Sri Bande Subhan

1

APCH050001532022

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: MADANAPALLE

PRESENT: BANDE SUBHAN,

Principal Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madanapalle. FAC I Additional Judicial magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle.

Tuesday, this the 5 th day of May, 2026.

C alendar C ase No. 100 of 2022 .

[Crime No.06 of 2022 of B. Kothakota Police Station.]

State: Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, B. Kothakota Police Station. … Complainant.

-Vs-

1. Sunapagutta @ Chinnakamireddy Ashok Kumar, aged about 35 years, S/o S.V. Ramana, Hindu, working as a Duty Operator, at

Rangasamudram, Sub-Station, P.T.M. Mandal. Residing at D. No.

11-137/1-17, Byepass road, near Bhagavan Sairam School, B.

Kothakota Town and Mandal.

2. S. Venkataramana, aged about 70 years, S/o Subbanna, Retired driver in APSRTC. Residing at D. No. 11-137/1-17, Bypass road, near Bhagavan Sairam School, B. Kothakota Town and Mandal.

3. S. Lakshmidevi, aged 65 years, W/o S.V. Ramana, Residing at D.

No. 11-137/1-17, Bypass road, near Bhagavan Sairam School, B.

Kothakota Town and Mandal.

... Accused A1 to A3.

2

* * * * *

This case coming up on 30.04.2026 this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor, Madanapalle

for Complainant and Sri Y.V. Sesha Reddy, Advocate for Accused and

upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides on hearing both sides and having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, B. Kothakota Police Station filed a charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 3 alleging that they committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

a) That A1/Sunnapugutta @ Chinnakamireddy Ashok Kumar is son of

A2/Venkataramana, A3/Lakshmidevi. PW-1/LW-1/Sivala Pavitra is daughter of PW-2/LW-2/Sivala Reddeppa.

b) On 17.06.2018 the marriage of PW-1 was solemnized with A1 as per the rites and customs of Hindu religion in the presence of elders

PW-3/LW-3/S.Kittanna, PW-4/LW-4/Venkata Reddy, PW-5/LW-5/T.

Narayanaswamy and other friends and relatives at Sri.

Venkateswara Kalyanamandapam, B. Kothakota Town and Mandal.

c) That at the time of marriage, the parents of PW-1 presented gold ornament to PW-1 and A1, besides cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- as dowry to A1 and Rs. 1,00,000/- marriage expenses and also one iron safe locker and house hold articles worth Rs. 50,000/-. After the marriage, LW-1 and A1 lived happily for a period of six months.

Thereafter, the accused party harassed PW-1 physically and 3 mentally for additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On that PW-1 informed the same to her parents and they arranged only Rs.

50,000/- and the same was given to A1 in the presence of elders

PWs 3 to 5. But, A1 used to come to house in the late nights by consuming alcohol in a drunken mood, and he used to abuse PW-1 with filthy language and used to beat her indiscriminately. A1 having illegal contact with other ladies and he was always talking with them through phone, when questioned A1 about the same, he used to beat LW-1 and abuses her in filthy language, A2 and A3 also supported to A1 and they also beat PW-1.

d) That A1 again demanded additional dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- to him for business purpose and pressurized PW-1 to bring the same from her parents. For which PW-1 informed the same to her parents they expressed their inability.

e) That as PW-1 was unable to tolerate the harassment of A1 to A3, in the year 2020, she left the house of A1 to A3 and went to her parents’ house along with her daughter and now she is staying there. Later, PWs 3 to 5 went to the house of A1 to A3 and convened a panchayath and convened the accused party that the parents of PW-1 are not in a capacity to pay the additional dowry of

Rs. 2,00,000/- as demanded by them. They also chastised A1 to A3 to look after PW-1 with care and not to harass PW-1. But, A1 to A3 did not listen their words and they also abused to the PWs 3 to 5 and they did not allow PW-1 to live with them until PW-1 bring

additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. But, there is no change in the

attitude A1 to A3 and PW-1 waited with a fond hope that A1 may took her. But, A1 did not took PW-1 to his house, even though PW-1 requested him over phone to took her along with him, but he paid deaf ear.

f) That on 13.01.2022 at 5.30 PM, PW-1 lodged a report to police.

Basing on the report PW-6/LW-6/K. Ramamohan, Sub-Inspector of 4

Police registered a case in Cr.No.06 of 2022, under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act read with Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. in B. Kothakota Police

Station. On 14.01.2022 PW-6/LW-6 examined witnesses and recorded their detailed statements and seized wedding card and one color photo containing the complainant and A1 to A3, under a cover of police proceedings. During the course of investigation on 16.01.2022 served the notice under Section 41 (A) Cr.P.C on A1 to

A3. After completion of investigation, PW-6/LW-6 filed charge- sheet. Hence, the charge-sheet.

3. After perusal of the charge sheetand connected documents thereon, this Court took cognizance of the case against A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34

IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and issued summons to them. On appearance of A1 to A3 before the Court, they were supplied with copies of case documents as mandated under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. On 29.03.2023, the accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.PC and charges leveled against them for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

5. The prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined three witnesses as PWs 1 to 6 out of all the witnesses cited in the memo of evidence and got marked four documents as Exhibits P1 to P9in all to bring home the guilt of accused party, later the prosecution reported that their evidence is closed.

6. After completion of prosecution side evidence, A1 to A3 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the 5 incriminating evidence appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu and they denied the evidence as false and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7. The learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that from the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 6 coupled with Exhibits P1 to P9 clearly proved the guilt of the accused party beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 156 (3) of

Cr.P.C. and prayed to convict the accused party.

8. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that A1 to A3 are innocents, they did not commit any offence and all the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and so, prayed to acquit the accused party.

9.In view of the rival contentions of both sides, the entire evidence is perused.

10. Now the point for determination is:

Whether prosecution has established the case against the

Accused 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A

read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. To determine the above-mentioned point and to reach a judicial decision on the same, let the court to discuss the evidence on record.

12. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 6 and got marked four documents as Exhibits P1 to P9. PW-1 is defacto-complainant. PW-2 is father of PW-1. PWs 3 to 5 are village elders. PW-6 is Investigation Officer. Exhibit P1 is the report of PW-1. Exhibit P2 is positive photograph. Exhibit P3 is the 6 original wedding card. Exhibits P4 to P7 are Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements of PW-2 to PW-5. Exhibit P8 is the First Information

Report. Exhibit P9 is the police proceedings.

