Ms.Boyidi Valli Venkata Chandr

CC 511 of 2021

Dt.23-04-2025 1 of 9

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT NARSAMPET

Wednesday, this the 23rd day of April, 2025

Present: Ms.B.V.V.Ch.Prasanna II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal FAC/PrincipalJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet

CALENDAR CASE NO.511 OF 2021

Between:-

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of police, Khanapur Station. … Complainant

And

A1. Gudise Ganesh, S/o.Suraiah, Age:24yrs A2. Gudise Akhil, S/o.Suraiah, Age:22yrs Both are of Occu of Student, R/o.Inapally (V) of Khanapur (M).

… Accused No.1 and 2

This case is coming before me on 16-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri.A.Srinivas, Advocate

for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, upon

perusing the material on record this Court delivered the following:-

-:: JUDGMENT ::-

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Khanapur has filed charge sheet in Crime No.44 of 2021 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 353 r/w 34 IPC against Accused No.1 and 2.

2) Case of the Prosecution in a Nutshell:The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.06.2021 at about 4:30 PM, PWs 1 and 2, who were

CC 511 of 2021

Dt.23-04-2025 2 of 9 discharging their duties as police constables, proceeded to Inapally village to enquire into a prior altercation that occurred at Budharaopet village. While questioning the accused persons at their residence, A1 allegedly pushed PW2, causing his mobile phone to fall, and A2 allegedly pushed PW1 and abused the police in filthy language, thereby obstructing and deterring them from discharging their official duties.

Based on the report submitted by PW1, a case was registered, investigated, and the charge sheet was laid against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC.

3) The Court took cognizance for the offences under Sections 353 r/w 34 IPC against Accused. After appearance of the Accused copies of documents were furnished to accused as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

4) The accused was examined under Section 251 of Criminal

Procedure Code and the substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused for the offence under section 353 IPC, for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5) On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and

Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 were marked. The learned APPO has given up the evidence of LW2/E.Kumaraswamy and LW4/Md.Pasha.

CC 511 of 2021

Dt.23-04-2025 3 of 9

6) After completion of prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code for the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7) Heard. Perused the record.

8) Now the point for Determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offence under Section 353 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt”?

9) POINT: In order to prove the present case, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients mentioned under section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

beyond all reasonable doubt.

The prosecution examined five witnesses and marked Ex P1 to P4.

The defence did not adduce any evidence.

10) Appreciation of evidence:

1. Testimony of PW1 and PW2 (Police Constables):

PW1 (L. Kishore), the defacto complainant, deposed that while • on official duty with PW2 (L. Srinivas), they were obstructed by the accused who abused them and pushed them physically, resulting in his mobile phone falling to the ground.

PW2 broadly supported the version of PW1. •

CC 511 of 2021

Dt.23-04-2025 4 of 9

However, upon careful scrutiny, the following deficiencies are

evident:

 No independent corroboration: Although both witnesses stated that the incident occurred in the presence of 15–20 villagers, no independent witness from the locality was cited or examined to support the version of PWs 1 and 2. This raises doubts about the veracity of their version.

 No GD entry or official record: There is no General Diary entry, station diary, or duty chart placed on record to establish the presence of PW1 and PW2 at the scene in their official capacity. This omission strikes at the root of proving that they were engaged in official duty at the relevant time.

 No recovery of mobile phone or examination of its condition: Despite the claim that the mobile phone fell and was damaged, no mobile phone was seized or produced before the Court, nor was there any effort to have it examined for damage. This unexplained omission weakens the prosecution's narrative.

 Prior enmity acknowledged: During cross-examination, it was elicited that there was an earlier confrontation between the accused and the local police concerning the accused’s mother, who had allegedly been assaulted by constables of Khanapur P.S. This prior animosity suggests a motive for false implication, which must be carefully weighed.

2. Testimony of PW3 and PW4 (Panch Witnesses):  PW3 (E. Santhosh) and PW4 (Y. Ramesh) both turned hostile. They categorically denied witnessing any incident as claimed in Ex.P4 (Crime Detail Form).

 Their hostile testimony, without being declared so by the prosecution and without cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, renders Ex.P4 unreliable. No value can be attached to the alleged scene observation without supporting oral evidence.

CC 511 of 2021

Dt.23-04-2025 5 of 9

3. Testimony of PW5 – Investigating Officer (Laxman):  PW5, the SI of Police, admitted that no public or neutral witnesses were associated during the scene observation, despite villagers allegedly being present.

 The I.O. did not file any seizure memo for the mobile phone and admitted that the CDF (Ex.P4) was prepared in the absence of independent witnesses.

 Importantly, the I.O. acknowledged that no medical examination was conducted to ascertain any injury to the constables, nor was any CCTV footage or technical evidence collected from the location.

