B S N Suma Bala

C.C.No.1289/2014

dt:27.06.2023

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT MIRYALAGUDA

Present: Kum.B.S.N.Suma Bala, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Miryalaguda FAC: II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Miryalaguda.

(Dated: 27 th day of June, 2023)

C.C. No. 1289 OF 2014

Between:

The State through, Sub-Inspector of Police, Wadapally Police Station. …Complainant AND

1. Parangi Mahesh S/o.Salaiah, Age: 20 years, Occ: Coolie,

2. Parangi Narsamma W/o.Salaiah, Age: 37 years, Occ; Coolie.

Both are R/o.Kondrapole village, Damaracherla Mandal, Nalgonda District.

...Accused

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.K.Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for the Accused, and having heard both sides and upon perusal of material available on record, this court made the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Wadapally Police Station filed Charge Sheet in

Cr.No.131 of 2014 against the accused No.1 and 2 alleging that the accused have committed the offence punishable under section 324 R/w.34 IPC.

2) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that; On 04-09-2014 at 18-00 hours, the defacto-complainant/Parangi Paramesh came to the police station and lodged a report stating that 03-09-2014 night at about 11-30 hours, the complainant/Parangi Ramesh and PW-2 to PW-5 attended Ganesh procession and thereafter they proceeded towards their houses and on the way while they reached the house of Parangi Mahesh/A-1, A-1 observed them and abused them in filthy

C.C.No.1289/2014

dt:27.06.2023

2 language due to old disputes, and then they questioned him about the abuse, immediately A-1 picked up a stick, bet on the head of PW-5 and as a result, PW-5 sustained blood injury on his the left side of his head and when the complainant/PW1 tried to stop A-1, A-1 bet him with stick on his head, due to which he received blood injury on the left side of head and on noticing the dispute, LW-2 to

LW-4 tried to stop the disputes, but A-1 and A-2 both bet them with stick and caused injuries, and requested to take legal action against the accused persons.

Basing on the same, LW-9 station registered a case in Cr.No.131 of 2014 for the offence under section 324 R/w.34 IPC and S.I. took up investigation.

It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the

LW-9/Ch.Ramesh examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 3, and referred the injured persons LWs.1 to 3 to Area Hospital, Miryalaguda with a requisition for treatment and medical certificates. It is further stated that on 05-09- 2014, at the early morning LW-9/Ch.Ramesh rushed to the scene of offence situated at Kondrapole village, conducted the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama in the presence of LW-6/D.Manya Naik and LW-7/Parangi Rabart and seized two sticks at the scene of offence and thereafter, LW-9 examined and recorded the statements of LW-4. It is further submitted that LW-10/S.I. of Police/ P.Veera

Raghavulu took up the further investigation and on 06-09-2014 LW-10/S.I. of Police/

P.Veera Raghavulu issued notices under Sec.41(A)(1) Cr.P.C., to the accused and on 16-09-2014 LW-10/S.I. of Police/ P.Veera Raghavulu visited Kondrapole village, examined and recorded the statement of LW-5/Parangi Suresh. It is further stated that LW-8/Dr.Vijay Pavan, Duty Medical Officer, Govt.Area Hospital, Miryalaguda who treated the injured LWs.1 to 3 and LW-5 issued medical certificates and as the injuries sustained by the LW-5 are grievous in nature, Sec.326 IPC was added. It is further stated that after completion of investigation, LW-10 filed the charge sheet

C.C.No.1289/2014

dt:27.06.2023

3 for the offence under Section 324, 326, 504 and 506 R/w.34 IPC against the accused

No.1 and 2.

3)Basing on the contents of the charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Section 324, 326, 504 and 506 R/w.34 IPC against the accused No.1 and 2.

4)On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C, and examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and charges for the offences under section Section 324, 326, 504 and 506 R/w.34 IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 in

Telugu, having understood the same, the accused No.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5)During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-6 and M.O.1 and M.O.2. PW-1 is the defacto-complainant, PW-2 is the injured, PW-3 is the eye witness, PW-4 is the eye witness, PW-5 is the injured, PW-6 is the panch for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama, PW-7 and

PW-8 are the investigating officers. Ex.P.1 is the original report, Ex.P.2 is the signature of PW-6 on scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P-3 is the signature of PW-6 on rough sketch, Ex.P-4 is the First Information Report, Ex.P.5 is the scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P.6 is the rough sketch. M.O. 1 is the stick. M.O.2 is the stick. Police filed report stating that the LW-7/Parangi Rabert is bed ridden, hence evidence of LW-7/Parangi Rabert is closed. Despite of giving sufficient time, the police failed to serve the summons on LW-8/Dr.Vijay Pavan, the evidence of

LW-8/Dr.Vijay Pavan, is closed. It is further made clear that in chief examination of

PW-1 C.C. number is written as C.C.1289 of 2016 instead of C.C.1289/2014. In the

C.C.No.1289/2014

dt:27.06.2023

4 cross examination sheets of PW-1 and PW-2, it is written C.C.number as C.C.1289 of 2015 instead of C.C.1289 of 2014. It is further made clear that in chief examination of PW-2, C.C.number is written as C.C.1289 of 2015 instead of

C.C.1289 of 2014.

6) After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, read over and explained to them, for which, they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7) Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused and perused the record.

8) Now the point germane for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

No.1and 2 for the offence punishable U/sec.324, 326, 504 and 506

R/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9) Point :

A) Sections 324, 326, of Indian Penal Code : The Accused A1 and A2 are charged with offenses punishable under Sections 324, 326 of Indian Penal

Code R/w.Sec.34 IPC. Hence let us have a look at the Section for application of the same to the present case facts.

i. For Section 324 of IPC to be applicable, the offence must have the following: 1.Voluntary hurt caused to another person by the accused, and 2.

Such hurt was caused: (i) By any instrument used for shooting, cutting or stabbing, or any other instrument likely to cause death, or (ii)By fire or other heated instruments, or (iii)By poison or other corrosive substance, or

C.C.No.1289/2014

dt:27.06.2023

5

(iv)By any explosive substance, or (v) By a substance that is dangerous for the human body to swallow, inhale, or receive through blood, or (vi)By an animal.

ii. Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code criminalizes the act that involves voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Using any instrument or weapon for shooting, stabbing, cutting or doing anything else which is likely to cause death will be considered as part of the section. Further, grievous hurt by fire or any heated substance, poison or corrosive substance or any explosive which the victim is made to inhale, swallow or is transferred directly into the victim’s blood or by any kind of animal also comes under this section.

iii. Anwarul Haq v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2005) 10 SCC 581-In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the expression “an instrument, which is used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death must be interpreted with the nature of the instrument referred and how the instrument is used. The prosecution must establish that the accused person has voluntarily caused hurt and that hurt was caused because of an instrument as stated under Section 324 of IPC.” iv. Prabhu Vs State of Madha Pradesh- (2008) 17 SCC 381The expression “any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death” has to be gauged taking note of the heading of the Section.

What would constitute a ‘dangerous weapon’ would depend upon the facts of each case and no generalization can be made.

The heading of the Section provides some insight into the factors to be considered. The essential ingredients to attract Section 326 are : (1) voluntarily causing a hurt; (2) hurt caused must be a grievous hurt;

C.C.No.1289/2014

dt:27.06.2023

6 and (3) the grievous hurt must have been caused by dangerous weapons or means. As was noted by this Court in State of U.P. v.

Indrajeet Alias Sukhatha (2000(7) SCC 249) there is no such thing as a regular or earmarked weapon for committing murder or for that matter a hurt. Whether a particular article can per se cause any serious wound or grievous hurt or injury has to be determined factually. At this juncture, it would be relevant to note that in some provisions e.g. Sections 324 and 326 expression “dangerous weapon” is used. In some other more serious offences the expression used is “deadly weapon” (e.g. Sections 397 and 398). The facts involved in a particular case, depending upon various factors like size, sharpness, would throw light on the question whether the weapon was a dangerous or deadly weapon or not. That would determine whether in the case Section 325 or Section 326 would be applicable.

