Smt. Bakkaera Naga Lakshmi

1 O.S. No.85/2020, Dt. 28.11.2025.

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

PROH AND EXCISE COURT, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 28th day of November, 2025

PRESENT: Smt. B. Nagalakshmi IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-, Spl. Mobile Court, Khammam. FAC.V Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Prohibition and Excise Court, Khammam.

O.S.No. 85 of 2020

Between:

Anubrolu Lakshmi, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged.58 years, occu: Household, R/o. H.no.5-2-243/4/1/C, Mustafa Nagar, Khammam.

….....Plaintiff

And

1. Janga Rambabu, S/o.Viveka Rao, aged. 50 years, Occu: Business, R/o. Penthouse, 5th floor, Manasvini Apartments, Vijaynagar colony, Khammam.

2. Modepalli Suresh @ Suri, Aged. Adult, occu: Business, C/o. J.Rambabu, Penthouse, 5th Floor, Manasa apartments, Vijayanagar Colony, Khammam.

.....Defendants No.1&2.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 17-11-2025 in the presence of Sri. K.L.Narasimha Rao , Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.M.K.Jaleel, Advocate for Defendants; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed this suit under Order 7 Rule 1 & 2 read with

Sec.26 of Civil Procedure Code against the defendants No.1 and 2 praying the court to grant perpetual injunction in favour of the plaintiff by restraining the defendants No.1 and 2, their men, servants, subordinates, agents and all other persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit 2 O.S. No.85/2020, Dt. 28.11.2025.

schedule property in any manner and to award costs of the suit and to grant any other relief or reliefs.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the house plot admeasuring to an extent of 355.05 Sq Yds in and out of Sy.No.303/A (Amended as Sy.No.303/A as per orders in I.A. No.7/2021 dt.9-5-21), in

Plot No.22 part, situated at Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam which in hereinafter referred as "Suit schedule property. The plaintiff purchased the schedule property from one Yepuri Chinna Ramalingaiah and Kurra

Bhaskar rao, through a registered agreement of sale Cum General Power of Attorney deed bearing No.1080/2001, dated 26-02-2001. Later the plaintiff herself registered the schedule property in favour through registered Sale deed bearing No.2493/2012 dt. 18-02-2012. Since the date of purchase the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Previously the vendors of the plaintiff namely

Yepuri Chinna Ramalingaiah and Kurra Bhaskar have purchased the schedule property from one Nachaboina Venkaiah, S/o Kotaiah, through a registered Sale deed bearing No.1441/1981, dt.05-05-1981. Hence, the plaintiff has absolute rights and perfect title over the schedule property.

The plaintiff further submitted that the defendants who are no way concern to the schedule property, have developed greedy eye over the same in order to grab the same. As per their evil design, on 18-01-2020 when the plaintiff was dumping the material to construct a compound wall around the schedule property, meantime the defendants without having any rights, interest whatsoever over the schedule property, came along 3 O.S. No.85/2020, Dt. 28.11.2025.

with their henchmen and tried to make hurdles in the construction work by way of interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the same. Upon which with a great difficulty, the plaintiff resisted the illegal acts and attempts of the defendants and their men with the assistance of neighbours and others. While leaving the place, the defendants threatened the plaintiff that they would grab the schedule property on one day or the other and they are having political power in the locality and it is difficulty to the plaintiff to resist the illegal acts and attempts of defendants and their men without lawful assistance of the

Hon'ble court. Hence this suit.

3. The defendant No.2 filed written statement and denied all the facts mentioned in the plaint and submitted that when the plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the property at any point of time the question of interference doesn't arise and this has been alleged for the purpose of this case on the basis of false and fabricated documents created with a view to mislead and grab the property of the defendants knowing fully well that there is no property owned and possessed by the plaintiff, her vendors or her vendor's vendor within the boundaries stipulated in the sale deed.

That there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit and on an imaginary cause of action and on an imaginary possession and enjoyment of the property the plaintiff is invented for the purpose of this case. That the plaintiff is well aware of the fact that the defendant No.2 has purchased the property through registered document No.121/2020 dt 04.01.2020 and also got executed G.P.A. from the daughter of the pattadar

Syed Baji, being the only legal heir and successor of late Syed. Baji, as the 4 O.S. No.85/2020, Dt. 28.11.2025.

wife of the pattadar already died on 20-08-2014 who was the pattedar and possessor of the property situated in Sy No.303/AA to an extent of Ac.4-12 gts and he was also granted pattadar passbook and title deed No.61765 patta. No.240 and the name of the pattadar is duly reflected in the revenue records for more than decade. The defendant No.2 after acquiring the property through lawful means and also as G.PA. Holder of the daughter of the pattedar Syed. Baji, has alienated 720 Sq. Yards and also 1118 Sq Yards through registered documents as the title and possession of the defendant No.2 his vendor and executants of G.P.A holder were having clear title and possession for morethan five decades as is evident from the land acquisition proceedings, whereby the land which was acquired by the govt from the original pattedar is duly reflected, as such there is a clear flow of title and possession of defendant No. 2 his vendors executants of the GPA and the Pattadar which is within the knowledge of the vendar of the plaintiff and also the plaintiff as it is evident that the property of this defendant is duly fenced and clearly identifiable as such the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. That the plaintiff is guilty of suppressing the material facts and misleading the Court on the facts of the case, as such there is no Prima-facie case or balance of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff as such not entitled for any relief much less the relief of injunction which is an equitable relief and cannot be granted to a person who has approached the Court with unclean hands and guilty of suppression of facts. Hence the defendants and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues have been settled by this Court for trial:

5 O.S. No.85/2020, Dt. 28.11.2025.

Issue No.1 Whether the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

Issue No.2 Whether Defendants interfered with the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property?

Issue No.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to restrain D1 &D2 from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property/

Issue No.4 To what relief?

Issue No.1 to 3 are discussed together for the sake of convience.

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7 and also examined Pw.2 on behalf of Pw.1, and cross examined the Pw.1 by the counsel for defendant, and inspite of several opportunities given for cross of PW2, the defendants failed to cross examine him and hence the cross of PW2 is closed. Several opportunities were given for adducing the evidence on behalf of the defendants No.1 and 2, the defendants failed to adduce any evidence on their behalf. Hence the defendant’s evidence is closed.

6.Heard arguments of the plaintiff. Inspite of several adjournments and even conditional orders, the defendants No.1 and 2 did not choose to submit their arguments, hence treated it as heard and perused the record.

ISSUE Nos.1 to 3:

7.The issues No.1 to 3 are necessary together for the sake of convenience.

8.It is the contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the house plot ad-measuring to an extent of 355.05 Sq 6 O.S. No.85/2020, Dt. 28.11.2025.