13. Coming to the evidence of PW-1, during her examination in chief she deposed in the same lines of the charge-sheet averments about her marriage with A1 and alleged harassment of accused party for want of

additional dowry and lodging of Ex.P1 report to police along with

submission of Exs.P2 and P3 to police. Surprisingly, during cross- examination, PW-1 testified that A1 is her estranged husband; that soon after marriage, she joined with A1 and lived with him along with

A2 and A3 at her matrimonial home; that during their wedlock they blessed with a baby girl by name Karthika Reddy; that after two years of marriage, some differences arose between her and A1; that PW-1 and A1 approached the village elders to convene a panchayat in the presence of their respective parents; that by that time, the village elders obtained the signatures of PW-1 on some written papers but she does not know its contents; that the accused party never demanded her for additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-; that her parents did not arrange Rs. 50,000/- towards additional dowry to the accused party; that the accused party incurred the medical expenses during her delivery on 29.07.2019; that A1 is not having any extra marital relationship with any other woman; that A1 to A3 never denied any food to her as well as her female girl at any point of time; that A1 to A3 never demanded additional dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/-and they never abused her with filthy language and they never assaulted her or her daughter at any point of time; that the accused party never necked her out of the house for want of additional dowry; that she was not examined by the police; and that due to fear of police and her parents, she stated adversely against A1 to A3 in her examination in chief.

During her cross-examination by the prosecution, nothing has been elicited against A1 to A3.

7

14. PW-2 to PW-5 also did not support the case of prosecution. Their evidence is in the same lines as that of PW-1. Though the prosecution treated them hostile and confronted them with their previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., nothing worthwhile was elicited to support the prosecution case.

15. PW-5 who is investigation officer in this case, deposes about registration of case under Ex.P6 FIR and seizure of Exs.P2 and P3 from PW-1 under Ex.P7 police proceedings, recording of statements of

PW-2 to PW-5 and filing of chargesheet. The evidence of PW-6, the

Investigating Officer, is only formal in nature.

16. POINT:

To bring home an offence under Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution must establish that the woman was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of the Explanation appended to Section 498-A IPC. Likewise, for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, there must be cogent and reliable evidence regarding giving, taking or demand of dowry.

17. In the present case, there is absolutely no reliable and convincing evidence to establish either the demand of additional dowry or cruelty.

The material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. No independent corroborative evidence is forthcoming. It is well settled that in criminal jurisprudence, the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt whenever serious infirmities exist in the prosecution case.

18. As seen from the record, the evidence adduced by prosecution suffers from material contradictions and omissions. PW-1, who is stated to be victim in this case did not support the prosecution. The statements of

PW-2 to PW-5 as Ex.P3 to P.7 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

8 are not substantive pieces of evidence and they can be used only for the limited purpose of contradiction under Section 145 of the Indian

Evidence Act. Mere marking of previous statements does not amount to proof of the facts stated therein.

19. The evidence of PW-6, the Investigating Officer, is only formal in nature. The Investigating Officer cannot improve the prosecution case in the absence of substantive evidence from material witnesses. The testimony of hostile witnesses does not inspire confidence to base conviction. In the absence of trustworthy evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with

Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

20. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. No property is produced in this case, hence no orders regarding the property.

Partly dictated to Adalat AI and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Bande Subhan

Principal Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madanapalle. FAC I Additional Judicial magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 1

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW No. Name of the Witness Description

PW-1S. PavithraDefacto-complainant.

PW-2S. ReddeppaFather of PW-1.

PW-3S. KittannaVillage elder.

PW-4S. Venkata ReddyVillage elder.

PW-5T. NarayanaswamyVillage elder.

PW-6K. Ram MohanInvestigation Officer.

FOR DEFENCE:

DW No. Name of the Witness Description -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Proved by/ Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit Attested by

Exhibit P1:Complaint of PW-1.PW-1

Exhibit P2:Positive photograph.PW-1

Exhibit P3:Original wedding card.PW-1

Exhibit P4:Sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW-2.PW-2

Exhibit P5:Sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW-3.PW-3

Exhibit P6:Sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW-4PW-4

Exhibit P7:Sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW-5.PW-5

Exhibit P8:First Information Report.PW-6

Exhibit P9:Police proceedings.PW-6

FOR DEFENCE:

1

As per the guidelines of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in ‘Manojbhai Jethabhai

Parmar (Rohit) vs. State of Gujarat’ reported in 2025 INSC 1433.

10

Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O. No. Description Proved by/Attested by

-NIL-

Sd/- Bande Subhan

Principal Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madanapalle. FAC I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle.

11

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: MADANAPALLE

Calendar in C.C. No. 100 of 2022

Date of offence: Prior to 13.01.2022 Date of complaint: 13.01.2022 Date of taken on cognizance: 31.01.2022 Date of appearance of accused : 27.04.2022 Date of commencement of trial: 03.10.2023 Date of closure of trial: 30.04.2026 Explanation for delay: No delay Date of sentence or order: 05.05.2026 Details of complainant: State: Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, B. Kothakota Police Station. Details of Accused: 1. Sunapagutta @ Chinnakamireddy Ashok Kumar, aged about 35 years, S/ o S.V. Ramana, Hindu, working as a Duty Operator, at Rangasamudram, Sub-Station, P.T.M. Mandal. Residing at D. No. 11-137/1-17, Byepass road, near Bhagavan Sairam School, B. Kothakota Town and Mandal.

2. S. Venkataramana, aged about 70 years, S/o Subbanna, Retired driver in APSRTC. Residing at D. No. 11-137/1- 17, Bypass road, near Bhagavan Sairam School, B. Kothakota Town and Mandal.

3. S. Lakshmidevi, aged 65 years, W/o S.V. Ramana, Residing at D. No. 11- 137/1-17, Bypass road, near Bhagavan Sairam School, B. Kothakota Town and Mandal.

Nature of offence: Harrassed for additional Dowry. Section of law: under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty. Finding of the Court: Found not guilty for the offence under Section 498- A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of 12

Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C Sentence or order:In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. No property is produced in this case, hence no orders regarding the property.