In the present case, PW1 deposed in his chief that A1 bet him and

PW5 , on head with a stick and that A2 bet PW2 to PW4 with another stick. PW1 also identified the same Stick and it is marked as

MO-1. PW2 also deposed on similar lines with PW1 in which he specifically stated that A2 bet him on his left thigh and on his back.

He also identified the Stick with which A2 bet him and it is marked as MO-2.PW3 to PW5 deposed on similar lines with PW1, PW2 but with a variation that A2 bet only PW2 and PW3.

As far as injuries are concerned , PW1 deposed that he and PW5 received injuries on their head and PW2 to PW4 sustained simple injuries. PW2 deposed on similar lines with PW1. PW3 to PW5

C.C.No.1289/2014

dt:27.06.2023

7 deposed similarly like PW1 ,PW2 but with a variation that A2 bet only PW2 and PW3 and that they sustained simple injuries. PW1 further stated that he received stitches on his head and that PW5’s situation was serious after receiving injuries and on the same he was refereed to Hyderabad. PW4, also added that PW1,PW5 received bleeding injury on their forehead and that PW5 after receiving injury fell unconscious and was taken to Area Hospital for treatment. PW5, deposed that he received bleeding injury on their forehead. It is here to note that the information as to head injuries received by PW1, PW5 is not brought on record as no wound certificate is marked on behalf of prosecution to determine whether the injuries are of Simple or Grievous in nature and that Prosecution through its chief examination of witnesses did not elicit explicitly as to the nature of injury sustained by PW1,PW5 . Head injury can be simple or grievous. The common fact deposed by PW1 to PW5 is that

A1 bet PW1,PW5 on their head and that there was bleeding.

Moreover, PW1, PW2 stated that A2 bet PW4 but PW4 himself did not state the same and so as PW3, PW5. Moreover, ExD1 is marked on behalf of Accused as to the difference in the statement of PW4 in his chief and cross. Considering the Evidence of PW3 to PW5 , it is commonly found in their evidence that A2 bet PW2, PW3 and that they sustained simple injuries.

B) In the present case accused were also charged under Sections 504 of IPC and Section 506 of IPC, R/w.Sec.34 of IPC.

C.C.No.1289/2014

dt:27.06.2023

8

Section 504 of IPC :The ingredients of Section 504 of IPC are listed hereunder as: The accused has insulted the other person intentionally,

The intention of the person should be such that it is likely to provoke the person who has been insulted, The accused has the knowledge that such provocation would cause the person to break the public peace or under the influence of which, he can commit some other offence.

Section 506 of IPC :The first part of Section 506 of IPC states that when a person is guilty of the offence of criminal intimidation he/she shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with a fine, or with both fine and imprisonment for the offence. The second part of Section 506 is attracted if a person threatens to cause death or grievous injury or destruction of any property by fire, then the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or fine or with both.

PW1 deposed in chief examination that A1 abused PW5. But

PW2,PW3, stated in chief examination that A1 and A2 abused all of them. PW4 stated in chief examination that A1 abused PW5,PW1.

PW5 stated in the chief that A1 abused them. Here there is notable difference between the evidence of all of the witness. The differences are so explicit that this court can’t come to a conclusion as to the fact that pave way for the Court to believe that Accused A1 and A2 committed offenses under Section 504, 506 of IPC, R/w.Sec.34 of IPC.

C)It is also pertinent here to note few principles :

i. While appreciating the evidence of a witness claiming to have seen the incident, the court should consider and look for the following factors

C.C.No.1289/2014

dt:27.06.2023

9 appearing in the entire testimony of the witness : (i) Whether the witness was present on the spot (ii) Whether the witness had seen the incident (iii)

Credibility of the witness ii.Where the witnesses give consistent version of the incident, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the consistent testimony of the witnesses should be held credible.

iii. One statement by one of witnesses may not be taken out of context to abjure guilt on the part of all accused persons. When the case of the prosecution is based on evidence of eye witnesses, some embellishments in prosecution case caused by evidence of any prosecution witness although not declared hostile, cannot by itself be ground to discard entire prosecution case. On the basis of mere statement of one P.W. on a particular fact, the other P.W. cannot be disbelieved.

iv. In a criminal trial involving offences against body (like offences u/s 323, 324, 326, 307, 302, 304 IPC etc.), findings of fact on following points, after appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, should be recorded : (i)

Name, place of residence and age of the prosecution witness claiming to be present on the place of occurrence and having seen the incident (ii) Date and time of occurrence (iii) Place of occurrence (iv) Presence of the witness on the spot together with the distance where he was present with reference to his previous statements. (v) Whether the witness could have and had seen the occurrence and the assailants and the victim from the place he was standing on. (vi) Weapons of assault (vii) Cause of death or source of injuries by appreciating the post mortem report/ injury report/oral evidence of Doctor and the eye witnesses and the inquest report. (viii)

Contradictions, exaggerations, embellishments etc. having appeared on the

C.C.No.1289/2014

dt:27.06.2023

10 above mentioned points in the oral evidence of the witness together with a finding whether such contradictions, exaggerations, embellishments etc. are minor or major. (ix) Overall credibility of the witness. (x) Now the oral evidence of the second eye witness of the prosecution should be appreciated and finding of fact be recorded in the manner as stated here in above. (xi)

Final/conclusive finding of fact whether the charge/guilt could be proved by the prosecution witness beyond all reasonable doubts. (xii) Any other fact peculiar to the case. (xiii) If the witness is to be disbelieved on any particular fact, then whether that fact is material for recording a finding of guilt or innocence of the accused. If such fact is found to be material but goes unproved by the witness, what other evidence, oral or documentary, is there on record as led by the prosecution. Such other available oral evidence of other witness on the said unproved fact should now be appreciated and, keeping in view the above parameters, finding of fact should be recorded thereon.

v. The testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because the witness is a relative or family member of the victim of the offence. In such a case, court has to adopt a careful approach in analyzing the evidence of such witness and if the testimony of the related witness is otherwise found credible accused can be convicted on the basis of testimony of such related witness. Enmity of the witnesses with the accused is not a ground to reject their testimony and if on proper scrutiny, the testimony of such witnesses is found reliable, the accused can be convicted. However, the possibility of falsely involving some persons in the crime or exaggerating the role of some of the accused by such witnesses should be kept in mind and ascertained on the facts of each case

C.C.No.1289/2014

dt:27.06.2023

11 vi. Deposition of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in the case and it is proved that he suffered the injuries during the said incident.

vii.If there are minor inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses and

FIR in regard to number of blows inflicted and failure to state who injured whom, would by itself not make the testimony of the witnesses unreliable.

This, on the contrary, shows that the witnesses were not tutored and they gave no parrot like stereotyped evidence

D) In the Present case,in the cross examination of PW1, he stated that initially PW2 to PW4 lodged a report in with the police against A1 and A2 and that he cant remember the case number. He further stated that apart from the report filed by the PW2 to PW4 , he filed the present case. He further stated that as the report of PW2 to PW4 doesn't disclose clearly the offence of

Accused , he himself presented the current case to the Police. Police also did not mention anything about the 2nd report of PW2 to PW4.Prosecution also did not clarify to court that the report of PW2 to PW4 are on different facts. This creates a doubt in the mind of the court.

E)The fact that PW1 to PW5 are relatives is not fatal to the case of Prosecution but PW1, PW3 deposed in their cross examination that there are previous family disputes of PW5 with Accused. PW2 in the chief examination deposed that A1 bet PW5 because PW5 obstructed the child marriage of one Laxmaiah.

In spite of knowing the same why independent witness is not examined by the

C.C.No.1289/2014

dt:27.06.2023

12

Police. Moreover, the seizure of MO1 and MO2 is not proved by Prosecution as

PW6 turned hostile by deposing nothing in their favor except identifying his signatures. PW1, PW4,PW5, PW7 deposed in their cross examination that MO1 and MO2 are available everywhere of the village. Here one question that strikes the mind of the judge is : How could then, PW1, PW2 easily identified the MO1 and MO2 when shown to them by Prosecution? This throws doubt on the credibility of the witnesses that they are well tutored.