Yds in and out of Sy.No.303/A in Plot No.22 part, situated at Khanapuram

Haveli, Khammam. The plaintiff purchased the schedule property from one

Yepuri Chinna Ramalingaiah and Kurra Bhaskar rao, through a registered agreement of sale Cum General Power of Attorney deed bearing

No.1080/2001, dated 26-02-2001. Later the plaintiff herself registered the schedule property in her favour through registered sale deed bearing

No.2493/2012, dt. 18-02-2012. Since the date of purchase the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

Previously the vendors of the plaintiff namely Yepuri Chinna Ramalingaiah and Kurra Bhaskar have purchased the schedule property from one

Nachaboina Venkaiah S/o Kotaiah, through a registered Sale deed bearing

No.1441/1981 dt.05-05-1981. The defendants who are no way concern to the schedule property, have developed greedy eye over the suit schedule property.

9.Per contra, the defendants contended that second defendant has purchased the property through registered document No.121/2020 dt.04.01.2020 and also got executed G.P.A. from the daughter of the pattadar Syed. Baji, being the only legal heir and successor of late Syed.

Baji, as the wife of the pattadar already died on 20-08-2014 who was the pattedar and possessor of the property situated in Sy No.303/AA to an extent of Ac. 4-12 gts and he was also granted pattadar passbook and title deed No.61765 patta. No.240 and the name of the pattadar is duly reflected in the revenue records for more than decade. The defendant

No.2 after acquiring the property through lawful means and also as G.PA.

Holder of the daughter of the pattedar Syed. Baji, has alienated 720 Sq.

7 O.S. No.85/2020, Dt. 28.11.2025.

Yards and also 1118 Sq Yards, through registered documents as the title and possession of the defendant No.2 his vendor and executants of G.P.A holder were having clear title and possession for more than five decades as Is evident from the land acquisition proceedings, whereby the land which was acquired by the govt from the original pattedar is duly reflected as such there is a clear flow of title and possession of defendant No. 2 his vendors executants of the GPA and the Pattadar which is within the knowledge of the vendar of the plaintiff and also the plaintiff as it is evident that the property of this defendant is duly fenced and clearly identifiable as such the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. That the plaintiff is guilty of suppressing the material facts and misleading the

Court on the facts of the case, as such there is no Prima-facie case or balance of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff as such not entitled for any relief much less the relief of injunction which is an equitable relief and cannot be granted to a person who has approached the Court with unclean hands and guilty of suppression of facts.

10.Since this is a suit for permanent injunction, at the outset this Court intends to mention some of the legal principle laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court relating to permanent injunction.

“In a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession. The plaintiff has to establish that as on the date of filing of the suit the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property and that the defendant tried to interfere or disturbed such lawful possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property”.

8 O.S. No.85/2020, Dt. 28.11.2025.

11.To prove the version of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined herself as

PW1. PW1 filed chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination reiterated the plaint averments and exhibited Ex.A1 to A7 on her behalf. Pw.2 filed cheif affidavit in lieu of his cheif examination reiterated the plaint averments on behalf of Pw.1 PW1 was examined in chief on 14.03.2024 and 07.01.2025 and Ex.A1 to A7 are marked. Even after giving several adjournments the defendants No.1 and 2 cross examined Pw.1 and failed to cross examine PW2, hence on 28.01.2025 Pw.1 evidence closed and this

Court posted the matter for further evidence of Pw.2 by closing the evidence of PW2 on 18.03.2025, hence the evidence of PW1 and Pw.2 remained unchallenged.

12. PW1 relied upon Ex.A1 to A7, on perusal of Ex.A1 it is the certified copy of sale deed dated 18.02.2012 vide document No.2493/2021 it shows that plaintiff purchased the schedule property from one Yepuri Chinna

Ramalingaiah and Kurra Bhaskar through registered sale deed.

Ex.A2 is the encumbrance certificate, it shows that plaintiff purchased the said property from Kurra Bhaskar Rao, through registered agreement of sale cum general power of Attorney deed bearing deed bearing No.1080/2001, dated 26.02.2001, the plaifntiff herself registered the schedule property in her favour through registered sale deed bearing

No.2493/2012, dated 18.02.2012.

Ex.A3 it is certified copies of Pahani for the year 1956-57, 1957-58, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 issued by the deputy Tahsildar, Khammam

Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

9 O.S. No.85/2020, Dt. 28.11.2025.

Ex.A4 is the certified copies of pahani for the year 1964-65, 1967-68, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1973-74, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 issued by the deputy Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam

District.

Ex.A5 is the certified copy of FIR vide 214/2024.

Ex.A6 is the certified copy of report dated 04.05.2024.

Ex.A7 is certified copy of remand report.

Upon perusal of Ex.A1 to A7 shows that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and she is in peaceful possession of suit schedule property.

13.In S.Gangadhar Goud vs. Chikkela Laxman and others reported in 2009(3) ALT 498, wherein it is held that; "mere filing of pleadings would not be sufficient in a case. The pleadings, at the most would help the Court to identify the area of controversy and to frame issues. Once, the issues are framed, the respective parties have to adduce evidence in support of or opposition to the issues. Even where a defendant is confident of the weakness of the plaintiff's case, he has to enter the witness box atleast, to speak to the contents of the written statement, failure in this regard is bound to entail in serious consequences".

14.The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao's case reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441, held that; "where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case setup by him is not correct".

15.Averting to the above proposition in the case on hand and also as the defendants failed to adduce any evidence in support of their pleadings, as 10 O.S. No.85/2020, Dt. 28.11.2025.

such the unrebuttable evidence of the plaintiff is taken into consideration.

More baseless allegations cannot be entertained by this Court, unless there is valid proof in supporting the contentions of the defendants pertaining to the case. The documents filed by the plaintiff clearly shows that the plaintiff was successful in establishing her possession and ownership over the suit schedule property.

16.Upon perusal of the defendants No.1 and 2, this court is of the opinion that the evidence of PW1 and Pw.2 unchallenged and unrebutted and Ex.A1 to A7 supported the claim of the plaintiff and this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. This point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 and 2 that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

17.IN THE RESULT: the suit is decreed without costs in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants no.1 and 2, their men, servants, subordinates, agents and all other persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Type to dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of November, 2025.

FAC. V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM

PROH AND EXCISE COURT,

KHAMMAM.

11 O.S. No.85/2020, Dt. 28.11.2025.

- APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1:Anubrolu Lakshmi -NIL- Pw.2: Anubrolu Venkateswara Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1:Certified copy of sale deed, dated 18.02.2012 vide document No.2493/2012

Ex.A.2:Certified copy of Encumbrance

Ex.A.3:Certified copies of Pahani for the year 1956-57, 1957-58, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62.