Sd/- BANDE SUBHAN,

Principal Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madanapalle. FAC I Additional Judicial magistrate of I Class, Madnapalle. Copy Submitted to: The Hon`ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

APCH050017222023 1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, MADANAPALLE.

PRESENT: BANDE SUBHAN,

Principal Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Madanapalle.

Thursday, this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

P reliminary R egistered C ase No. 22 of 2023.

(Crime No.394 of 2022 of Taluk Police Station, Madanapalle)

BETWEEN:

The State Represented by Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluk Police Station, Madanapalle.

…..Complainant.

And

1. Suguri Srinivasulu, aged about 37 years, S/o late S.Lavanna, Cultivation,

R/at Gollapalli Village, H/o Rachavetivaripalli, Nimmanapalli Mandal,

2. Pasem Ganesh, aged about 24 years, S/o P.Ramakrishna, Driver, R/at

Challavaripalle Village, H/o Mustoor, Nimmanapalli Mandal,

3. Edadala Dhanunjeya, aged about 38 years, S/o E.Veerappa, Coolie, R/at

Edadalavaripalle Village, H/o Kamireddi Garipalle, Somala Mandal,

Chittoor District.

4. Shaik Mahammod, aged about 20 years, S/o late S.Mahaboob Basha,

Coolie, Challavaripalle Village, H/o Mustoor, Nimmanapalli Mandal.

APCH050017222023 2

5. Nandinayani Vishnupriya, aged about 28 years, W/o late N.Krishnamurthy,

Coolie, R/at Toppannagaripalle Village H/o Kanduru, Somala Mandal,

Chittoor District.

6. Kundeti Aparna @ Appu, aged about 26 years, W/o late K.Chandrasekhar,

Coolie, R/at Nallagutlapalle, H/o Vempalle, Madanapalle Mandal,

7. Nanabalasai @ Sai Madan, aged about 22 years, S/o N.Ramana, Auto

Driver, R/at Navyodaya Colony, H/o Valasapalle, Madanapalle Mandal.

…. Accused A1 to A7.

* * * * *

This case came for final hearing before me in the presence of learned

Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of Prosecution and the

Accused A1 to A7 appeared, and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

:: COMMITTAL ORDER ::

1. The State represented through its Inspector of Police, Madanapalle Taluk

Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.394 of 2022 of Madanapalle

Taluk Police Station against the A1 to A7 for the offence punishable under

Section 120(B), 302, 201, 212 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for brevity).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, as unfolded in the charge sheet, are as follows:

APCH050017222023 3

a) That A-1 to A-7 are close associates and were allegedly acting in concert with each other. The deceased, namely Jengiti Ramesh, aged about 27 years, S/o J. Venkataramana, was a resident of Gollapalli

Village, H/o Rachavetivaripalli of Nimmanapalli Mandal. LW-2/Jengiti

Mallikarjuna is the elder brother of the deceased. LW-3/Aggolla Aruna is the elder sister of the deceased. LW-4/Jengiti Reddyeswara and LW- 5/Majjiga Janakiram are relatives of the deceased.

b) That on 27.12.2022 at about 12:30 PM, LW-1/Jengiti Venkataramana presented a report before LW-30/A. Sathyanarayana, stating that his younger son Jengiti Ramesh was working as a driver and was also attending domestic work at his residence as well as at the house of his daughter LW-3/Aggolla Aruna residing at Madanapalle. It is alleged that about seven months prior to the incident, the deceased Jengiti Ramesh along with his elder brother Subramanyam and others were involved in the murder of one S.L. Venkataramana of their village on the allegation that the said S.L. Venkataramana was having illicit intimacy with one

Reddemma, daughter-in-law of LW-1. Since then, disputes and enmity allegedly existed between the family of LW-1 and the family members and relatives of the deceased S.L. Venkataramana.

c) That on 26.12.2022, the deceased Jengiti Ramesh went for work as a driver of a Bolero vehicle belonging to LW-5/Majjiga Janakiram near

Kattubhavi of Madanapalle Mandal. After unloading cement bags at

Gollapalle village, the deceased left on a motorcycle bearing No.AP-39-

GP-6864 belonging to LW-5 and reached the house of LW-3/Aggolla

APCH050017222023 4 Aruna at Madanapalle at about 7:00 PM. After speaking with her, he left the place without informing anybody about his destination. However, he did not return either to his residence or to the house of LW-3 and his mobile phone was found switched off from the night of 26.12.2022.

d) That on 27.12.2022 at about 10:00 AM, LW-1 came to know that the torso of his son Jengiti Ramesh, without head, was found lying in a mango garden situated in front of VISTA Processed Foods Factory on the southern side of Madanapalle-Bangalore Main Road, Madanapalle

Mandal. Immediately, LW-1 along with LW-2/Jengiti Mallikarjuna, LW- 3/Aggolla Aruna and other relatives rushed to the spot and identified the torso by noticing the tattoo mark in the shape of “Thrishulam” engraved on the right hand of the deceased. A motorcycle bearing No.AP-39-GP- 6864 was also found lying near the torso. Entertaining suspicion against

1) Srinivasulu, 2) Chinnamallaiah, both sons of Suguri Lavanna, 3)

Sirasani Venkataramana, 4) Manikanta S/o Venkataramana, 5) Suguri

Pedda Mallaiah and 6) Siddamallu of Gollapalle village, on account of prior enmity relating to the earlier murder of S.L. Venkataramana, LW-1 requested the police to take necessary action.

e) That basing on the report of LW-1/Jengiti Venkataramana, a case in

Crime No.394 of 2022 of Madanapalle Taluk Police Station was registered on 27.12.2022 at 12:35 PM for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC and investigation was taken up by LW-30/A.