F)It is here to note that the information as to head injuries received by PW1,

PW5 is not brought on record as no wound certificate is marked on behalf of prosecution to determine whether the injuries are of Simple or Grievous in nature and that Prosecution through its chief examination of witnesses did not elicit explicitly as to the nature of injury sustained by PW1,PW5 . Head injury can be simple or grievous. The common fact deposed by PW1 to PW5 is that A1 bet PW1,PW5 on their head and that there was bleeding. PW1 also identified the same Stick and it is marked as MO-1.PW2 also deposed on similar lines with PW1 in which he specifically stated that A2 bet him on his left thigh and on his back. He also identified the Stick with which A2 bet him and it is marked as MO-2.PW3 to PW5 deposed on similar lines with PW1, PW2 but with a variation that A2 bet only PW2 and PW3. PW1 in his chief deposed for the first time that he received head injury but not in his Section 161 Cr.P.C statement which is crucial for hurt and Grievous hurt cases. This creates an impression in the mind of the court that the Prosecution Witness are well tutored as they deposed in such a way, that a natural witness might not be able to depose. The PW.1 to PW-5s’ evidence deposed homogeneously with each other without diverse variations, even after lapse of 5 years from the date of

C.C.No.1289/2014

dt:27.06.2023

13 alleged crime of their chief examination. This is suspicious. How could 5 people of different ages, remember something/same fact without forgetting.

G) Hence this court is of the considered opinion that charges on A1 and A2 under the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1and 2 for the offence punishable U/sec.324, 326, 504 and 506 R/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is answered in favor of Accused A1 and A2.

10)In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324, 326, 504 and 506 R/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal procedure code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused no.1 and 2 shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court, on this the 27 th day of June, 2023.

FAC: II ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

MIRYALAGUDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :

PW-1: P.Paramesh, Defacto Complainant. PW-2: P.Renuka, Eye witness & injured. PW-3: P.Parvathamma, Eye witness. PW-4: K.Nagaraju, Eye witness. PW-5: P.Suresh, Eye witness. PW-6: D.Manya Naik, Panch for scene cum seizure. PW-7: Ch.Ramesh, Investigating Officer. PW-8: P.Veera Raghavulu, Investigating Officer.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:-- NONE --

C.C.No.1289/2014

dt:27.06.2023

14

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1: is the Original complaint given by PW-1. Ex.P-2: is the Signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch. Ex.P-3: is the Signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch. Ex.P-4: is the First Information Report. Ex.P-5: is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P-6: is the Rough sketch.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

M.O.1: Stick. M.O.2: Stick.

FAC: II ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

MIRYALAGUDA

O.S.No.14 of 2016

Dt: 26.02.2024

1

IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

AT MIRYALAGUDA

(Dated, this the 26th day of February, 2024)

Present: Kum. B. Sai Naga Suma Bala 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge Miryalguda

O.S. No. 14 of 2016

B E T W E E N:

Smt.Sangam Kavitha, W/o.Saidi Reddy, Age:40 years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.LIG-II-67 (28- 1237), A.P.H.B. colony, Miryalguda town and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

...Plaintiff

AND

Juluru Venkateshwarlu, S/o.Satyanarayana, Age:50 years, Occ:Government Employee, R/o.LIG-II-34, A.P.H.B. Colony, Miryalaguda town and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

…Defendant

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Venkateshwarulu, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri V.Venkataramana Reddy, Advocate for the defendant, after hearing and on perusing the material on record and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J : : U D G M E N T : :

1) This suit is filed by Plaintiff seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.2,81,200/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Two Hundred Only) against Defendant with a prayer to award pendentilite and post decreetal interest @ 24% per annum till realization and also costs.

The brief averments of the plaint are that: 2) I. Plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other.

II. Out of such acquianatnce, in the month of April 2014, defendant approached the plaintiff and requested for a financial accommodation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) for his family needs.

III. On 26-04-2014, defendant borrowed the said amount and also executed a demand promissory note of even date as a collateral security and the defendant further promised to repay the said amount with an interest of @24% per annum, as and when demanded by the plaintiff or to her order.

O.S.No.14 of 2016

Dt: 26.02.2024

2 IV.After the said transaction, the defendant, approached the husband of the plaintiff and requested for financial accommodation of Rs.3,00,000/- as hand loan to meet his daughter's marriage expenses. Accordingly, the husband of the plaintiff accommodated hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 28-04-2014.

V.Subsequently , defendant issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Huzurnagar Branch and the same was dishonoured, for which her husband filed a complaint under section 138 of N.I.

Act before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurnagar, but was transferred to the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court at

Miryalaguda on the point of jurisdiction and the same is pending for consideration.

VI. The defendant intentionally avoided the repayment of the promissory note amount along with interest, and that inspite of several demands to repay the promissory note amount, the defendant dodged the matter on one pretext or the other and avoided the repayment of the said loan amount advanced by the plaintiff.

Vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff issued a legal notice VII.

to the defendant, on 05-11-2015, from the office of her counsel, demanding the defendant to repay the hand loan amount with interest, within (8) days from the date of receipt of said legal notice. The said legal notice is returned as 'week days not present, hence returned".

VIII. Since defendant didnot repay the debt amount, this suit is filed by the Plaintiff.

Defendant filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and 3) specifically pleaded that:

I. The plaintiff is not a home maker . She and her husband by name Sangam Saidi

Reddy are running money lending business from past 15 years at AP.H.B Colony, other places in Miryalguda town without having any valid license.

II.The plaintiff demanded the defendant to sell his house with cheaper rate but since, the defendant denied, then plaintiff developed mala-fide intention against him and

O.S.No.14 of 2016

Dt: 26.02.2024

3 created false demand promissory by forging the signature of the defendant with the collusion of her yes men and filed this false suit.

III. The plaintiff and her husband are also doing un-lawful businessess like call money, ill-legal chit funds, bara-cutting business and are harassing the middle class and poor people in housing board colony and other places in Miryalguda town.

IV. The plaintiff and her husband filed number of suits before the Honorable courts at

Miryalguda which makes it very clear that the plaintiff and her husband are doing money lending call money business. The cases filed by the plaintiff and her husband are, (1) O.S No 08 of 2015 filed suit for recovery of money on the basis promissory note by Sanga Kavitha (plaintiff) against one Nukala Rajitha, (2)E.P No 04 of 2015 filed suit for recovery of money on the basis promissory note by Sangam Kavitha (plaintiff) against one Shaik Zaheda Begum, (3)O.S No 224 of 2015 filed suit for recovery of money on the basis promissory note by Sanga Saidi Reddy (husband of plaintiff) against one Lingampally Sathyavathi.

V. The defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

4) To substantiate the suit claim, Plaintiff examined herself as PW1 by marking

Ex.A1 to A4 and also PW2. The defendant examined DW1 to DW3 and marked ExB1 to B22. One Bank Manager of Karur Vishya Bank is also examined as court witness by virtue of the order of this court in IA 291 of 2018.

5) Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

6) Now the points for consideration are:

A. Whether the suit promissory note dated 27.04.2014 is true, valid, supported

by consideration and binding on the defendant?

B. Whether the plaintiff is doing money lending business as defined under the

provisions of The AP (TA) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli ?

C. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of suit claim as

prayed for?

D. To what relief?

O.S.No.14 of 2016

Dt: 26.02.2024

4

7) Points A to C: In order to aviod repitition of facts , Points A to C are appreciated here under:

1. In support of the suit claim, PW1 came into witness box and reiterated entire contents of the plaint and relied upon Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note, dt. 26.04.2014 and on perusal of ExA1 , it is evident that one Mr Juluru Venkateshwarlu, S/o.Satyanarayana owe Rs2,00,000/-(who happens to be Defendant) to Smt.Sangam Kavitha, W/o.Saidi Reddy (who happ,ens to be the Plaintiff) which also contains the signatures of the witnessess and scribe. ExA1 mentions that the interest rate @ Rs 2%. ExA2 to

A4 show the attempt of Plaintiff to recover the ExA1 amount from the defendant. In her cross examination, PW1 deposed that she is also called as

Kanakamma and that she filed suits in the name of Kavitha, Kandakamma .