Ex.A.4:Certified copies of Pahani for the year 1964-65, 1967-68, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1973-74, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82.

Ex.A.5:Certified copy of FIR vide 214/2024

Ex.A.6:Certified copy of report dated 04.05.2024

Ex.A.7:Certified copy of remand report.

FOR DEFENDANT: -NONE-

FAC.V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM

PROH AND EXCISE COURT,

KHAMMAM.

12 O.S. No.85/2020, Dt. 28.11.2025.

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

PROH AND EXCISE COURT, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 28th day of November, 2025

PRESENT: Smt. B. Nagalakshmi IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-, Spl. Mobile Court, Khammam. FAC.V Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Prohibition and Excise Court, Khammam.

O.S.No. 85 of 2020

Presented on: 24-01-2020 Filed on : 24-01-2020 Between:

Anubrolu Lakshmi, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged.58 years, occu: Household, R/o. H.no.5-2-243/4/1/C, Mustafa Nagar, Khammam.

….....Plaintiff

And

1. Janga Rambabu, S/o.Viveka Rao, aged. 50 years, Occu: Business, R/o. Penthouse, 5th floor, Manasvini Apartments, Vijaynagar colony, Khammam.

2. Modepalli Suresh @ Suri, Aged. Adult, occu: Business, C/o. J.Rambabu, Penthouse, 5th Floor, Manasa apartments, Vijayanagar Colony, Khammam.

.....Defendants No.1&2.

CLAIM FOR:

This suit is filed for perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff, restraining the defendants No.1 and 2, their men, Servants, subordinates, agents and all other persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to award costs of the suit.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION:

Cause of action arose on 26.02.2001 and 18.02.2012 at Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam. The court is having both the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND COURT FEE PAID:

The suit is notionally valued at Rs.25,000/-, upon which a court fee of Rs.1586/- is paid U/sec.26 (c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

13 O.S. No.85/2020, Dt. 28.11.2025.

:: D E C R E E ::

This case is coming before me on 17-11-2025 in the presence of Sri. K.L.Narasimha Rao , Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.M.K.Jaleel, Advocate for Defendants; upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard the arguments of the counsel for Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:-

1.That the suit be and is hereby decreed infavour of plaintiff against the defendants No.1&2.

2. That the suit be and is hereby decreed without costs.

3.That the defendants No.1 and 2 are be and is hereby granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.1 and 2, their men, servants, subordinates, agents and all other persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the petition schedule property.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 28th day of November, 2025.

FAC.V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PROH AND EXCISE COURT,

KHAMMAM.

14 O.S. No.85/2020, Dt. 28.11.2025.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

S.FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

No 1Stamps on plaint 2Stamps on power 3Stamps on process 4Stamps on petitions 5 Publication charges 6Stamps on documents 7Advocate fee 8 Misc. & type charges

Total

FAC.V ADDL.JUNIORJUDGE -CUM

PROH AND EXCISE COURT,

KHAMMAM.

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

House plot ad-measuring to an extent of 355.05 Sq.yds in and out of

Sy.No.303/A, in plot No.22 part, situated at Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam, within the limits of Khammam Municipal Corporation, bounded by:-

East:Plot No.43 of Y.Usha Rani West:30 feet wide road North:30 feet wide road South:Plots belongs to Teacher's colony.

Amended as Sy.No.303/A as per the orders in IA No.07/2021, dated 09.03.2021.

FAC.V ADDL.JUNIORJUDGE -CUM

PROH AND EXCISE COURT

KHAMMAM.

O.S No.714 of 2024, dated 03.09.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM-

PROHIBITION & EXCISE COURT, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 03rd day of September, 2025 Present: Smt. B. Naga Lakshmi, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Special Mobile Court, Khammam.

FAC: V Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum, Proh. & Excise Court, Khammam.

O.S No. 714/2024

Between:

1. Mallarapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late Mylavarapu Viswanadham, Age: 71 years, R/o H.No.30-1507, Vinayakanagar, Neredumatla, Hyderabad.

2. Mylavarapu Vinodarao, S/o Late Mylavarapu Viswanadham, Age: 65 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o H.No.1-15-201/A, Balajinagar, Brahmanawada, Kagajnagar, Hyderabad.

3. Mylavarapu Shiva Ganesh Kumar, S/o Late Mylavarapu Viswanadham, Age: 63 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.3-1, Dwarakanagar, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam City and District.

4. Mylavarapu Jayalaxmi, D/o Late Mylavarapu Viswanadham, W/o Narasimha Rao, Age: 62 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o H.No.5-5-127/128, Rajalingam Colony, Opposite Cell Tower, Boduppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Telangana.

5. Jangala Koteswari, D/o Late Mylavarapu Viswanadham, W/o Jangala Venkateswarlu, Age: 56 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o H.No.3-76, Raghunadhapalem Village and Mandal, Khammam District.

6. Pasumarthi Swarneshwari, D/o Late Mylavarapu Viswanadham, W/o Pasumarthi Keshavarao, Age: 51 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o H.No.15-4-201, Pathanagar, Batwada, Warangal.

7. Medisette Vasavi, D/o Late Mylavarapu Viswanadham, W/o Medisette Srinivas, Age: 52 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o H.No.29-111, New Vidyanagar, Neredmet, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

8. Mylavarapu Seethamahalaxmi, W/o Late Veerabhadram, Age: 65 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o H.No.8-5-43/1, Tummalagadda Bazaar, Khammam City and District.

Pages 1 of 6

O.S No.714 of 2024, dated 03.09.2025

9. Mylavarapu Vishwanadh, S/o Mylavarapu Manohar Rao, Age: 34 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.3-7-152, Pumpingwell Road, Khammam City and District.

…Plaintiffs.

And

1. Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

2. To whomsoever it may concern.

...Defendants.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 11.08.2025 in the presence of Sri Gundamala Bhaskar, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 is set exparte: upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having 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 under Order 7 Rule 1 read with Sec.26 of Civil Procedure

Code, praying to declare the plaintiff Nos.1 to 9 as the Class-I legal heirs of deceased

Mailavarapu Ramesh who died intestate on 21.09.2023.

2.The brief facts of the case, in nutshell are that:

(i)The plaintiff Nos.1 to 3, deceased Mailavarapu Veerabhadram and deceased Mailavarapu Manohar Rao are natural brothers, plaintiff Nos.4 to 7 are natural sisters of deceased Mailavarapu Ramesh who are children of late Mailavarapu

Viswanadham and Mailavarapu Shanthamma. The parents of plaintiff Nos.1 to 7 are no more. The plaintiff No.8 is the wife of deceased Veerabhadram and the plaintiff

No.9 is the son of deceased Manohar Rao. The deceased Mailavarapu Ramesh was

Pages 2 of 6

O.S No.714 of 2024, dated 03.09.2025

unmarried and he died on 21.09.2023 leaving the plaintiffs as his legal heirs and successors to his estate.