11) Appreciation of law :

To secure a conviction under Section 353 IPC, the prosecution must establish the following essential ingredients:

1.That the accused assaulted or used criminal force; 2.That such assault or criminal force was used against a public servant; 3.That it was used with the intent to deter or prevent the public servant from discharging his official duty, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such public servant in the lawful discharge of his duty.

12) Further, where the charge is laid under Section 353 read with

Section 34 IPC, the prosecution is also required to prove common intention among the accused persons to commit the offence.

13) In the present case, though the prosecution has attempted to show that the accused assaulted the police constables (PW1 and PW2)

CC 511 of 2021

Dt.23-04-2025 6 of 9 while they were on duty, several deficiencies in evidence and lapses in investigation cast serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations.

Notably:

 There is no independent evidence to corroborate the version of the police constables, even though they claimed that 15–20 villagers witnessed the incident.

 The prosecution failed to place any documentary proof such as a General In this context, this court take the assistance law settled by the Hon’ble Apex court in, Diary (GD) entry, duty chart, or official assignment order to show that PW1 and PW2 were in fact on official duty at the relevant time and place.

 There is no recovery or production of the mobile phone allegedly damaged during the incident, nor any medical evidence to prove physical assault.

 Panch witnesses turned hostile and no effort was made by the prosecution to cross-examine them or declare them hostile under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, thereby weakening the value of Ex.P4 (Crime Detail Form).

 Prior enmity between the accused and the police provides a plausible motive for false implication, which further erodes the credibility of the prosecution case.

14) In this context, this court take the assistance law settled by the

Hon’ble Apex court in,

1.Kuldip Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (2003) 12 SCC 528 The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere obstruction or verbal altercation without sufficient evidence of criminal force or intention does not constitute an offence under Section 353 IPC.

CC 511 of 2021

Dt.23-04-2025 7 of 9

2.Arun Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar, AIR 2010 SC 778 The Hon’ble Court emphasized the necessity of proving that the accusedintentionally deterred a public servantfrom discharging lawful duties, and that such duty must be clearly established through admissible evidence.

3.K. Subba Rao v. State of A.P., 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 675 (AP) The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that mere resistance or altercation without use of force, or without proof of obstruction to a legal duty, is insufficient to constitute an offence under Section 353 IPC.

In light of these authoritative pronouncements and it is trite law that the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, there are significant lapses in investigation, absence of independent witnesses, hostile panchas, lack of documentary proof of official duty, and possible motive for false implication, all of which cumulatively create substantial doubt. Hence this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 353

IPC R/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused.

15) In the light of above discussion, this Court holds that the

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused 1 and 2 are entitled to the benefit of doubt and deserve to be acquitted.

CC 511 of 2021

Dt.23-04-2025 8 of 9

16) In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 353 r/w 34 IPC, under Section

255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and they are set at

liberty forthwith. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand

cancelled after expiry of six months from today, as prescribed

under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. since no

property was deposited no order was made in lieu of the same.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23 th day of April, 2025).

Sd/-

FAC/Prl.Judicial First Class Magistrate Narsampet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 :A.Kumaraswamy-Nil- PW2 :V.Ravinder PW3 :Gundepally Kiran PW4 :Vadde Sathish PW5 :N.Saibabu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Report. Ex.P2: Signature of PW3 on CDF. Ex.P3: Signature of PW4 on CDF. Ex.P4: CDF.

For Defence:

Ex D1: FIR Ex D2: charge sheet

CC 511 of 2021

Dt.23-04-2025 9 of 9

Material Objects Marked : -Nil-

Sd/-

FAC/Prl.Judicial First Class Magistrate

Narsampet

Os 224 of 2023

Dt.23-04-2025 1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NARSAMPET

Dated, this the 23rd day of April, 2025

Present:-Ms.Boyidi Valli Venkata Chandraprasanna II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal FAC.Principal Junior Civil Judge,Narsampet

O.S. NO.224 OF 2023

Between:

Lingala Manju W/o.Late Ravindra Prasad, Age:42years, Occu: ANM, R/o. H.No.14/141/1A, Narsampet, Municipality and Mandal, Warangal district. … Plaintiff AND 1.SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 6th floor, United India Towers, Opp police Commissionerate Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

2. Andhrapradesh Grameena Vikas Bank 5102 Akulavarighanpur mandal Etunagaram Rep, by its Local Branch Manager Eturunagaram.

3. Easam Padma, W/o Not Known, Age:44 years, Occu: ANM MPHS (F), Primary health center, Chegunta, (V) and (M) Medak district.