She accepted ExB1 to B6 to be true, about filing of suits by her before courts against debtors, and also about the execution of promissory notes in her favour by debtors. She also mentioned that she and her husband were living separately from past 2 years prior to the filing of the suit and that she cant identify the signature of her husband. She also contended that she did not mention in her chief affidavit except in plaint that “the husband of the plaintiff accommodated hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 28-04-2014 and defendant issued a cheque for repayment of the said amount and on presentation of the said cheque, and the same was dishonoured for which her husband filed a complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act which is pending”. Rest of her cross examination contained suggestions and questions in favour of the defence which are denied by the PW1.

2. PW2 filed chief affidavit and in it he stated that he witnessed ExA1 transaction in b/w Plaintiff and defendant. He also mentioned that he also saw the execution of ExA1 by defendant after taking Rs.2,00,000/- from PW1 and at such time he, Plaintiff, defendant, A. Mathamma- one witness, and Sripada vishna-Scribe, are present. This version of PW2 is corroborating the version of

O.S.No.14 of 2016

Dt: 26.02.2024

5 PW1. In his cross examination , PW2 asserted that he is not the relative of

PW1 and also that he, A. Mathamma, PW1 are not siblings. There are no material facts which came out by virtue of cross of PW2 defeating the case of

Plaintiff.

The defendant adduced defence evidence and also marked documents. 3.

DW1 being the defendant affirmed the contents of his written statement. In the cross examination he accepted the facts: (1) In CC 1351 of 2015 , he borrowed of Rs 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff, (2) He gave blank signed promissory note to Plaintiff, (3) He kept date under his signature on ExA1.

(4) Plaintiff is doing money lending business since 15 years, (5) He cant state the name of chit business run by the Plaintiff and also about the subscribers. DW1 rejected suggestions, put by the counsel for plaintiff in her support but at last, he admitted that he borrowed money from the Plaintiff and is liable to pay repay the same to her.

DW2 who is examined by defendant testified in her chief examination 4.

that DW2 took Rs 1,00,000/- , Rs 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 08.06.2013, 06.07.2013 respectively and also executed Promissory notes. Similarly, she borrowed Rs 1,00,000/- from the husband of Plaintiff on 21.06.2013 and also executed Promissory note. DW2 also stated that her daughter Godati

Nagalakshmi also borrowed Rs 3,00,000/- on 04.08.2013 from Plaintiff and also executed Promissory note. Further, DW2 also mentioned that her daughter Godati Nagalakshmi also borrowed Rs 3,00,000/- , Rs 2,00,000/- on 12.11.2013, 13.11.2013 from Plaintiff’s husband and also executed

Promissory note. She also stated that the plaintiff and her husband being family members are lending money to the needy persons on high rate of interest without valid license. She also clarified that they cleared all the debts with the Plaintiff and her husband. DW2 in her cross examination stated that she also lent money to some persons and also filed cases against them for Rs 21,00,000/- as a whole. DW3 is the daughter of DW2 deposed

O.S.No.14 of 2016

Dt: 26.02.2024

6 her evidence affirming the version of DW2. She also rejected the suggestion that she and her mother are lending money business. Rest of the cross examinations of DW2, DW3 is of no utility to this case.

On perusal of the whole record, it is evident that DW1 admitted his 5.

liability to repay the money to PW1. Now the question is basing on this admission, can this suit be decreed. Facts admitted need not be proved.

Though DW1 admitted his liability, this suit can’t be decreed as: 6.

i. Section 10 of Indian Contract Act, specifies that all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties, competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void. Further , Section 23 of the said Act stated that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent ; or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void. At this juncture, this court underlines certain important provisions of The AP (TA) Money Lenders Act, 1349 F which are enlisted below:

(a) Section 2 (7) of the Act:money lender‘ means a person including a pawn-broker, who, within the meaning of this Act, only advances loan in the ordinary course of his business or does so along with other business, and shall also include the legal representative of such person and the person claiming to be his representative on the ground of succession or assignment or otherwise.

(b) Section 2 (4) (e) of the Act:loan ‘means a loan secured or unsecured, advanced on interest in cash or in kind, and shall include every transaction which is in substance a loan, but shall not include

O.S.No.14 of 2016

Dt: 26.02.2024

7 the following:- …..(e) a sum of money advanced on the basis of a negotiable instrument as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 other than a promissory note;

(c) Section 9 (2) of the Act: Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, in every suit relating to a loan:

…….2) if it is proved that the plaintiff is a money-lender as defined in sub-section (7) of section 2, but does not hold license granted under section 3, the Court shall dismiss his suit.

ii. ExB1 to B6, B9, B11, B12 and the evidence of DW2, DW3 prima facie show that PW1 is doing money lending business. The question, now, is whether she is holding any license to do money lending? Plaintiff denied doing such acts. On application of the provisions referred Supra this suit is liable to be dismissed as the Plaintiff did not file any license as mentioned by The AP (TA) Money Lenders Act, 1349 F. Moreover she admitted the filing of suits on her debtors. Plaintiff even did not account for the source of ExA1 amount and also about her income. If she is really a house maker, what is her source of income to give hand loans ? is not answered by PW1.

Though ExA1 coupled with the oral evidence of PW1, DW1 iii.

presumption arises that ExA1 is made or drawn for consideration under section 118 of NI Act. But at the same time, the presumption is rebutted by defence. Defendant is successful in defending the case of the plaintiff.

When burden is shifted on to the plaintiff, she failed to prove that ExA1 is true, valid, binding, supported by consideration. ExA1 failed to pass the test. Though evidence is positive for Plaintiff, but when the agreement is against established law and also when plaintiff failed to prove that “she is authorized by law to do so”, the suit is liable to dismissed. When there is no contract , there is no question of repayment.

iv.I did not find any utility in other oral and documentary evidence.

O.S.No.14 of 2016

Dt: 26.02.2024

8

8) In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that Plaintiff failed to prove her claim, as such points A to C are answered against the plaintiff

9) Point D: In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

(Typed by steno on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 26th day of February, 2024)

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: PW-1: S.KavithaDW-1: Juluri Venkateshwarlu PW-2: A.Venkat ReddyDW-2: K.Sakkubai DW-3: Godati Nagalaxmi

Court Witness: CW-1: K.Peeraiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Promissory note, dt.26.04.2014 Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice, dt.05.11.2015 Ex.A3 : Postal receipt, dt.05.11.2015 Ex.A4 : Unserved postal cover addressed to the defendant.

For Defendant: Ex.B1 :CC of promissory note executed by Rajitha Ex.B2 :CC of plaint filed in OS.No.08/2015 Ex.B3 :CC of petition filed in EP.No.4/2015 Ex.B4 :CC of promissory note, dt.19.12.2012 Ex.B5 :CC of promissory note, dt.25.06.2014 Ex.B6 :CC of plaint filed in OS.No.149/2015 Ex.B7 :CC of promissory note, dt.07.11.2012 Ex.B8 :CC of plaint filed in OS.No.224/2015 Ex.B9 :CC of promissory note, dt.08.06.2013 Ex.B10 :CC of promissory note, dt.21.06.2013 Ex.B11 :CC of promissory note, dt.06.07.2013 Ex.B12 :CC of promissory note, dt.04.08.2013 Ex.B13 :CC of promissory note, dt.12.11.2013 Ex.B14 :CC of promissory note, dt.13.11.2013 Ex.B15 :Cheque bearing No.187814, dt.10.10.2014 Ex.B16 :Cheque bearing No.187815, dt.10.10.2014 Ex.B17 :Cheque bearing No.187813, dt.10.10.2014 Ex.B18 :Cheque bearing No.187816, (undated blank) Ex.B19 :Undated blank cheque bearing No.187817 Ex.B20 :Undated blank cheque bearing No.622458 Ex.B21 :Undertaking dt.04.09.2014 Ex.B22 :CC of receipt dt.20.01.2015

O.S.No.14 of 2016

Dt: 26.02.2024

9

Court Witness: Ex.C1 : The deposit slip of Karur Vysya Bank, dt.10.10.2014 pertaining to cheque No.187814 Ex.C2 : Office copy of cheque return memo, 11.10.2014 pertaining to cheque No.187814 Ex.C3 : Statement of account of plaintiff for the period 01.10.2014 to 01.11.2014 Ex.C4 : Attested copy of cheque returned register Karur Vysya Bank at page No.10 and page No.11 with respect to cheque No.187814 verified the original register and marked the attested copy since the said register is a public document.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

CC NO 179 of 2019

Dt: 26.12.2024

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: AT MIRYALAGUDA

Present :- Ms. B. Sai Naga Suma Bala I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Miryalaguda (Dated this the 26th day of December, 2024)

CC NO 179 of 20 19

B E T W E E N :

M/s Sri Vaishnavi Auto & General Finance, Situated At Door No.19-767/2, Reddy Colony, Miryalaguda Town, represented by its Managing Partner, Gaddam Ravinder Reddy, S/o Ranga Reddy, Age: 42 Years, R/o. Plot No: 102, Apartment, Krishna Harivillu Colony Locality of miryalguda town and Mandal, Nalgonda District. …Complainant

AND

Bantu Vigneshwar, S/o Maraiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Attender in Corporation Bank, Blue Wale Palace, Reddy colony, R/o H.No.5-499/A, near Hanuman temple, Thallagadda locality of Miryalaguda town and mandal, Nalgonda District.