(ii)On 22.10.2023, the plaintiffs approached the Tahsildar, Khammam Urban i.e., defendant No.1 in order to receive legal heir certificate of Mailavarapu Ramesh but, the defendant No.1 refused to give the said certificate stating that it will be given to only government employees but, not to private persons since the deceased

Mailavarapu Ramesh used to be an agriculturist. Further, the defendant No.1 advised the plaintiffs to approach competent Court for obtaining Legal Heir Certificate.

Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit praying this Court to declare them as legal heirs of the deceased. Hence, this suit.

3. On registering the suit, this Court issued summons to the defendant No.1 and the same is served but, the defendant No.1 did not appear before the Court thereby, he was set exparte on 17.09.2024.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 9, the plaintiff No.9 was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10.

5.Heard arguments of the counsel appearing for plaintiff Nos.1 to 9 and perused the entire record.

6. Now the points that arises for determination are :

"1. Whether the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 9 are the legal heirs of late Mailavarapu Ramesh, who died on 21.09.2023?

2. Whether they are entitled for the relief, as prayed for?"

Pages 3 of 6

O.S No.714 of 2024, dated 03.09.2025

POINT Nos.1 & 2:

7. The plaintiff No.9 has filed his chief affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4(1) of

C.P.C. He stated in his chief affidavit that the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3, deceased

Mailavarapu Veerabhadram and deceased Mailavarapu Manohar Rao are natural brothers, plaintiff Nos.4 to 7 are natural sisters of deceased Mailavarapu Ramesh who are children of late Mailavarapu Viswanadham and Mailavarapu Shanthamma. The parents of plaintiff Nos.1 to 7 are no more. The plaintiff No.8 is the wife of deceased Veerabhadram and the plaintiff No.9 is the son of deceased Manohar Rao.

The deceased Mailavarapu Ramesh was unmarried and he died on 21.09.2023 leaving the plaintiffs as his legal heirs and successors to his estate. On 22.10.2023, the plaintiffs approached the Tahsildar, Khammam Urban i.e., defendant No.1 in order to receive legal heir certificate of Mailavarapu Ramesh but, the defendant No.1 refused to give the said certificate stating that it will be given to only government employees but, not to private persons since the deceased Mailavarapu Ramesh used to be an agriculturist. Further, the defendant No.1 advised the plaintiffs to approach competent Court for obtaining Legal Heir Certificate therefore this suit.

8.The plaintiff Nos.1 to 9 have relied on Exs.A.1 to A.10. On perusal of

Ex.A.1/Death Certificate of Mailavarapu Ramesh dated 21.10.2023 reveals that the deceased was died on 21.09.2023 and Ex.A.1 has established the death of Late

Ramesh. On perusal of the Exs.A.2 to A.10 which reveals that the plaintiff Nos.1 to

Pages 4 of 6

O.S No.714 of 2024, dated 03.09.2025

9 are the only legal heirs of Late Ramesh. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.10 remains unchallenged and unrebutted.

9.After considering the unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 coupled Exs.A.1 to A.10, it was established that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Ramesh.

Therefore, the plaintiff Nos.1 to 9 are entitled for the relief, as prayed for.

Accordingly, the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

10.RESULT:IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed without costs by declaring the plaintiff Nos.1 to 9 are the legal heirs of Late Mailavarapu Ramesh, who died on 21.09.2023.

Directly typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 03rd day of September, 2025.

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PROH. & EXCISE COURT,

KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: P.W.1: Mylavarapu Viswanadh

FOR DEFENDANTS: - Exparte -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A.1:Death Certificate of Mylavarapu Ramesh, dated 21.10.2023

Ex.A.2: Xerox Copy of Aadhaar of Mylavarapu Viswanadh (compared with original)

Ex.A.3: Xerox Copy of Aadhaar of Mylavarapu Seetha Mahalaxmi (compared with original)

Pages 5 of 6

O.S No.714 of 2024, dated 03.09.2025

Ex.A.4: Xerox Copy of Aadhaar of Mylavarapu Vinoda Rao (compared with original)

Ex.A.5: Xerox Copy of Aadhaar of Mylavarapu Siva Ganesh Kumar (compared with original)

Ex.A.6: Xerox Copy of Aadhaar of Jangala Koteswari (compared with original)

Ex.A.7: Xerox Copy of Aadhaar of Pasumarthi Swarneswari (compared with original)

Ex.A.8: Xerox copy of Aadhaar of M.Vasavi (compared with original)

Ex.A.9: Xerox copy of Service Certificate of M.Srinivasa Rao (compared with original)

Ex.A.10: Xerox copy of T.C of Mylavarapu Jaya Laxmi (compared with original)

DEFENDANTS: - N I L -

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ,

PROH. & EXCISE COURT,

KHAMMAM

Pages 6 of 6

O.S No.714 of 2024, dated 03.09.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM,

PROHIBITION & EXCISE COURT, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 03rd day of September, 2025 Present: Smt. B. Naga Lakshmi, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Special Mobile Court, Khammam. FAC: V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Proh. & Excise Court, Khammam.

O.S No.714/2024

Suit presented on: 19.04.2024 Suit filed on: 12.08.2024 Between:

1. Mallarapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late Mylavarapu Viswanadham, Age: 71 years, R/o H.No.30-1507, Vinayakanagar, Neredumatla, Hyderabad.

2. Mylavarapu Vinodarao, S/o Late Mylavarapu Viswanadham, Age: 65 years, Occu: Retired Employee, R/o H.No.1-15-201/A, Balajinagar, Brahmanawada, Kagajnagar, Hyderabad.

3. Mylavarapu Shiva Ganesh Kumar, S/o Late Mylavarapu Viswanadham, Age: 63 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.3-1, Dwarakanagar, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam City and District.

4. Mylavarapu Jayalaxmi, D/o Late Mylavarapu Viswanadham, W/o Narasimha Rao, Age: 62 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o H.No.5-5-127/128, Rajalingam Colony, Opposite Cell Tower, Boduppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Telangana.

5. Jangala Koteswari, D/o Late Mylavarapu Viswanadham, W/o Jangala Venkateswarlu, Age: 56 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o H.No.3-76, Raghunadhapalem Village and Mandal, Khammam District.

6. Pasumarthi Swarneshwari, D/o Late Mylavarapu Viswanadham, W/o Pasumarthi Keshavarao, Age: 51 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o H.No.15-4-201, Pathanagar, Batwada, Warangal.