Sathyanarayana. During the course of investigation, LW-30 visited the scene of offence, examined the scene in the presence of LW-1 and

APCH050017222023 5 other witnesses, and seized the motorcycle bearing No.AP-39-GP-6864 and chappals of the deceased under the cover of scene observation and seizure mahazar dated 27.12.2022 in the presence of mediators LW- 18/Jagadam Karunanidhi and LW-20/Majjiga Venkataramana. LW-30 also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence and conducted inquest over the torso of the deceased in the presence of LWs.18 to 20 between 2:30 PM and 5:30 PM on 27.12.2022.

f) That during investigation, LW-30 examined LW-1 to LW-5 and other witnesses including LW-6/Maneri Venkataramana, LW-7/Varadamchetty

Raja, LW-8/Guttha Radhakrishna Naidu and LW-9/Putaka Rajasekhar and recorded their statements. LW-9 photographed the scene of offence and the torso of the deceased and the photographs were seized under police proceedings dated 27.12.2022.

g) That LW-30 formed special teams to trace the head of the deceased and the persons involved in the offence. On credible information, on 29.12.2022 at about 1:15 PM near Rachavetivaripalle Cross, LW-30 apprehended A-1/Suguri Srinivasulu in the presence of mediators LW- 18/Jagadam Karunanidhi and LW-24/Musturu Bharath. During interrogation, A-1 allegedly confessed that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with A-2/P. Ganesh for elimination of the deceased on contract basis by promising to pay Rs.3,00,000/- and had already paid Rs.60,000/- in advance on several occasions. His motorcycle TVS

XL Super Heavy Duty bearing No.AP-03 AF-5220 and a cell phone were seized.

APCH050017222023 6

h) That pursuant to the confession of A-1, LW-30 proceeded to

Paresuvaripalle bus shelter and arrested A-2/Pasem Ganesh,

A-3/Edadala Dhanunjeya and A-4/Shaik Mohammad on 29.12.2022 at about 3:00 PM in the presence of mediators LW-18 and LW-24. During interrogation, A-2 to A-4 allegedly confessed that, acting on the instructions of A-1, they planned and executed the murder of Jengiti

Ramesh. It is alleged that A-2 contacted A-5/Nandinayani Vishnupriya, and on her directions, A-6/Kundeti Aparna @ Appu and A-7/Nanabala

Sai @ Sai Madan facilitated the deceased being brought to the mango garden near VISTA Processed Foods Private Limited on 26.12.2022 at about 7:30 PM. Thereafter, A-2 and A-3 allegedly hacked the deceased with sickles, severed his head and caused his death, while A-4 allegedly kept watch and assisted them.

i) That after commission of the offence, A-2 to A-4 carried away the severed head, bloodstained clothes and weapons, and later showed the severed head to A-1 near Bahuda Channel, where A-1 allegedly paid an

additional amount of Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, the accused allegedly

changed their clothes, concealed the bloodstained clothes and weapons in bushes near Anjaneyaswamy Temple on Nimmanapalle-Thavalam

Road and later burnt the severed head and cell phone of the deceased by pouring petrol near Gundlapalle Venkataramana barren lands at

Vengamvaripalle. The partly burnt head was subsequently recovered by the police at the instance of A-2.

APCH050017222023 7

j) That LW-30 conducted inquest over the partly burnt head on 29.12.2022 in the presence of LW-21/Bhimavaram Rajanikanth, LW-22/Thoti

Srinivasulu and LW-23/Peddasani Sharath Kumar Reddy and thereafter sent A-1 to A-4 to judicial remand. Basing on the confession statements of A-1 to A-4, the earlier suspects namely Suguri Chinnamallaiah,

Sirasani Venkataramana, Manikanta, Suguri Pedda Mallaiah and

Siddamallu were deleted from the array of accused.

k) That on 31.12.2022, LW-30 arrested A-5/Nandinayani Vishnupriya and

A-6/Kundeti Aparna @ Appu at Toppannagaripalle Village and seized their mobile phones and the TVS Scooty bearing No.AP-03 CC-4993.

On the same day, A-7/Nanabala Sai @ Sai Madan was arrested at

Navyodaya Colony, H/o Valasapalle, Madanapalle Mandal and his VIVO mobile phone and Bajaj auto bearing No.AP-03 TG-0049 were seized.

According to the prosecution, A-5 to A-7 admitted that they assisted A-1 to A-4 in commission of the offence and that A-5 provided shelter to A-2 and A-6 after the occurrence without disclosing the incident to anybody.

l) That during further investigation, Sections 120-B and 212 IPC were added to the case. The torso and the partly burnt head of the deceased were shifted to S.V.Medical College, Tirupati for postmortem examination. LW-28/Dr. V. Bharathi, Assistant Professor, Department of

Forensic Medicine, S.V.Medical College, Tirupati conducted autopsy and, after receipt of RFSL report, opined that the cause of death was due to “multiple chop wounds”.

APCH050017222023 8

m) That during police custody of A-2 to A-4 obtained on 07.01.2023, the accused allegedly led the police party and mediators to various places connected with the offence, including the scene of offence, the shop from where chilli powder was allegedly purchased prior to the offence, the place where bloodstained clothes and weapons were concealed and the place where the severed head and mobile phone were allegedly burnt. The bloodstained clothes, sickles, ash and burnt cell phone pieces were seized under mediators’ reports.

n) That LW-30 examined LW-11/Bukke Shankar Naik, Security Supervisor of VISTA Processed Foods Private Limited, LW-12, the petty shop owner from whom chilli powder was allegedly purchased, LW-13/S.

Murudha Mani, owner of “Kalakata Cotton Bazaar”, and LW-14/Bake

Surendra Babu and recorded their statements. The seized material objects were sent to RFSL, Ananthapuram and SFSL, Amaravathi for chemical analysis.

o) That according to the prosecution, LW-15/Dimmiri Mohan and

LW-16/Gownivandla Srinivasulu stated that on 02.04.2023 they saw A-1 and A-2 conversing at Bandalpai village and at that time A-1 allegedly paid the balance contract amount to A-2 in connection with the murder of the deceased.

p) That the deceased Jengiti Ramesh was arrayed as A-2 in Crime

No.61/2022 of Nimmanapalle Police Station relating to the murder of

S.L. Venkataramana, who was the younger brother of A-1 herein. The

APCH050017222023 9 prosecution relies upon the said earlier incident as motive for the present offence.

q) That LW-29/M. Sudharani, Scientific Assistant, RFSL, Ananthapuram, opined that human blood was detected on the bloodstained clothes and weapons seized during investigation, though the blood group could not be determined. It was also opined that the seized material mixed with soil was chilli powder.

r) That on the basis of the material collected during investigation, the investigating officer concluded that there exists prima facie material against A-1 to A-7 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 and 212 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly laid charge sheet against them.

3. After perusal of the charge sheet and connected documents thereon, this

Court took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under

Sections 120 (B), 302, 201, 212 IPC read with 34 IPC against the accused A1 to A7 and issued summons to them.