...Accused

This case is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri

K. Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for Complainant and Sri. P. Pulla Reddy, Counsel

for the Accused and having heard both sides and upon perusal of material available

on record, this court made the following:

-: J U D G E M E N T :-

(1) This is a Private Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

r/w Section 138 and 142 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the accused with a prayer to (i) To award Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty

Thousand Only) cheque amount, (ii) To award interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the cheque amount from the date of the cheque to till realization, (iii)

CC NO 179 of 2019

Dt: 26.12.2024

2 Legal Notice charges of Rs.2,000/-, (iv) Advocate Fee of Rs.5,200/-, (iii) To punish the accused as per Section 138 & Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(2) The factual matrix of the case of Complainant is that:

I. Accused is the resident of Miryalguda and was working as an Attender in

Corporation Bank, Miryalguda Branch. The complainant firm is a registered firm and is doing money lending business vide registration No.284 of 2017, registered with Registrar of Firms, Nalgonda and obtained Money Lending

License bearing No.1971 of 2017, Dt.01.06.2017 represented by its Managing

Partner Gaddam Ravinder Reddy.

II. In the month of November, 2017, the Accused approached the complainant- firm and requested for financial accommodation of Rs.2,00,000/- for his family necessities. On 08.11.2017 the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and executed a demand promissory note on even date in favour of the complaint-firm and after receiving said amount, he agreed to repay the same with interest of Rs.2-00 per hundred per month as and when demanded by the complainant-firm or to its order.

III. Inspite of several demands, the accused did not repay the loan totally or in part and dragged the matter. Finally on 08.01.2019 the accused issued a cheque bearing No.265522, Corporation Bank, Miryalguda branch for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, towards the partial discharge of the said debt.

IV.On 08.01.2019 the Complainant-firm presented the Cheque before his banker-Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, Miryalguda Branch, but the said

CC NO 179 of 2019

Dt: 26.12.2024

3 Cheque was returned for the reason “funds insufficient” with a Cheque return memo dated 14.01.2019.

V. After receiving Cheque return memo, the Complainant-firm issued legal notice to both the addresses of the accused house and working place on 28.01.2019 demanding the accused to arrange the cheque amount with in 15 days, and that the said notice was served to the accused on 30.01.2019 at work place and on house address, notice was unserved and was returned as door locked. But the accused neither paid the cheque amount nor gave any reply.

Since the accused did not repay the borrowed amount, present complaint is filed by complainant.

(3) This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 138 of The

Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against the Accused. On appearance of the

Accused, copies of all the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C (4) Accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C under section 138 of The

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the substance of accusation leveled against him is explained to him in vernacular language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(5) During the course of trial, in order to establish his case, the Managing partner of Complainant-firm examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20.

PW2 and PW3 also deposed their evidence on behalf of complainant-firm.

(6) After closure of the Complainant’s evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material available against him, for

CC NO 179 of 2019

Dt: 26.12.2024

4 which the accused pleaded that all such evidence is false and reported Defense evidence. But later, on 18.11.2024, the accused reported no defence evidence.

(7) Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the record (8) Now the point of determination is: “ Whether the complainant proved the

guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 138 of The Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 ?

(9) P O I N T :

(9.1) To establish a case under section 138 and Section 142 of The

Negotiable Instruments Act, complainant shall prove the following

Components:

Component 1: That a cheque was issued by the accused and the same was presented for collection within the period of its validity.

Component 2:That the cheque was dishonored by the bank authorities for one of the reasons which attract the offence under section 138 of The

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Component 3: That the Payee issued notice under section 138 of The

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 within the statutory period.

Component 4: That the drawer received the said notice, but failed to make any payment covered by the dishonored cheque with in stipulated time as mentioned in section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Component 5: That the complaint was filed within the period of limitation

in the court having jurisdiction.

CC NO 179 of 2019

Dt: 26.12.2024

5 Component 6: A Prima facie proof that the cheque was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable subsisting debt.

(9.2) In order to avoid the repetition of facts and also for the sake of convenience, the Component 1 and 2 are jointly examined, Components 3 to 5 together and component no:6 separately.

(9.2.1) Component No: 1 & 2 :- To prove components 1 and 2, PW1 deposed that accused gave a cheque and when it is presented at Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank,

Miryalaguda, it was dishonored. PW1 marked ExP1 which is theOriginal cheque bearing No. 265522, dated 08.01.2019 for Rs. 2,50,000/- issued by accused to complainant firm. ExP3 is the cheque return memo which goes to show that ExP1 is dishonored on the ground of Insufficient funds. Through Ex.P2 and ExP3, it can be seen that ExP1 is presented with in the prescribed period and was not honored, because the money in the account is insufficient (Funds Insufficient) which attracts section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Hence the Components 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the Complainant.

(9.2.2) Component No: 3 to 5 :-To prove components 3 to 5, PW1 stated in his chief examination that he issued a legal notice to the accused on 28.01.2019 for payment of said cheque amount. Ex.P4, P5 prove his contention. ExP4, P5 are within 30 days from the receipt of information about dishonour of Ex.P1. On perusal of ExP6, it can be determined that the deemed service of ExP4 on accused could be on 04.02.2019, or 09.02.2019. When 15 days are calculated from 05.02.2019 or 10.02.2019, the date of complaint is 13.03.2019 which is with in statutory period as envisaged under section section 142 (1) (b) of The Negotiable

CC NO 179 of 2019

Dt: 26.12.2024

6 Instruments Act, 1881. By virtue of Ex.P1 to P3, PW1 satisfies this court that, he filed the present case before the jurisdictional court as mandated by section 142 (2) of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Hence, Components 3 to 5 are also in favour of the Complainant.

(9.2.3) Components No: 6 :- In the present case in hand, the PW1 pleaded that the Accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) on 05.06.2015 from the complainant firm which is a registered firm and also executed a promissory note. PW1 also mentioned that Gaddam Ravindar Reddy, S/o Ranga

Reddy is the authorized partner of the firm and also that the complainant firm filed civil suit against the present accused for recovery of alleged promissory note amount. PW1 to support the above contention marked ExP7 to P16, P19 & P20.

On perusal, those documents are in complete corroboration with the version of

PW1. PW1 also examined PW2 and PW3 who deposed their evidence in consonance with the claim of the complainant firm. PW2 testified that he scribed original of

ExP11 so also PW3 that he is the attestor of original of ExP11. Nothing relevant is elicited from the cross examination of PW1 to PW3 in favour of the accused. But it is admitted by the accused that he gave blank signed promissory note and cheque to Complainant firm. Accordingly, when the above admission of the accused is read along with oral and documentary evidence of complainant firm, it is evident that

Ex.P1 is issued in discharge of liability under original of ExP11. Accordingly component no:6 is answered in favour of the complainant firm.

(10)As, all the components are answered positively in favour of the complainant and against the accused, the presumption under section 139 of Negotiable

CC NO 179 of 2019

Dt: 26.12.2024

7 Instruments Act, 1881 comes in to play and the burden of proving the case shifts to the accused and he/she has to rebut the presumption.