7. Medisette Vasavi, D/o Late Mylavarapu Viswanadham, W/o Medisette Srinivas, Age: 52 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o H.No.29-111, New Vidyanagar, Neredmet, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

8. Mylavarapu Seethamahalaxmi, W/o Late Veerabhadram, Age: 65 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o H.No.8-5-43/1, Tummalagadda Bazaar, Khammam City and District.

Pages 7 of 6

O.S No.714 of 2024, dated 03.09.2025

9. Mylavarapu Vishwanadh, S/o Mylavarapu Manohar Rao, Age: 34 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.3-7-152, Pumpingwell Road, Khammam City and District.

…Plaintiffs.

and

1. Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District.

2. To whomsoever it may concern.

...Defendants.

*** CLAIM FOR: This suit is filed under Order 7 Rule 1 read with Sec.26 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to declare the plaintiff Nos.1 to 9 as the legal heirs of deceased Mailavarapu Ramesh who died intestate on 21.09.2023.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: The cause of action for the suit arose on 21.09.2023 when the deceased Mailavarapu Ramesh was died.

VALUATION AND COURT FEE: The suit is valued of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) on which a Court fee of Rs.786/- (Rupees Seven Hundred and Eighty Six Only) is paid under Section 24(d) of T.S.C.F & S.V Act. *** This case coming before me for final hearing on 11.08.2025 in the presence of Sri Gundamala Bhaskar, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 is set exparte: upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

:: D E C R E E ::

1.That the suit is hereby decreed without costs.

2.That the suit be and is hereby decreed by declaring the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 9 are the Legal Heirs of Late Mailavarapu Ramesh, who died on 21.09.2023.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this, the 03rd day of September, 2025.

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PROH. & EXCISE COURT,

KHAMMAM

Pages 8 of 6

O.S No.714 of 2024, dated 03.09.2025

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintiff S.No.DescriptionFor Defendants Nos.1 to 9

1.Stamps on plaint 2Stamps on power 3Stamps on process 4Stamps on petition 5Stamps on documents 6Advocate fee 7Publication charges 8Misc. & Type charges

Total:

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PROH. & EXCISE COURT,

KHAMMAM

Pages 9 of 6

1 OS No. 429 / 2025,

Dt:28.11.2025.

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE COURT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 28th day of November, 2025

PRESENT: SMT.B.NAGA LAKSHMI IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum- Spl. Mobile Court, Khammam. FAC. V Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Prohibition and Excise Court, Khammam.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 429 of 2025

BETWEEN:

Yedida Bhaskara Charyulu, S/o. Subhadra Charyulu Late, aged. 50 years, occu: Agriculture & RMP, R/o. H.No.2-22, Cheruvumadhavaram Village, Nelakondapalli Mandal, Khammam District.

….. Plaintiff.

And

Kanamarlapudi Manikyamma, W/o. Late Saidulu, Aged.65 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Cheruvumadhavaram Village, Nelakondapalli Mandal, Khammam District. …… Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 24-11-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Addanki Nageswara Rao, Ananthoju Narasimha Rao, Yalagandula Ravi, Learned counsels for the plaintiff and Defendant remain set Exparte; upon perusing the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

This suit is filed under section 26 read with order VII rule 1 and 2 of

C.P.C., by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.2,98,013/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand and Thirteen Only) with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realization and to award costs of the suit and to grant any other relief or reliefs.

2 OS No. 429 / 2025,

Dt:28.11.2025.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:-

The plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other, out of such acquaintance, the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Seventy Thousand Only) from the plaintiff on 28.08.2022, to meet her agricultural necessities. After receiving the said consideration, the defendant had executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 12% p.a. payable either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, the plaintiff made many demands to repay the borrowed amount with interest, but the defendant used to postpone the same on different pretext. Later on 07.01.2023 the defendant repaid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff and the same was endorsed on the backside of the said promissory note. Afterthat the plaintiff made many demands to repay the remaining amount together interest, but the defendant used to postpone the same. Vexed with his attitude the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 26.07.2024. Despite of it, dthe defendant did not choose to repay the due amount and the defendant became heavily indebted to several people and her financial position is steeply deteriorating day by day and is virtually is shambles. Thus there is no hope of recovery of due amount without the help of Hon’ble court.

Hence this suit.

3.Though summons were served upon the Defendant, written statement not filed and she did not make her appearance either personally or through her counsel. Hence, the defendant set Exparte on 28.07.2025.

3 OS No. 429 / 2025,

Dt:28.11.2025.

4.To prove the contentions of the plaintiff he himself examined as Pw1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and also examined Pw.2 on behalf of plaintiff.

5.Heard the learned Counsel for plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim as prayed for”?

2. To what relief?

7. POINT No.1:

It is the specific case of plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Seventy Thousand Only) from plaintiff on 28.08.2022 by executing promissory note. To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined as P.W.1, who filed the chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, in which he reiterated the contents of plaint. Through his evidence Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked and also examined

Pw.2/Reddybathula Sambi Reddy, who is attestor of the said promissory note.

8. On perusal of Ex.A1 it shows that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,70,000/- from plaintiff on 28.08.2022 and executed promissory note with a promise to repay the same with interest @ 12% p.a., payable either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. On 07.01.2023 the defendant repaid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff. On perusal of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 coupled with oral testimony of Pw.1 it shows that defendant borrowed the said amount from the plaintiff and failed to discharge the same even after repeated demands. To substantiate his version, the plaintiff examined one attestor of

Ex.A1 promissory note as Pw.2. Pw.2 in his evidence deposed after receiving the said consideration, the suit promissory note was scribed by one Kondapalli

Rama Rao, and the suit promissory note was attested by Pw.2 and 4 OS No. 429 / 2025,

Dt:28.11.2025.

consideration under Ex.A1 was passed in their presence, at the house of plaintiff at Cheruvumadhavaram Village, Nelakondapalli Mandal, Khammam

District. The oral testimony of Pw.1 & Pw.2 coupled with documentary evidence i.e. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 corroborated and remained unchallenged.

9. When the suit is filed basing on the promissory note, which is a negotiable instrument, a presumption U/sec.118 of the Act, has to be raised in favour of the plaintiff that the suit promissory note is executed by the defendant, duly after receiving of the consideration of the debt mentioned therein and for the terms agreed thereupon. Here in the present suit, the plaintiff got examined and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A3 on his behalf.

Ex.A.1/original promissory note is the primary evidence shows that there is transaction between P.W.1 and defendant. The presumption is a rebuttable one, but the defendants failed to set up her defence. Therefore, the oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to Ex.A3 remained unchallenged and unrebutted.