4. The record further discloses that A1 was released on bail as per orders in

Crl.M.P. No. 192 of 2023 dated 28.03.2023 of the Hon`ble II Additional

District Judge’s Court, Madanapalle. A2 to A4 were released on bail as per

orders in Crl.M.P. No. 193 of 2023 dated 03.03.2023 of the Hon`ble II

Additional District Judge’s Court, Madanapalle. A5 and A6 were released

on bail as per orders in Crl.M.P. No. 201 of 2023 dated 29.03.2023 of the

APCH050017222023 10

Hon`ble II Additional District Judge’s Court, Madanapalle. A7 was released

on bail as per orders in Crl.M.P. No. 151 of 2023 dated 28.03.2023 of the

Hon`ble II Additional District Judge’s Court, Madanapalle.

5. After appearance of the accused A1 to A7 upon receipt of summons, the case copies of the charge-sheet and the documents relied upon by the prosecution, as required under law, have been supplied to A1 to A7. The accused were heard on the question of committal.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the entire records.

7. On a careful perusal of the charge sheet and accompanying material, the offences alleged include Section 302 IPC, which is exclusively triable by a

Court of Session. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to conduct the trial and the case is required to be committed to the Court of Session in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is inclined to commit this case to Hon`ble Sessions Court, Chittoor under Section 209(a) of Cr.P.C.

8. The Office is directed to submit the case property under CPR No. 23 of 2023, documents and other records if any, to the Hon`ble Sessions Court,

Chittoor under Section 209(c) of Cr.P.C.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor is hereby notified under Section 209(d) of

Cr.P.C, about the committal of the case.

10. When A1 to A7 are questioned about means, they submitted that they have means to engage counsel to conduct trial of the case before the Hon`ble

APCH050017222023 11

Sessions Court, Chittoor. Since A1 to A7 are on bail, their bail bonds and

surety bonds shall stand and continue to appear before the Court of

Session, subject to the orders of the said Court.

11. In the result, the case against the A1 to A7 is committed to the Hon’ble

Sessions Court, Chittoor under Section 209(a) of Cr.P.C, as the offence

alleged against the A1 to A7 under Sections 120(B), 302, 201, 212 r/w 34 of

IPC, which is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Chittoor. As A1 to A7 were already released on bail they may continue on the same until conclusion of trial or further order passed by Hon’ble Sessions Court as contemplated under Section 209(b) of Cr.P.C. The office is directed to submit the case records, case property and other material if any, to the Hon’ble

Sessions Court, Chittoor under Section 209(c) of Cr.P.C. The office is directed to

notify commitment of this case to the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor as contemplated under Section 209(d) of Cr.P.C. The A1 to A7 are directed to appear before the Hon`ble Sessions Court, Chitttoor after receipt of summons.

Partly dictated to Adalat Ai and partly typed to my dictation by the Additional Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- BANDE SUBHAN,

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Madanapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- Nil -

Sd/- BANDE SUBHAN,

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Madanapalle.

APCH050000052022 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

MADANAPALLE.

Present: BANDE SUBHAN,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle

Thursday, this the 7 th day of May, 2026.

Execution Petition No. 04 of 2022

in

O riginal S uit No. 227 of 2018.

Between:

P.Babu Suresh Naidu, S/o late Siddalingam Naidu, aged about 45 years, R/at

D.No.15/1/67A, Shivaji Nagar, CTM Road, Madanapalle.

...Decree Holder.

And

G.Roop Kumar, S/o Venkatesu, aged about 33 years, Business, R/at D.No.3- 189-21-A, Vijayanagar Colony, Cheegalagutta, Madanapalle, C/o R.K.Hotel,

Opp. To Market Yard, Kadiri Road, Madanapalle.

...Judgment Debtor.

* * * * *

This suit came up on 24.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Bhujanga Rao, Advocate for the Decree Holder (DHR)and

Sri. S.Ramgopal Rao, Advocate for the Judgment Debtor (JDR) and having stood over till this day for consideration. Upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing learned counsel for plaintiff, this Court delivered the following.

APCH050000052022 2

:: O R D E R ::

1. This Execution Petition is filed by the Decree Holder (hereinafter will be referred as ‘DHR’ for brevity) under Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to direct the Judgment Debtor (hereinafter will be referred as ‘JDR’ for brevity) to pay the E.P. amount, failing which to commit the JDR to civil prison till discharge of the decretal amount.

2. The contention of the petitioner/DHR in brief is as follows:

a) That after passing of the decree, the DHR demanded the JDR to pay the decretal amount. However, the JDR failed to discharge the decree debt.

b) That the JDR is doing real estate business and earning about 5,00,000/-₹ per month. The JDR owns houses situated at Vidyanagar Colony and

YSR Colony each worth about 25,00,000/-. The JDR is carrying on₹ seasonal businesses and earning substantial income.

c) That despite having sufficient means and capacity, the JDR is intentionally evading payment of the decretal amount. Hence, the present petition is filed seeking arrest and detention of the JDR in civil prison.

3. Per contra, the respondent/JDR filed a counter specifically denied

ownership of any houses and also denied doing any real estate or

seasonal business and further contended as follows:

a) That the JDR is suffering from health issues and is unable to do strenuous work. He is residing in a rented house and eking out livelihood by running a rental auto.

APCH050000052022 3

b) That the income earned by the JDR is not even sufficient to meet his medical expenses. He had already filed insolvency proceedings in I.P.

No.7 of 2022 and notice therein was served on the DHR.

c) That JDR has no present means to satisfy the decree debt and is dependent even upon his aged parents. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the

Execution Petition.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the entire case record.

5. Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the DHR is entitled to the relief of arrest and detention of the

JDR in civil prison for realization of the decretal amount?”

6. During the course of enquiry, the DHR himself was examined as PW-1 and

Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked on his side. Ex.P1 is online copy of registration certificate standing in the name of the JDR relating to Bajaj

Autorikshaw bearing No.AP39TP7210. Ex.P2 is property tax receipt standing in the name of JDR’s father by name G. Venkatesh relating to house bearing Door No.3/149/537/82 situated in Indramakalani Revenue

Ward No.3 of Madanapalle. Ex.P3 is online copy of registration certificate standing in the name of JDR relating to Bajaj Maxima-Z CNG Autorikshaw bearing No.AP39VA8915. Ex.P4 is another property tax receipt standing in the name of the father of the JDR issued by Madanapalle Municipality.