(11)It is here to remember that there are certain cases in which statutory presumptions arise regarding the guilt of the accused, but the burden even in those cases is upon the prosecution to prove the existence of facts which are to be present

before the presumption can be drawn. Once those facts are shown by the

prosecution to exist, the Court can raise the statutory presumption and it would, in such an event, be for the accused to rebut the presumption. In the present case in hand, the Accused in his section 313 Cr.P.C examination though reported Defense evidence but did not choose to adduce his evidence. As such this court shall have to rely on the cross examination of PW1 to PW3 to find whether accused succeeded in rebutting the presumption that arose in favour of the Complainant. Most of the questions in cross examination of PW1 to PW3 are formal suggestions. But he specifically posed questions underlining that complainant is not an income tax assesse and that accused took Rs 1,00,000/- from complainant and repaid the same.

When these defences are denied by PW1, accused did not adduce any oral (or) documentary evidence. As such in the absence of evidence, the same can’t be considered. In this case, the cross examination of the witnessess did not help the accused in making this court to believe that he rebutted the presumption that arose in favour of complainant firm. Accordingly, the accused failed to disprove the complainant’s case either by cross examining the witness or by leading cogent evidence in his support.

CC NO 179 of 2019

Dt: 26.12.2024

8 (12) In view of the foregone discussion, I am of the considered opinion that Accused failed to rebut the presumption raised by the Complainant. As such, Complainant proved his case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly point is answered in favour of the complainant and as such accused is liable for punishment.

(13) In the result, accused is convicted under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C for the offence under section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act.

(Typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 26th day of December, 2024).

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1 Class Miryalaguda

At this stage , the accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be awarded to him.

When questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be awarded to the accused vide separate examination statement, accused stated that “I have a family of five and they are dependent on me. I earn an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month. I have two children and my wife is a patient”.

This is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of probation of offenders Act or the provisions of Sec. 360 Cr.P.C

However, in view of the request of the accused, this court is intending to take a lenient view.

CC NO 179 of 2019

Dt: 26.12.2024

9 Accordingly, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for SIX

MONTHS and to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to Complainant firm and in default of payment of compensation amount, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for SIX MONTHS. Further the accused is directed to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- to the State and in default of payment of fine amount, Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for (06) DAYS. Simple imprisonment for 6 months and another simple imprisonment for 6 months and another simple imprisonment for (06) days shall run consecutively. Further the accused is directed to deposit the

Compensation amount and also to pay fine today itself. The copy of judgment is given to the accused, free of cost.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1 Class Miryalaguda

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

EXAMINED WITNESSES

COMPLAINANT : PW.1 : Gaddam Ravinder Reddy PW.2 : Mohammed Jahangir Ali PW3 : Kadari Venkat ACCUSED : NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT :

Ex.P1: Original cheque bearing No.265522, dated 08.01.2019 Ex.P2: Pay-in-slip dated 08.01.2019 Ex.P3: Cheque returned memo issued by Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, Miryalaguda, dt.14.01.2019 Ex.P4: Office copy of Legal Notice, dated 28.01.2019 Ex.P5: Postal receipts (02), dated 28.01.2019 Ex.P6: Unserved original postal cover Ex.P7: Certified copy of Money Lending License, dated 01.07.2017

CC NO 179 of 2019

Dt: 26.12.2024

10 Ex.P8: Certified copy of Money Lending License, dated 10.10.2018 Ex.P9: Certified copy of Registration of Firm, dated 01.06.2017 Ex.P10: Certified copy of Application for Registration of Firm, dated 06.04.2017 Ex.P11: Certified copy of Promissory Note, dated 08.11.2017 Ex.P12: Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No.267/2020 on the file of PJCJ, Miryalaguda Ex.P13: Certified copy of money lending license, dt. 01.08.2018 Ex.P14: Certified copy of money lending license, dt. 02.07.2019 Ex.P15: Certified copy of money lending license, dt. 19.08.2020 Ex.P16: Certified copy of money lending license, dt. 26.06.2021 Ex.P17: Online track consignment of RN076792239IN Ex.P18: Section 65-B certificate pertaining to Ex.P17. Ex.P19: Certified copy of partner ship deed, dt. 06.04.2017 Ex.P20: Authorization letter, dt. 12.03.2019 of M/s Sri Vaishnavi Auto and General Finance, Miryalguda.

FOR ACCUSED: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1 Class Miryalaguda

C.C.No.335/2017

Dt:09.09.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT MIRYALAGUDA

Present :- Smt. V. Madhavi II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Miryalaguda (Friday, the 9th day of September, 2022)

C.C. No.335/2017

Between :

State of Telangana, represented by, Station House Officer, Miryalaguda Rural Police Station. …Complainant

AND

Kondela Mallesh S/o Sambaiah, age:36 years, Occ:Driver, R/o.Bapunagar Miryalaguda.

...Accused

This case is coming before this court for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.S.Deepa Rani, A.P.P. for the prosecution and of Sri.E.Karunakar, Learned Counsel for the accused upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

-: J U D G M E N T :-

1.The accused is arrayed before this court for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A IPC Indian Penal Code (In short IPC) against accused in Cr.No.

310/2016 of Miryalaguda Ruta Police Station.

2.The brief facts of case of prosecution are that on 25-08-2016 at about 3-15 P.M PW1 came to the police station lodged a report stating that on the same day at 1.00 pm. when her husband Kannekanti Krishna Prasad left their house and proceeding towards Miryalaguda on his motor cycle bearing No.

AP 24 R 1476 and when he reached Srinivasnagar village bus stand, one auto bearing No. TS 05 UA 1256 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner with high speed coming in the opposite direction dashed the motor cycle of her husband. As a result, ter husband received severe bleeding injury over back of the head of the husband of PW1 and died on the spot.

C.C.No.335/2017

Dt:09.09.2022

3.Basing on report given by PW.8 registered a case in Cr.No.310/2016 for the offence under section 304-A IPC and issued F.I.R. During the course of investigation, P.W.8 examined PW1 at the police station and recorded her statement and rushed to Government Area Hospital, Miryalaguda and observed the dead body of deceased Kannekanti Krishna Prasad and taken photographs, examined LW2 to 5 and recorded their statements, held inquest Report over the corpse of deceased in the presence of PW4 and PW5 and subjected dead body for Post Mortem Examination to Government

Hospital, Miryalaguta. Thereafter, PW8 along with PW 4 and PW 5 proceeded to the scene of offence situated at Srinivasnagar near bus stand, observed the scene, conducted the scene of offence panchanana in the presence of above panchas besides drawing its rough sketch. On requisition, LW8 conducted autopsy over the corpse of the deceased, caused engines about the occurrence of offence. On 28-8-2016, PW8 issued notice under section 41

A (1) Cr.P.C to appear before PW8 within three days. On 30-8-2016, the accused came to Police station and appeared before PW8 and complied the conditions. PW8 verified the documents of crime vehicle and driving license of accused and found valid and correct and issued notice under section 41 (A) (3) Cr.P.C. PW8 sent the requisition to the MVI, Miryalaguda with request to inspect the crime vehicle and to furnish report. Subsequently, LW11 took up further investigation of this case, verified the investigation done by PW8 and found it on proper lines and after completion of investigation charge sheet is filed.

4.Basing on the material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable under U/Sec. 304-A IPC against accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are frunished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

C.C.No.335/2017

Dt:09.09.2022

6.The accused is examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C and the accusation against accused is read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Ex.P-1 to P-12. The police failed LW5/R.Anil and LW11/V.Sardar Naik,

SI of Police.

8.After completion of prosecution evidence, the matter posted for 313

Cr.P.C., where all the incriminating material available against accused read over and explained to him in Telugu and he denied incriminating material, accused reported no defence evidence.

9.Hengered Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for accused at length. Perused the reocord.

10.Now the point for determination is

“Whether the proseution proved the guilt of the accused for

the the offence punishable U/sec.304-A PC and beyond all

reasonable doubt or not?

11. The case of prosecution is that on 25-08-2006 at about 2.15 P.M. while the accused driving the auto bearing No. TS 05 UA 1256 (herein after called as Crime Vehicle) drove the same in a speed and and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle bearing No. AP 24 R 1476, as a result, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries over backside of head and died on the spot, thereby the accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC.