10In the circumstances of this case, when there is no rebuttal evidence on record, this court finds no reason to dis-believe the evidence of P.W.1 & Pw.2, when the Defendant choose to remain ex-parte. This Court believes in the evidence of P.W.1 and Pw.2 coupled with documentary evidence Ex.A1 to

Ex.A3. This suit is filed within the limitation period.

11.With the above observation, this court is of opinion that the Plaintiff proved his claim successfully and is entitled to recover the suit amount from the Defendant along with interest and costs. This point is answered in favour of Plaintiff.

5 OS No. 429 / 2025,

Dt:28.11.2025.

12. POINT NO.2:

In view of findings in Point No.1, this point is also answered accordingly in favour of the Plaintiff.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant for a sum of Rs.2,98,013/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety

Eight Thousand and Thirteen Only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a.

from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.2,70,000/- ( Rupees Two Lakhs and Seventy Thousand Only ).

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28th day of November, 2025.

FAC. V ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PROH AND EXCISE COURT

KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Pw.1: Yedida Bhaskara Charyulu - EXPARTE - Pw.2: Reddybathula Sambi Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Original Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- dated 28.08.2022

Ex.A2:Copy of legal notice, dated 26.07.2024

Ex.A3:Unserved postal cover along with acknowledgment dated 27.07.2024.

For Defendants: -Nil-

FAC. V ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PROH AND EXCISE COURT

KHAMMAM

6 OS No. 429 / 2025,

Dt:28.11.2025.

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE COURT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 28th day of November, 2025

PRESENT: SMT.B.NAGA LAKSHMI IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum- Spl. Mobile Court, Khammam. FAC. V Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Prohibition and Excise Court, Khammam.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 429 of 2025

Presented on : 18-06-2025 Filed on :18-06-2025. Between :

Yedida Bhaskara Charyulu, S/o. Subhadra Charyulu Late, aged. 50 years, occu: Agriculture & RMP, R/o. H.No.2-22, Cheruvumadhavaram Village, Nelakondapalli Mandal, Khammam District.

….. Plaintiff.

And

Kanamarlapudi Manikyamma, W/o. Late Saidulu, Aged.65 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Cheruvumadhavaram Village, Nelakondapalli Mandal, Khammam District. …… Defendant.

CLAIM FOR:

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs.2,98,013/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand and Thirteen Only) with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and to award costs of the suit.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION:

Cause of action arose on 28.08.2022, at Cheruvumadhavaram Village, Nelakondapalli Mandal, Khammam District, when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff and on 07.01.2023 when the defendant paid Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff, but the defendant failed to pay the remaining amount. The cause of action is continuing one. VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND COURT FEE:

This suit is valued at Rs.2,98,013/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Eight 7 OS No. 429 / 2025,

Dt:28.11.2025.

Thousand and Thirteen Only), upon which a court fee of Rs.5,426/- has to be paid U/sec.20 (b) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

DECREE

This suit is coming before me on 24-11-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Addanki Nageswara Rao, Ananthoju Narasimha Rao, Yalagandula Ravi, Learned counsels for the plaintiff and Defendant remain set Exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing this court doth order and decree:

1. That the suit be and is hereby decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff.

2. That the Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,98,013/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand and Thirteen Only) with subsequent interest @ 12 % P.A. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6 % P.A. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principle amount of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Seventy Thousand Only).

3. That the defendant do also pay as sum of Rs. …………... to plaintiff towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 28th day of November, 2025.

FAC V ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PROH EXCISE CASES,

KHAMMAM

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

1Stamps on plaint E 2Stamps on power X 3Stamps on process P 4Stamps on petitionsA 5Publication chargesR 6Stamps on documents T 7Advocate fee E 8Misc. & type charges--

Total Rs.--

FAC V ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PROH EXCISE CASES,

KHAMMAM.

CC.No. 3820 / 2022

page No.1 of 6 DT: 28 -11 -2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE COURT, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 28th day of November, 2025 Present: Smt.B.Naga Lakshmi Judl. Magistrate of I Class Spl. Mobile court, Khammam FAC. Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Prohibition & Excise Court, Khammam.

CC No. 3820 of 2022

BETWEEN

The State through Prohibition and Excise, Sub-Inspector, Singareni. …Complainant

AND

Azmeera Gamli, W/o. Bhav Singh, aged. 58 yrs, occu: Coolie, R/o. Baswapuram Village, Singareni Mandal.

...Accused.

This case coming before me on 28-11-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor representing the State through Prohibition & Excise, Singareni and Accused represented by Sri. G.Ravindra Naik, Advocate: upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a case filed by the Prohibition and Excise, Sub-Inspector, Singareni, in COR No.82/2021, for the offence punishable under section 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as per charge-sheet is as follows: On 24.09.2021, at around 11-10 AM, the LW3/L.Atcharao, Prohibition &

Excise, Sub-Inspector, DTF, Khammam, along with staff proceeded to

Baswapuram Village, Singareni Mandal, for conducting raids, there they secured two mediators Lw.1-Banoth Vijay and Lw.2-Keloth Bichu, while the raid

PAGE NO.1 OF 6

CC.No. 3820 / 2022

page No.2 of 6 DT: 28 -11 -2025 party was conducted raid and searched at the suspected places, who was going in a suspicious manner holding a bag and left the bag and ran away from the scene of offence on observing the raid party. Then the raid party stopped the accused and opened the bag in the presence of two mediators and found 01 polythene cover containing 02 liters ID liquor. They seized the contraband and immediately after securing Pw.3 and PW.4 conducted panchanama under Ex.P-5 and also drawn samples for chemical analysis. Then the raid party seized the contraband of the accused returned to Singareni, station along with case property and samples drawn. Thereafter, Arrested the accused and issued 41-A

Cr.PC to the accused. Later seized the property was produced before the

Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Khammam and the same was confiscated and in compliance with the orders issued thereof the ID liquor was destroyed on 11.05.2022 under cover of panchanama. On that Pw.1, registered the case in COR.No.82 of 2021 under section 7(A) Read with 8(e) of Telangana

Prohibition Act, 1995. Drawn samples were sent to the analyst. The analyst after due analysis opined that the samples are illicitly distilled liquor. After completion of investigation Lw.5/D.Vasanth Lakshmi, filed charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

4.On the appearance of accused was furnished copies of relevant documents and examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, the charges for the offences under Section 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 are framed against the accused. The contents of charges are read over and explained to her in Telugu. For which, the accused had denied the allegations made against her and claimed to be tried.

PAGE NO.2 OF 6

CC.No. 3820 / 2022

page No.3 of 6 DT: 28 -11 -2025

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined PW.1 to PW.4 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 marked. After closing the evidence on the prosecution side, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. She denied the incriminating evidence made against her in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

6.Heard arguments on behalf of the Learned APP and the Learned counsel

for the accused.