7. On behalf of the JDR, the JDR himself was examined as RW-1. No documents were marked on his behalf.

APCH050000052022 4

8. POINT:

As seen from the record, a decree was passed in favour of the DHR and against the JDR in O.S. No. 459 of 2017. There is nothing on record to show that the said decree or judgment was challenged before any appellate forum.

Therefore, the decree has attained finality and is executable.

9. It is pertinent to note that under Section 51 CPC, arrest and detention of a judgment debtor in civil prison can be ordered only if the Court is satisfied that the judgment debtor has sufficient means to pay the decretal amount and has refused or neglected to pay the same. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in Jolly George Varghese vs. Bank of Cochin 1 held that mere non- payment of decretal amount is not sufficient to order arrest and detention of a judgment debtor unless there is proof of present means and wilful refusal to pay.

10.Keeping the above settled principle in view, the evidence on record requires careful appreciation. In the present case, the DHR examined himself as PW- 1 and categorically deposed regarding the properties and income of the JDR.

It is settled principle of law that before ordering arrest and detention of a judgment debtor in civil prison under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC, the Court must be satisfied that the judgment debtor has sufficient means to pay the decretal amount and despite having such means, he is refusing or neglecting to pay the same. Mere existence of a decree is not sufficient to order arrest of the judgment debtor. The burden initially lies upon the decree holder to establish the means and capacity of the judgment debtor.

1AIR 1980 SC 470.

APCH050000052022 5

11.In the present case, the specific allegation of the DHR is that the JDR is doing real estate business, seasonal business and earning substantial income and also possessing valuable immovable properties. However, except making bald allegations, no documentary evidence whatsoever is placed before the Court to establish that the JDR is engaged in real estate business or that he owns any immovable properties. During cross- examination, PW-1 himself admitted that he did not file any documentary proof to show that the JDR is having immovable properties or that he is doing real estate business. Therefore, the major allegations made in the execution petition remain unsubstantiated.

12.It is to be noted that, the property tax receipts filed under Exs.P2 and P4 stand in the name of the father of the JDR and not in the name of the JDR himself. Therefore, those documents cannot be treated as proof of ownership or means of the JDR. However, it is pertinent to note that Exs.P1 and P3 clearly disclose that two autorikshaws stand in the name of the JDR. More importantly, during cross-examination, RW-1 categorically admitted that both the autos are standing in his name even as on date. He further admitted that he has been running auto business since four years and is also working as a driver of cars earning batta of 700/- per day₹. RW-1 further admitted that the first auto is worth about 2,70,000/- and the second auto is worth about₹ ₹2,65,000/-. These admissions clearly establish that the JDR possesses movable assets and is earning income through driving and auto business.

APCH050000052022 6

13. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon`ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh in Bathula Ravi Kumar Reddy vs. Shaik

Masthan Vali 2, wherein it was held as follows:

“After the decree in O.S.No.130 of 2006 became final, the petitioner filed the E.P. to recover the amount. The E.P. was filed under Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C. In matters of this nature, the initial burden to show that the judgment debtor was possessed of adequate means, rests upon the decree holder. However, the burden is not the one of the nature to prove the facts in issue, or relevant facts in the suit. It would be sufficient if the decree holder broadly indicates the nature of properties owned or means possessed by the judgment debtor. Beyond that, he cannot be expected to have perfect and complete knowledge about the resources of the judgment debtor. Added to that, much would depend upon the version that may be put forward by the judgment debtor. It is the combined examination of these two, that would decide the result of the E.P.”

14.In the light of the above authority and the discussion made in the above paragraphs, the Court holds that the JDR has willfully neglected and refused to pay the decretal amount to the DHR even after having sufficient means to discharge the EP amount at once. It is also pertinent to note that the earlier insolvency petition filed by RW-1 and his father in I.P. No.13 of 2016 was admittedly dismissed. Therefore, the plea of insolvency cannot by itself absolve the JDR from satisfying the decree debt. In the present case, though 22013 (1) ALD 103 = 2013 (2) ALT 68.

APCH050000052022 7 the DHR failed to establish the allegations relating to real estate business and ownership of immovable properties, the admissions of RW-1 clearly prove that the JDR is earning income through autos and driving work and that he owns two autos of considerable value.

15.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the

DHR has successfully established that the JDR has sufficient means and capacity to pay the decretal amount and that he is willfully neglecting to discharge the same. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the DHR.

16. In the result, the Execution Petition is allowed. The JDR is directed to pay the decretal amount together with accrued interest, if any, to the DHr within 30 days from the date of this order. In default of payment within the stipulated time, the JDR shall be arrested and committed to civil prison under warrant of arrest as per law under Order XXI Rule 38 CPC, on payment of requisite process and subsistence allowance.

Partly dictated to Adalat AI and partly types to my dictation by the Typist , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- BANDE SUBHAN

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:

PW.1 : P.Babu Suresh Naidu •

For Respondents:

APCH050000052022 8 •R.W.1: Roop Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner:

•Ex.P1 is online copy of registration certificate standing in the name of the

JDR relating to Bajaj Autorikshaw bearing No.AP39TP7210.

•Ex.P2 is property tax receipt standing in the name of JDR’s father by name

G. Venkatesh relating to house bearing Door No.3/149/537/82 situated in

Indramakalani Revenue Ward No.3 of Madanapalle.

•Ex.P3 is online copy of registration certificate standing in the name of JDR relating to Bajaj Maxima-Z CNG Autorikshaw bearing No.AP39VA8915.

•Ex.P4 is another property tax receipt standing in the name of the father of the

JDR issued by Madanapalle Municipality.

For Respondents:

Nil

Sd/- BANDE SUBHAN

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle.

APCH050008592024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

MADANAPALLE.

Present: BANDE SUBHAN,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle

Monday, this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

O riginal S uit No. 397 of 2024 .

Between:

Bygari Chandrababu Naidu, S/o B.Seethapathi Naidu, aged about 60 years, R/at Vempalle, Madanapalle.

...Plaintiff.

And

R.Panduranga, S/o R.Venkatramana, aged about 45 years, R/at D.No.3-4, Vempalle, Madanapalle Mandal.

...Defendant.