C.C.No.335/2017

Dt:09.09.2022

12. To prove its case, the prosecution is examined P.W's 1 to 8 and got marked Ex. P.1 to P.15. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and wife of the deceased, PW2 and PW3 are the elder brothers of the deceased, PW4 and

PW5 are the panch witnesses to the inquest and scene of offence panchanama. PW6 is the Medical Officer, PW7 is the eye witness and PW8 is the investigating Officer.

13.The testimonies of all the witnesses are available on record in the form of depositions and it is not necessary to reteirate the same but it is just and proper to refer the gist of their testimonies.

14.PW1 deposed that her husband by name Krishna Prasad was died in an accident proceeding from Halia to Miryalaguda on his bike. PW1 stated that the police informed her over phone about incident and she reached the spot and found her husband was alive and he was shifted to the Government

Hospital and that he died by the time they reached the hospital. Then she lodged a report with the Police and that after completion of post mortem examination, she brought the body of her husband to her house and lodged a report with the Police.

15.PW2 and PW3 who are the elder brothers of the deceased K. Krishna

Prasad deposed that they do not anything about the facts of the case. PW2 stated that the said Krishna prasad died in accident took place at

Srinivasnagar Village.

16.PW4 and PW5 who are mediators for the Inquest Panchanama totally turned hostile except identifying their signatures on inquest panchanama and deposed that no inquest panchanama was conducted in their presence

C.C.No.335/2017

Dt:09.09.2022

and that the police obtained their signatures on blank papers when they went to Area Hospital, Miryalaguda.

17.PW6 deposed that he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased by name Kannekanti Krishna Prasad on 25.8.2016 and found injuries and opinied that the death was caused due to multiple injuries.

18. PW7 who is cited as eye witness turned completely hostile and categorically deposed that he does not know the deceased by name Krishna

Prasad and also nothing about the facts of the case and that he did not witness any incident and that police did not examine him. During the cross examination, nothing worthwhile was elicited by the learned APP to support the case of prosecution.

19.According to PW8 who is the Investigating Officer who deposed that basing on the report/ Ex.P1 received from PW1 on 25.8.2016 at 3.15 hours, he registered the case in Cr.No.310/2016 and issued FIR, recording of statements of witnesses, obtaining the Motor Vehicle Report from MVI and issuance of 41(A)(1) and 41(A)(3) Cr.PC notices to the accused and the procedure, he adopoted in conducting the investigation till the filing of charge sheet.

20.In order to appreciate the rival contentions of both parties it

will be appropriate at this stage to read section 304-A IPC of the

IPC: Sec.304-A IPC. Causing death by negligence -

Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

C.C.No.335/2017

Dt:09.09.2022

21. What is negligence and criminal negligence:

In case of Kusum Sharma and others v. Batra Hospital & Medical

Research Centre & Others reported in 2010 (1) LS 120 (SC) = AIR

2010 SC 1050, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay the distinction between 'negligence' and 'criminal negligence. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court was pleased to held that, the 'negligence' is an omission to do something which is a reasonable man guided upon upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate, doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do and that the 'Criminal negligence' is gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all circumstances out of which charge has arisen, it was imperative duty of accused person to have adopted. In this case as already discussed there is gross and culpable negligence on the part of the accused and he failed to exercise a reasonable and proper care and precaution while driving his vehicle to avoid injury to the deceased and if had taken any reasonable care, he should have avoided the accident itself.

22.So, the essential ingredients need to be proved, to convict the accused for offense punishable U/Section 304-A IPC are:

(i) death of a person

(ii) death was caused by accused during any rash and negligent act, and

(iii) act does not amount to culpable homicide.

C.C.No.335/2017

Dt:09.09.2022

23.Therefore, in this case, to prove the accusation against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following facts beyond all reasonable doubt that:

1. There was accident at the scene of offence in between the crime vehicle and motorcycle of deceased and that the crime vehicle hit to the motor cycle of the deceased,

2. The deceased sustained severe injuries in the said accident as a result of which the deceased succumbed to injuries,

3. The accused was the driver of Crime Vehicle at the time of accident; and

4. The accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without taking minimum care and caution which driving the crime, resulting death of deceased.

24.On perusal of above submissions of both parties and on perusal of evidence on record including chief examination and cross examination and on perusal of material on and it is clear that the death of the deceased was caused on the date of the accident near Srinivasnagar bus stand. The only evidence available for prosecution is that of Investigating Officer to show that he got the crime vehicle examined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The evidence of PW6 gives strength to the case of the prosecution only to the extent that the deceased was died due to multiple injuries but does not fetch anything to connect either the crime vehicle or the accused with the death of the deceased.

25.Out of two eye witnesses, Prosecution examined only one witness i.e.,

PW7 who did not state anything incriminating about the accused. PW7 categorically stated that he did witness any incident. There is no iota of evidence to establish the identity of person drove the vehicle. Moreover there is nothing on record that the crime vehicle was drove in a rash or negligence manner and hit the motor cycle of the deceased resulting which

C.C.No.335/2017

Dt:09.09.2022

the deceased sustained severe injuries and the deceased succumbed to injuries. The family members of the deceased i.e.,PW 1 to PW3 did not support the case of prosecution. It is pertinent to mention that though the registration number of the crime vehicle is mentioned in the report lodged by

PW1, the testimony of PW1 did not disclose any registration number of the crime vehicle. There is no iota of evidence to establish the identity of the person drove crime vehicle except the evidence of PW8/IO. The prosection did not choose to examine the another eye witness though Pw7 who is one of the eye witness is turned hostile. The prosecution even did not choose to examine LW9/MVI whose evidence is closed as the police failed to produce him. Even if LW9/MVI is examined and the crime yehicle is established, it would not fetch any favour to the case of the prosecution as there is no cogent evidence to establish the identity of the person drove the crime vehicle.

26.In view of foregoing discussion, it is disclosed that there is no consistent, cogent and trustworthy evidence to fasten the culpability of the accused with the alleged offence and I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

27.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC and accordingly the accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The ball bonds of the accused shall stands canceled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, typed and transcribed by him and corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court this the 9th day of September, 2022.

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, MIRYALAGUDA

C.C.No.335/2017

Dt:09.09.2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE: P.W.1: K.Vani Padma-Nil- PW.2: K.Ramachary. PW.3: K.Saidachary PW.4: S.Suman PW.5: S.Yadagiri PW.6: Dr.B.Srinivas Naik PW.7: Y.Sai Baba PW.8: N.Buchaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Report of PW-1 Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P.4: Signature of PW4 on inquest panchanama Ex.P.5: Signature of PW4 on inquest panchanama Ex.P.6: Signature of PW-4 on inquest panchanama Ex.P.7: Signature of PW-5 on scene of panchanama Ex.P.8: Signature of PW-5 on rough sketch Ex.P.9: Signature of PW-5 on inquest panchanama Ex.P.10: Medical certificate Ex.P.11: 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW7 Ex.P.12: First Information Report Ex.P.13:Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.14:Rough sketch Ex.P.15: Inquest panchanama

FOR DEFENCE: --Nil--.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.: -Nil-

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MIRYALAGUDA

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS, MIRYALAGUDA

Present :- Ms. B. Sai Naga Suma Bala, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, FAC: Principal Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Miryalaguda. (Dated this the 17rd day of December, 2022)

O.S. No.42of 2021

B E T W E E N :

Sri Guddeti Buchi Ramaiah, S/o. Apaiah aged: 74 years, Occ: Retired Employee, H.No. 8-95, Gudibanda village of Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District.

...Plaintiff

AND

1. Nukala Krishnaiah, S/o. Ramiah, aged: 44 years Occ: Government employee in T.S Jenco,o/o. A.E operations, Tripuraram Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

2. Nukala Jyothi @ Josna W/o. Krishnaiah, aged: 40 years, Occ: Housewife, Both are R/o. H.No. 85, Bejjikal Village, Chennaipalem post of Tripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District.

