OP 3 of 2023 Sale of children’s

property

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERFOR RESPONDENT

PW1Sri Ravula Shiva KumarNil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.P1True copy of registered sale deed No.11851 of 2018 dated 4.8.2018 Ex.P2Bonafide certificate of R.Praveen Kumar dated 9.9.2021 Ex.P3Bonafide certificate of R.Bhimeshwar dated 9.9.2021 Ex.P4Bonafide certificate of R.Mohan Krishna dated 13.9.2021

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT

Nil

JUDGE

Apr 15 4 / 4 PDJ, NLG

DOP 36 of 2022 Mutual Divorce

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT NALGONDA

PRESENT: SRI B.S.JAG JEEVAN KUMAR, B.Sc., LL.M.,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Monday, April 17, 2023

DOP No.36 of 2022

1) Ravula Pavani

2) Ravula Bixam … Petitioners

Counsel for Petitioners:Sri Janigala Ramulu

This petition coming on this day for final hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the material on record, this Court has made the following:

ORDER

1.The petitioners are husband and wife. Their marriage was performed on 11.11.2020 at S.S.Reddy Function Hall, Main Road, Nakrekal village.

2.Initially, the 1st petitioner filed petitioner under Section 10(1)(x) of the

Divorce Act seeking dissolution of her marriage with the 2nd petitioner on the ground of cruelty.

3.From 10.10.2022 to 13.12.2022 the petition underwent adjournments for counter of the 2nd respondent but no counter was filed. Then, the petition was posted for the evidence of the 1st petitioner. On 16.2.2023 the 1st petitioner examined herself as PW1 and marked their marriage card and marriage photo as Exs.P1 and P2. The petition was posted to 9.3.2023 for cross-examination of PW1, but the 2nd petitioner remained absent and the

Apr 17 1 / 3 PDJ, NLG

DOP 36 of 2022 Mutual Divorce

cross-examination of PW1 was recorded Nil. From 16.3.2023 the petition underwent adjournments for the evidence of the 1st petitioner.

4.On 27.3.2023 the 1st petitioner filed IA No.414 of 2023 for amendment of the petition for mutual divorce under Section 10A of the Divorce Act and vide the order dated 29.3.2023, the prayer of the 1st petitioner was granted.

5.The petitioners pleaded that after 2 months of the marriage, disputes arose between them, that since 15.1.2021 they have been living separately, that elders intervened to resolve the issues but their efforts went in vain and that they finally decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent.

6.The petitioners examined themselves as PWs1 and 2 and they reiterated the facts pleaded in the petition and further stated that they do not have any claims against each other. Through PW1, xerox copy of her

Aadhar card and xerox copy of the marriage certificate were also marked as

Exs.P3 and P4.

7. In view of the evidence of PWs1 and 2, the prayer of the petitioners deserves to be granted.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage of the petitioners performed on 11.11.2020 at S.S.Reddy Function Hall, Main Road, Nakrekal village, is dissolved from this day.

Prepared, pronounced and signed by me on this the 17th day of April 2023.

Principal District Judge

Apr 17 2 / 3 PDJ, NLG

DOP 36 of 2022 Mutual Divorce

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS

PW1Smt. Ravula Pavani PW2Sri Ravula Bixam

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.P1Marriage card Ex.P2Marriage photo Ex.P3XC of PW1’s Aadhar card Ex.P4XC of marriage certificate

Judge

Apr 17 3 / 3 PDJ, NLG