* * * * *

This suit came up on 24.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Rajagopal, Advocate for the plaintiffand defendant remained ex-parte and having stood over till this day for consideration. Upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing learned counsel for plaintiff, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property after receiving the balance sale consideration amount of 5,000/-, if the defendant fails to do so, the same₹ may be ordered to be done through process of law, and for cost of the suit.

2. The brief contention of the plaintiff as per the plaint averments is as 2 follows:

a) That the plaint schedule lands originally belonged to one Rangani

Venkatramana, who obtained pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of the same. On 07.01.2004, the said Venkatramana executed a registered gift deed in favour of his daughter Bharathi in respect of Ac.0.46 cents out of

Ac.0.61 cents in Survey No.1092-C1, Ac.0.26 cents in Survey No.1092-C2 and

Ac.0.02 cents out of Ac.0.08 cents in Survey No.1096 and delivered possession to her.

b) That thereafter, on 25.08.2011, the said Bharathi sold the plaint schedule properties to the defendant under a registered sale deed for valid consideration and delivered possession to him. Thus, the defendant became absolute owner and possessor of the plaint schedule properties.

c) That on 11.02.2019, the defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of 1,26,000/- to meet his family₹ necessities. Out of the said consideration, the defendant received 1,21,000/-₹ towards advance sale consideration on various dates and agreed to receive the balance amount of 5,000/- on or before 10.02.2027. The defendant₹ further agreed to execute a regular registered sale deed after mutating his name in the revenue records and after obtaining 1-B and adangal in his name.

Accordingly, the defendant executed a registered agreement of sale bearing

Document No.1564 of 2019 dated 11.02.2019 in favour of the plaintiff.

d) That the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and repeatedly requested the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute the registered sale deed. However, the defendant postponed the same on one pretext or another. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant was attempting to alienate the plaint schedule properties in favour of third parties. Hence, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 22.05.2024 calling upon the defendant to attend before the 3

Sub-Registrar Office, Madanapalle on 30.05.2024 and execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration amount. Though the defendant received the notice, he failed to comply with the same. The plaintiff attended the office of Sub-Registrar with the balance sale consideration amount, but the defendant failed to turn up. Hence, the suit.

3. After receipt of summons, the defendant engaged a counsel. However, he failed to file written statement within the time stipulated under law. Hence, the defendant was set ex parte on 12.02.2025.

4. Now, the points for determination are :

I. Whether the plaintiff proves execution of agreement of sale dated 11.02.2019 by the defendant?

II. Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

III. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance as prayed for?

IV. To what relief?

5. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Exhibits

A1 to A3 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff. One Mr. Y.Udaya Kumar who is attesting witness of suit agreement of sale, is examined as PW-2. Ex.A1 is registered agreement of sale bearing Document No.1564 of 2019 dated 11.02.2019. Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice dated 22.05.2024 along with postal receipt. Ex.A3 is Postal acknowledgment evidencing service of notice on the defendant. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant.

6. POINT NOS.I TO III: Since all these points are interconnected, they are taken up together for common 4 discussion.

7. In the present case, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove the execution of agreement of sale and also to establish his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as contemplated under Section 16(c) of the

Specific Relief Act, 1963.

8. As seen from the record, Ex.A1 is the original registered agreement of sale dated 11.02.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The said document discloses that the defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule properties for a total sale consideration of 1,26,000/- and received 1,21,000/- towards advance sale₹₹ consideration. The document further recites that the balance amount of 5,000/-₹ shall be paid at the time of execution of the regular sale deed. It is pertinent to note that Ex.A1 is a registered document. Further PW-2 deposed that in his presence

Ex.A1 was executed by defendant. Under Sections 58 and 60 of the Registration

Act, there is a presumption regarding due execution and registration of a registered document unless rebutted. The defendant, though appeared through counsel, failed to contest the matter and remained ex parte. There is absolutely no rebuttal evidence challenging the execution of Ex.A1. The oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is consistent with the recitals contained in Ex.A1. Nothing is available on record to disbelieve his testimony. The evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted.

9. So far as readiness and willingness is concerned, the plaintiff specifically pleaded that he was always ready with the balance sale consideration amount and repeatedly requested the defendant to execute the sale deed. Ex.A2 legal notice

dated 22.05.2024 clearly shows that the plaintiff called upon the defendant to

execute the sale deed by attending before the Sub-Registrar Office on 30.05.2024. Ex.A3 postal acknowledgment establishes service of the said notice upon the defendant. Despite receipt of notice, the defendant neither issued any reply nor came forward to execute the sale deed. The conduct of the defendant 5 clearly indicates avoidance of performance of his obligations under the agreement.

10.It is settled principle of law that readiness and willingness have to be gathered from the conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances. In the present case, the plaintiff paid substantial portion of the sale consideration amount and issued legal notice demanding execution of sale deed. The balance amount payable is only 5,000/-. The conduct of the plaintiff in approaching the Court also₹ probabilises his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is sine qua non for granting relief of specific performance. In the present case, the plaintiff has satisfactorily established his continuous readiness and willingness through oral and documentary evidence.

11.It is further pertinent to note that the agreement period extends up to 10.02.2027 and the suit is filed well within the period of limitation prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

12.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff successfully proved the execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale and also established his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the equitable relief of specific performance. Accordingly, Point Nos.I to III are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

13.POINT NO.IV:

In view of the findings in Points I to III, the plaintiff is entitled for the equitable relief of specific performance and the suit deserves to be decreed.

14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property after receiving the balance sale consideration amount of ₹5,000/- from the plaintiff within two (02) months from the date of this judgment. In 6 the event of failure of the defendant to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the sale deed executed through process of

Court in accordance with law. The plaintiff shall deposit the balance sale consideration amount of 5,000/- into Court within one month from the date of this₹ judgment.

Partly dictated to Adalath AI and partly typed to my dictation by the Addl. Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this t he 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- BANDE SUBHAN,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: B.Chandrababu Naidu • P.W.2: Y.Udaya Kumar • FOR DEFENDANT:

•Ex-parte.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

• Exhibit A.1: Original registered agreement of sale bearing Doc.No.1564/2019,

dated 11.02.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for

Rs.1,26,000/-.

• Exhibit A.2: Office copy of legal notice dated 22.05.2024 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant along with postal receipt.

• Exhibit A.3: Served postal acknowledgment.