7.The Learned APP argues that, though the panch witnesses have not supported prosecution's case, the consistent evidence of Investigating officer/Pw.1 and detecting officer/Pw.2 amply proves the charges against the accused. On the other hand, the Learned counsel for the accused argues that as PW3 and Pw.4 turned to hostile, the evidence of Investigating officer/Pw.1 and detecting officer/Pw.2 can not be relied upon to show that the accused was found in possession of 02 liters of Illicitly Distilled Liquor.

8.Now, The points that arise for determination are:

i.Whether 01 polythene cover containing 02 liters of ID liquor was found from the possession of accused on 24.09.2021 ? ii. Whether the contraband said to be seized is Illicit Distilled Liquor ? iii. Whether the prosecution proved its case and established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 ?

POINT No.1 & 2:

9.It is specific case of prosecution and the evidence of PW.1 reveals that the accused was found while she was in possession of 02 liters of Illicitly Distilled

Liquor kept in 01 polythene cover. The PW3 and Pw.4 who are the panch witnesses for the alleged confession-cum-seizure panchanama on one hand

PAGE NO.3 OF 6

CC.No. 3820 / 2022

page No.4 of 6 DT: 28 -11 -2025 deposed before the court that Pw.3 and Pw.4 obtained their signatures on white papers and identified their signatures on Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 on panchanama and further deposed that police had never seized any ID liquor in their presence.

Thus, the PW3 and Pw.4 have not supported the prosecution case. Pw.3 and

Pw.4 denied conducting of panchanama and seizure of contraband by Pw.1 and

Pw.2. Thus the evidence of PW3 and Pw.4 does not supported the case of prosecution who turned to hostile.

10. The investigation officer failed to follow the procedure for search contemplated under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C while seizing 01 polythene cover containing 02 liters of Illicitly Distilled Liquor.

11. The evidence of PW.1 further reveals that they apprehended the accused and issued 41-A Cr.PC notice and destroyed the seized contraband after taking samples under cover of panchanama (Ex.P.3). Admittedly the contraband alleged to be seized was not produced before the court. Even the sample cover was also not produced and marked as material object during course of trial.

There is no iota of evidence so as to say that contraband was produced before

Deputy commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Khammam for disposal of property as per Act.

12. It is for the prosecution to prove that the contraband said to be seized is illicitly distilled liquor. The evidence of PW.1 it reveals that basing on panchanama he registered a case for the offence u/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

Telangana Prohibition Act, and issued COR No.82/2021 and handed over the case file for further investigation. In the course of investigation he send samples for chemical analysis and received chemical report and submitted confiscation proposal at Deputy Commissioner and received destruction order. Based on the order they destructed the seized property before the mediators and after

PAGE NO.4 OF 6

CC.No. 3820 / 2022

page No.5 of 6 DT: 28 -11 -2025 completion of investigation Lw.5/D.Vasantha Lakshmi, filed charge sheet. The evidence of Pw.2 it reveals that they secured Pw.3 and Pw.4 conducted seizure panchanama and drawn two samples 180 ML in the presence of Pw.3 and Pw.4 and obtained signatures of Pw.3 and Pw.4 on panchanama and brought the accused to the Excise Station, Singareni. Subsequently, he handed over the accused along with case file to Pw.1. The attested copy of Analyst report was exhibited as Ex.P.2. There is no acceptable evidence on record so as to say that the samples alleged to have drawn and the samples alleged to have been sent to the analyst are one and the same. In absence of such material it can not be said that the alleged samples drawn are illicitly distilled liquor.

13. As herein above stated, panch witnesses, who are said to have witnessed the recovery of contraband, have not supported the case of prosecution. So, once the evidence of PW3 and Pw.4 excluded there remains the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2. Pw.1 who is investigating officer, registered a case and Pw.2, who is detecting officer, drafted panchanama and

Lw.5/D.Vasantha Lakshmi, filed charge sheet. Pw.1 in his evidence deposed that, seized property was destroyed in presence of mediators, but the said mediators were not examined by the prosecution.

POINT No.3:

14.For the foregoing reasons, this court has no hesitation to come to conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition

Act, 1995 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer this point.

15.IN THE RESULT: The accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under sections 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995.

Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said

PAGE NO.5 OF 6

CC.No. 3820 / 2022

page No.6 of 6 DT: 28 -11 -2025 charge. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six (6) months from today under sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

There is no case property in this case as such no order has been passed with regard to the case property and the accused is set at liberty forthwith.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this is the 28 th day of November, 2025.

FAC. Spl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Prohibition And Excise Court, Khammam

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution : For Accused : None

PW1 :B.Venkataramana PW2 :L.Atcharao PW3 :Keloth Bichu. Pw4 :Banoth Vijay.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution : Ex.P1 :Crime and occurance Report

Ex.P2 :Attested copy of Chemical Analysis Report

Ex.P3 :Attested copy of Destruction order from deputy commissioner, Khammam Ex.P4 :Attested copy of Destruction panchanama

Ex.P 5 :Panchanama

Ex.P6 : Signature of Pw.3 on Panchanama

Ex.P7 : Signature of Pw.4 on Panchanama

FOR: DEFENDANT : Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

FAC. Spl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Proh And Excise Court, Khammam.

PAGE NO.6 OF 6

CC.No. 3253 / 2022

page No.1 of 6 DT: 28 -11 -2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE COURT, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 28th day of November, 2025

Present: Smt.B.Naga Lakshmi Judl. Magistrate of I Class Spl. Mobile court, Khammam FAC. Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Prohibition & Excise Court, Khammam.

CC No. 3253 of 2022

BETWEEN

The State through Prohibition and Excise, Sub-Inspector, Singareni. …Complainant

AND

Azmeera Gamli, W/o. Bhav Singh, aged. 58 yrs, occu: Coolie, R/o. Baswapuram Village, Singareni Mandal.

...Accused.

This case coming before me on 17-11-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor representing the State through Prohibition & Excise, Singareni and Accused represented by Sri. G.Ravindra Naik, Advocate: upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a case filed by the Prohibition and Excise, Sub-Inspector, Singareni, in COR No.74/2021, for the offence punishable under section 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

The case of the prosecution in brief as per charge-sheet is as

follows:

2.On 03.08.2021, at around 07-00 PM, the LW3/S.Kumara Swamy,

Prohibition & Excise, Sub-Inspector, Ac Enft, Khammam, along with staff proceeded to Baswapuram Village, Singareni Mandal, for conducting raids,

PAGE NO.1 OF 6

CC.No. 3253 / 2022

page No.2 of 6 DT: 28 -11 -2025 there they secured two mediators Lw.1-Banoth Veeru and Lw.2-Keloth Bichu, while the raid party was conducted raid and searched at the suspected places, who was going in a suspicious manner holding a bag and left the bag and ran away from the scene of offence on observing the raid party. Then the raid party stopped the accused and found 30 covers containing 100 ml of ID liquor each, total 03 liters of ID liquor. They seized the contraband and immediately after securing PW2 and PW.3 conducted panchanama under Ex.P-1 and also drawn samples for chemical analysis. Then the raid party seized the contraband of the accused returned to Singareni, station along with case property and samples drawn. Thereafter, Arrested the accused and issued 41-A Cr.PC to the accused.