…

Defendants

This suit is coming up before me on 09-12-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Kalyan Babu, Advocate for the Plaintiff and for Defendant remained Exparte, after hearing and on perusing the material on record and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.This suit is filed seeking the Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendant, their family members, henchmen, followers of them from interfering with the suit schedule property i.e., a Vacant house site to an extent of 242 sq yards in Survey No. 982, SD.No.2 in Block No. 07 situated at within the revenue limits of Bangarugadda locality of Miryalaguda town and Mandal, Nalgonda District. (here in referred as Suit schedule property) and has boundaries of East: Place of Shaik Abdul Khadar(Vender of the plaintiff), West: Place of Shaik abdul Khadar(Vender of the plaintiff), North:

24 wide road, South: Place of Shaik Sbdul Khadar(Vender of the plaintiff), with costs and such other reliefs which this court may deem fit in the interest of Justice.

1

2. The brief facts of the plaint are: The Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of a Vacant house site to an extent of 242 sq yards in

Survey No. 982, SD.No.2 in Block No. 07 situated at within the revenue limits of Bangarugadda locality of Miryalaguda town and Mandal, Nalgonda

District. (here in referred as Suit schedule property) and bounded by East:

Place of Shaik Abdul Khadar(Vender of the plaintiff), West: Place of Shaik abdul Khadar(Vender of the plaintiff), North: 24 wide road, South: Place of

Shaik abdul Khadar(Vender of the plaintiff). It was further stated that one

Saleema Begum was the first owner and possessor for the suit schedule property of 2420 Sq yards due to love and affection she gifted the said vacant place to her son i.e., Shaik abdul Kahder who is vender for the plaintiff. Further stated that the plaintiff purchased the 242 Sq yards out of 2420 Sq yards from said Shaik Abdul Khader vide registered document No. 1455 of 2011 dt: 07-04-2011, out of 2420 sq yards for the valuable sale consideration amount of Rs. 1,58,000/- to plaintiff, vide registered document No. 1455 of 2011 dt: 07-04-2011. It is further stated that, the defendants are husband and wife they purchased the plot in survey No. 983 which is nearest to the suit schedule property.

The plaintiff further stated that the plaintiff intended to construct a new house in the suit schedule property and got the permissions from concerned office authorities and allotted the door number as 7-1430/A and also paid the layout regulation scheme amount to the government. It is further stated that, the plaintiff started construct a new house in the suit schedule property, mean time, the defendants approached the plaintiff and demanded to sell the suit schedule property at a cheaper rate then the market value. And it is further stated that as such the plaintiff refused the proposal. Keeping the same in their mind the defendants No.1 and 2 are intentionally frequently obstructing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. And it is further stated that, On 29-01-2021 the defendants came to the suit schedule property along with their anti social element 1 and illegally trespassed into the suit schedule property and trying to occupy the same. It is further alleged that, the plaintiff reported the elders but the defendants did not care the advices of elders. Again on 30-01-2021 trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property but the plaintiff resisted them with the help of neighbours. It is further alleged that the defendant is a very influenced person having support of unsocial elements at any time may try to interfere into the suit schedule property, as there is no other alternative way to the plaintiff except to approach the Hon’ble Court to get proper legal remedy by way of perpetual injunction over the suit schedule property.

3.The Defendant was Set-Exparte on 02-12-2022 as he did not appear after service of summons through paper publication in Nave

Telangana Daily news paper (as per Docket Order: 22-11-2022).

4.To substantiate the suit claim, Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6 and third party is examined as PW2, who affirmed the contentions of plaintiff and that he is one of the elder in between plaintiff and defendants.

5.Heard the learned counsel for Plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

6. Now the points for consideration is:

(a)Whether the Plaintiff is entiltled to be granted with Perpectual

Injuction, there by the Defendents, his family members, henchmen,

followers of him are restrained from interfering with the Plaintiff’s

peaceful enjoyment of the suit scheduled property?

(b)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for"?

To what relief?

7. Points 1 and 2 : In order to decide the points, it is pertinent here to refer the provisions of law.

A) Section 36 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 1

36. Preventive relief how granted.—Preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the court by injunction, temporary or perpetual

B) Section 38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963

38. Perpetual injunction when granted.—(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this Chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication. (2)

When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the rules and provisions contained in Chapter II. (3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:— (a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff; (b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion; (c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief; (d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

C) Section 41 of Specific Relief Act, 1963

41. Injunction when refused.—An injunction cannot be granted— (a) to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings; (b) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not sub-ordinate to that from which the injunction is sought; (c) to restrain any person from applying to any legislative body; (d) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter; (e) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced; (f) to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance; (g) to prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced; (h) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained 1 by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust; 1 [(ha) if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any infrastructure project or interfere with the continued provision of relevant facility related thereto or services being the subject matter of such project.]

(i) when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to be the assistance of the court; (j) when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter.

D) Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 “35. Relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic record made in performance of duty.—An entry in any public or other official book, register or record or an electronic record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, or record or an electronic record is kept, is itself a relevant fact.

8.In support of the suit claim, PW-1 came into witness box and reiterated entire contents of the plaint and relied upon Exs.A1 to Ex.A6.

As per PW-1 evidence:

1. Ex.A-1 is the Original registered sale deed vide document no.

1455/2011.

2. Ex.A2 is the encumbrance certificate, dated 16.01.2021.

3. Ex.A3 is the encumbrance certificate, dated 12.01.2021.

4. Ex.A4 is the location sketch map, dated 08.01.2021.

5. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of gift deed no. 3678/2010, dated 26.07.2010.

6. Ex.A6 is the certified copy vide document no. 2531/98.

9. On perusal:

Ex.A1 states that it is the Original registered sale deed which is in the name of one Mr. SK.Abdul Khader as seller and Guddeti

Buchibabu as Buyer in relation to Suit Schedule property, 2) Ex. A5 the CC of Gift deed Between saleema gebum W/o. Md. Syed as Donor and Sk.

Abdul Khader S/o. MD. Sayed Shows that flow of Suit schedule property from her 1 mother to Vendor of Plaintiff, 3)Ex. A2 to A3, A4 show the E.C and location of Suit Schedule Property, 4) Ex. A6 is the linked document of Suit Schedule Property Dt: 28-08-1980. Third party is examined as

PW2 who affirmed the contentions of plaintiff and that he is one of the elder in between plaintiff and defendants.

10. The Defendant was Set-Exparte on 22-11-2022 as he did not appear after service of summons through paper publication of Nava

Telangana Daily News paper (as per Docket Order: 27-10-2022).

11. To summarize, through, the documentary evidence and oral evidence,

Plaintiff succeeded in proving his possession through Exs.A-1 to A-6 and that he succeeded in the claim. As the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and Exs.A-1 to ExA6 remained unchallenged, the Plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for. Hence, the points are answered in favour of the Plaintiff after going into the merits of the case

12. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintiff granting Perpetual Injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants, and their henchmen, agents, associates, etc. from disturbing the possession, enjoyment, occupation of a Vacant house site to an extent of 242 sq yards in

Survey No. 982, SD.No.2 in Block No. 07 situated at within the revenue limits of Bangarugadda locality of Miryalaguda town and Mandal, Nalgonda

District. (here in referred as Suit schedule property) and bounded by East:

Place of Shaik Abdul Khadar (Vender of the plaintiff), West: Place of Shaik

Abdul Khadar (Vender of the plaintiff), North: 24 wide road, South: Place of

Shaik Sbdul Khadar (Vender of the plaintiff). This decree does not confer/affirm/declare title of the Plaintiff except granting the Perpetual

Injunction. The pending I.As if any shall stand closed.

(Typed by steno, on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of December, 2022)

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1

MIRYALAGUDA

FAC: PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYAL AGUDA

APPENDIX OFEVIDENCE

WITNESSES

ForPlaintiff: ForDefendant:

PW-1: Gudeti Buchi Ramaiah -None- PW-2:Doneti Saidulu.

EXHIBITS MARKED

ForPlaintiff:

1. Ex.A-1 is the Original registered sale deed vide document no.

1455/2011.

2. Ex.A2 is the encumbrance certificate, dated 16.01.2021.

3. Ex.A3 is the encumbrance certificate, dated 12.01.2021.

4. Ex.A4 is the location sketch map, dated 08.01.2021.

5. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of gift deed no. 3678/2010, dated 26.07.2010.

6. Ex.A6 is the certified copy vide document no. 2531/98. ForDefendant -NIL-

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

FAC: PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYAL AGUDA

/ / T R U E C O P Y / /

1