FOR DEFENDANT:

- NIL -

Sd/- BANDE SUBHAN,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle.

APCH050008722025

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) :: MADANAPALLE.

Present: BANDE SUBHAN,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle

FAC I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle

Thursday, this the 9 th day of April, 2026.

O riginal S uit No. 395 of 2025 .

Between:

D. Praveen Naidu, S/o Late D. Sudharshan Naidu, residing at D. No.

302-1A, S.V. Colony, Madanapalle, Annamayya District.

...Plaintiff.

And

N. Shameer Basha, S/o Late N. Abdul Khader, Residing at Anjuman complex, Room No. 10, Apparao Street, Madanapalle, Annamayya

District.

...Defenda nt.

* * * * *

This suit came up on 09.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri J. Diwakar, Advocate for the plaintiffand the defendant was set ex parte and having stood over till this day for consideration. Upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing learned counsel for plaintiff, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 09.05.2019, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, if the defendant fails to do so, the same may be ordered to 2 be done through process of law, and for cost of the suit.

2. The brief contention of the plaintiff as per the plaint averments is as follows:

a) That the defendant is the absolute general power of attorney holder of the plaint schedule property and the principal is by name Sheikh Ibrahim Saleem executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of the defendant on 05.03.2019. Since then, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant approached the plaintiff and offered to sell the plaint schedule property for a valuable consideration of 16,90,000/- on 09.05.2019� and the defendant received an amount of 8,00,000/- towards part of the sale� consideration as advance amount in the presence of witnesses and on the same day the defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff.

b) That again, on 07.09.2019, the plaintiff gave an amount of 8,75,000/- as part� of the demand of the defendant out of the balance sale consideration under the agreement of sale dated 09.05.2019 and the defendant made part payment endorsement on the back side of the first page of the agreement of sale. Thus, in total the defendant received 16,75,000/- from the defendant and the� defendant gave liberty to the plaintiff to take the registered sale deed at the will of the plaintiff by paying the outstanding balance sale and consideration amount of 15,000/- without any due limitation of time. �

c) That after securing the outstanding balance of sale consideration amount of � 15,000/- and by showing his readiness and willingness to take the registered sale deed, the plaintiff started demanding the defendant for execution of registered sale deed and the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 22.05.2025 calling him to come to the registrar's office Madanapalle to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. But the defendant intentionally refused to take the notice. Hence, the present suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 19.05.2019.

3

3. In spite of receipt of summons, the defendant refused the same. As the service was held sufficient, the defendant was set ex parte on 23.07.2025.

4. In order to prove the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as

PW-1 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A6. Exhibit A1 is Original Unregistered

Agreement of Sale dated 09.05.2019 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff along with challan pertaining to the payment of deficit, stamp duty and penalty. Exhibit A2 is part payment endorsement dated 07.09.2019 on the back side of the first page of Exhibit A1 agreement. Exhibit A3 is office copy of legal notice dated 22.05.2025 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. Exhibit A4 is postal receipt dated 22.05.2025 relating to the Exhibit A3 legal notice. Exhibit A5 is empty non judicial e-stamps dated 35.02.2025 purchased by the plaintiff worth of 100/- each at Madanapalle. �Exhibit A6 is unserved returned postal cover.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the entire case record.

6. Now, the points for determination are:

I. Whether the plaintiff proves execution of agreement of sale dated 09.05.2019 by the defendant?

II. Whether the plaintiff proves payment of 16,75,000/- towards sale � consideration?

III. Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

IV. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance as prayed for?

V. To what relief?

7. POINT NOS. I & II:

As these points are interrelated, they are taken up together to avoid repetition.

4

8. As seen from the record, Ex.A1 is the original agreement of sale dated 09.05.2019. The same discloses receipt of 8,00,000/- as advance. Ex.A2� contains an endorsement dated 07.09.2019 evidencing payment of 8,75,000/-. It� is pertinent to note that the defendant remained ex parte and did not challenge the execution of Ex.A1 or the endorsement under Ex.A2. The evidence of PW-1 remains unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 sufficiently establish execution of the agreement and receipt of 16,75,000/- by the defendant. Accordingly, Point Nos. I and II are� answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9. POINT NO. III:

The burden lies on the plaintiff to establish continuous readiness and willingness as mandated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.

10.As seen from the record, the plaintiff issued legal notice under Ex.A3 demanding execution of sale deed and expressed readiness to pay the balance of 15,000/-.�

The notice was sent under Ex.A4 and returned under Ex.A6. It is pertinent to note that refusal to receive notice amounts to deemed service. The conduct of the defendant indicates avoidance. Further, the balance amount is minimal compared to the total consideration already paid. The plaintiff has also produced Ex.A5 e- stamps indicating preparedness for registration. There is no material to show that the plaintiff abandoned the contract or was incapable of performing his obligation.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has established readiness and willingness. Accordingly, Point No. III is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

11.POINT NO. IV:

In view of the findings on the above points, in the present case execution of agreement is proved, substantial sale consideration is paid, plaintiff proved his readiness and willingness and the defendant avoided performance. There is no inequitable conduct on the part of the plaintiff. Denial of relief would result in unjust 5 enrichment of the defendant. This Court finds no legal impediment in granting the relief. Accordingly, Point No. IV is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. The plaintiff shall deposit the balance sale consideration of 15,000/- into Court within one month from the date� of this judgment and the defendant is directed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 09.05.2019, on receipt of balance sale consideration of �15,000/- within three (03) months from the date of this judgment. If the defendant fails to do so, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the registered sale deed executed through process of Court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of April, 2026.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle FAC I Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Madanapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS :

PW.1: D. Praveen Naidu (Plaintiff). - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1:The original unregistered agreement of sale dated 09.05.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff along with challan pertaining to payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty.

Ex.A2:The endorsement dated 07.09.2019 on the back side of the 1st page of Ex.A1 agreement.

Ex.A3:The office copy of legal notice dated 22.05.2025 issued to the defendant on behalf of plaintiff.

6

Ex.A5:The empty no-judicial e-Stamps dated 30.05.2025 purchased by the plaintiff worth of Rs. 100/- each at Madanapalle.

Ex.A6:The return un-served postal cover.

FOR DEFENDANT :

- NIL-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Madanapalle FAC I Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Madanapalle.