Later seized the property was produced before the Deputy Commissioner,

Prohibition and Excise, Khammam and the same was confiscated and in compliance with the orders issued thereof the ID liquor was destroyed on 11.05.2022 under cover of destruction panchanama and the vehicle involved in this case will be put to public auction as per the orders issued thereof. On that

Pw.1, registered the case in COR.No.74 of 2021 under section 7(A) Read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995. Drawn samples were sent to the analyst. The analyst after due analysis opined that the samples are illicitly distilled liquor. After completion of investigation Lw.5/D.Vasanth Lakshmi, filed charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

4.On the appearance of accused was furnished copies of relevant documents and examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, the charges for the offences under Section 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 are framed against the accused. The contents of charges are read over and

PAGE NO.2 OF 6

CC.No. 3253 / 2022

page No.3 of 6 DT: 28 -11 -2025 explained to her in Telugu. For which, the accused had denied the allegations made against her and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined PW.1 to PW.3 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 marked. After closing the evidence on the prosecution side, the accused persons were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. She denied the incriminating evidence made against her in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

6.Heard arguments on behalf of the Learned APP and the Learned counsel

for the accused.

7.The Learned APP argues that, though the panch witnesses have not supported prosecution's case, the consistent evidence of Investigating officer/Pw.1 amply proves the charges against the accused. On the other hand, the Learned counsel for the accused argues that as PW2 and Pw.3 turned to hostile, the evidence of Investigating Officer/Pw.1 can not be relied upon to show that the accused was found in possession of 03 liters of Illicitly Distilled

Liquor.

8.Now, The points that arise for determination are:

i.Whether 03 liters of ID liquor was found from the possession of accused on 03.08.2021 ? ii. Whether the contraband said to be seized is Illicit Distilled Liquor ? iii. Whether the prosecution proved its case and established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 ?

POINT No.1 & 2:

9.It is specific case of prosecution and the evidence of PW.1 reveals that the accused was found while she was in possession of 03 liters of Illicitly Distilled

PAGE NO.3 OF 6

CC.No. 3253 / 2022

page No.4 of 6 DT: 28 -11 -2025

Liquor kept in a bog. The PW2 and Pw.3 who are the panch witnesses for the alleged confession-cum-seizure panchanama on one hand deposed before the court that Pw.2 and Pw.3 obtained their signatures on white papers and identified their signatures on Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 on panchanama and further deposed that police had never seized any ID liquor in their presence. Thus, the

PW2 and Pw.3 have not supported the prosecution case. Pw.2 and Pw.3 denied conducting of panchanama and seizure of contraband by Pw.1. Thus the evidence of PW2 and Pw.3 does not supported the case of prosecution who turned to hostile.

10. The investigation officer failed to follow the procedure for search contemplated under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C while seizing a bag containing 03 liters of Illicitly Distilled Liquor.

11. The evidence of PW.1 further reveals that they apprehended the accused and issued 41-A Cr.PC notice and destroyed the seized contraband after taking samples under cover of panchanama (Ex.P.4). Admittedly the contraband alleged to be seized was not produced before the court. Even the sample cover was also not produced and marked as material object during course of trial.

There is no iota of evidence so as to say that contraband was produced before

Deputy commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Khammam for disposal of property as per Act.

12. It is for the prosecution to prove that the contraband said to be seized is illicitly distilled liquor. The evidence of PW.1 it reveals that they seized said polythene covers and drawn samples of 180 Ml. Subsequently, Lw.3/S.Kumara

Swamy, conducted panchanama in the presence of Pw.2 and Pw.3 drawn samples for chemical analysis and obtained signatures of Pw.2 and Pw.3 on panchanama. Basing on panchanama he registered a case in COR No.74/2021

PAGE NO.4 OF 6

CC.No. 3253 / 2022

page No.5 of 6 DT: 28 -11 -2025 and issued COR for the offence u/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, and handed over the case file for further investigation. In the course of investigation he send samples for chemical analysis and received chemical report and submitted confiscation proposal at deputy Commissioner and received destruction order. Based on the order given by deputy commissioner

Proh and excise, they destructed the seized property before the mediators and after completion of investigation Lw.5/D.Vasantha Lakmi filed charge sheet. The attested copy of Analyst report was exhibited as Ex.P.3. There is no acceptable evidence on record so as to say that the samples alleged to have drawn and the samples alleged to have been sent to the analyst are one and the same. In absence of such material it can not be said that the alleged samples drawn are illicitly distilled liquor.

13.As herein above stated, panch witnesses, who are said to have witnessed the recovery of contraband, have not supported the case of prosecution. So, once the evidence of PW2 and Pw.3 excluded there remains the evidence of

Pw.1. Pw.1 who is investigating officer, registered a case and Lw.5/D.Vasantha

Laxmi filed charge sheet. Pw.1 in his evidence deposed that, seized property was destroyed in presence of mediators, but the said mediators were not examined by the prosecution.

POINT No.3:

14.For the foregoing reasons, this court has no hesitation to come to conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition

Act, 1995 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer this point.

PAGE NO.5 OF 6

CC.No. 3253 / 2022

page No.6 of 6 DT: 28 -11 -2025

15.IN THE RESULT: The accused is found not guilty for offence punishable under sections 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995.

Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six (6) months from today under sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

There is no case property in this case as such no order has been passed with regard to the case property and the accused is set at liberty forthwith.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this is the 28 th day of November, 2025.

FAC. Spl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Prohibition And Excise Court, Khammam

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution : For Accused : None

PW1 :B.Venkataramana PW2 :Banoth Veeru PW3 :Keloth Bichu.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution : Ex.P1 :Panchanama

Ex.P2:Crime and occurance Report

Ex.P3:Attested copy of Chemical Analysis Report

Ex.P4:Attested copy of Destruction order from deputy commissioner, Khammam Ex.P5:Attested copy of Destruction panchanama

Ex.P6: Signature of Pw.2 on Panchanama

Ex.P7: Signature of Pw.3 on Panchanama

FOR: DEFENDANT : Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

FAC. Spl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Proh And Excise Court, Khammam.

PAGE NO.6 OF 6