4. To Whomsoever it may concern.

… Defendants

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri.Padma Aravind, Advocate for defendant No.1 and the defendants no.2 to 4 were set exparte and on hearing and upon perusal of material on record and having the matter stood over for con- sideration this Court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff herein filed the present suit against the defendants seeking relief of declaration that the plaintiff is Legal Heir of late EmaniRavindra Prasad, who was expired on 12.7.2021 leaving behind the plaintiff as his Legal Heir.

2. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell: The plaintiff, Lingala Manju, has filed this suit seeking a declaration to declare her as the legal heir and successor of her late husband, Emani Ravindra Prasad. The plaintiff and the deceased were married in 2011 and did not have any children. The deceased worked as a police

Os 224 of 2023

Dt.23-04-2025 2 of 5 constable in various places in the undivided Warangal district and passed away due to ill-health on 12.07.2021, leaving the plaintiff as his sole legal heir.

3. During his lifetime, the deceased had taken a life insurance policy with SBI

Life Insurance Company Ltd., and the plaintiff was named as the nominee in the policy. Upon the death of her husband, the plaintiff approached Andhra Pradesh

Grameena Vikas Bank, the local branch representative of the insurer, to claim the policy amount. The bank, however, required the plaintiff to produce a Dependent

Certificate from the Tahsildar, which she did, but the bank insisted that the plaintiff obtain a court declaration regarding her status as the sole legal heir of the deceased before processing the claim.

4. Hence, the plaintiff filed this suit seeking a declaration that she is the legal heir and successor of the deceased, and thereby entitled to receive the life insurance policy amount.

5. The contention of the defendant No.1 nutshell: Defendant No. 1, SBI

Life Insurance Company Ltd., denied the claims made by the plaintiff and contended that the suit was filed before a court without jurisdiction, as the defendant's registered office is in Hyderabad. The defendant also contended that they had not received any claim intimation regarding the deceased's life insurance policy and that they came to know about the suit only upon receiving a notice from the court.

6. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank and Easam

Padma, failed to appear before the court and were set exparte. Hence, Defendants no.2 and 3 were set exparte. Paper publication was issued against D4, but no objections received.

Os 224 of 2023

Dt.23-04-2025 3 of 5

7. Basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by my Learned

Predecessor on 12.3.2025, for trial :-

i) Whether the plaintiff is the legal heir and successor of late Sri.Emani Ravindra Prasad?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit relief as prayed

for?

iii) Whether the suit is maintainable for want of territorial

jurisdiction of the court?

iv) To what relief?

8. On behalf of plaintiff, Plaintiff, PW1/Lingala Manju was examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were got marked. On behalf of defendant no.1 none was examined and no document was marked.

9. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

10. Evidence: On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1, Lingala Manju, was examined, and the following documents were marked as Exhibits:

Ex.A1: Original Death Certificate of Emani Ravindra Prasad, dated 12.07.2021 Ex.A2: Original Family Members Certificate, dated 08.09.2022, issued by the Tahsildar. Ex.A3: Xerox copy of Aadhar card of the plaintiff, compared with the original by CMO.

11. The defendants did not cross-examine the plaintiff and failed to present any evidence or witnesses.

12. Consideration of Issues:

Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is the legal heir and successor

of late Sri. Emani Ravindra Prasad?

Os 224 of 2023

Dt.23-04-2025 4 of 5

Upon perusal of the evidence, particularly the Death Certificate of the deceased (Ex.A1) and the Family Members Certificate (Ex.A2), it is clear that the plaintiff is the legal wife of the deceased and the sole legal heir and successor of her husband. The plaintiff's claim is supported by both documentary and oral evidence, and no other heirs have been identified or claimed succession rights.

13. Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit relief as prayed for?

Since the plaintiff has been recognized as the legal heir and successor of the deceased, she is entitled to the relief sought, which is a declaration that she is the sole heir and successor of late Sri. Emani Ravindra Prasad. Consequently, the plaintiff is also entitled to the life insurance policy amount as per the policy terms.

14. Issue No. 3: Whether the suit is maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction of the court?

The defendant has raised an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, asserting that the suit should be filed in Hyderabad. However, the plaintiff resides in Narsampet, and the death of the insured occurred in Warangal district. As the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court, the suit is maintainable.

15. Issue No. 4: To what relief? In view of the findings on the above issues, the plaintiff is entitled to the following relief:

A declaration that the plaintiff is the legal heir and successor of late Sri.  Emani Ravindra Prasad.

The defendants, particularly SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. and Andhra  Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, are directed to process the plaintiff's claim for the insurance policy amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

Os 224 of 2023

Dt.23-04-2025 5 of 5

16. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is declared as the legal heir and successor of late Sri.Emani Ravindra

Prasad. The defendants 1 and 2 are directed to process the plaintiff's claim for the life insurance policy amount vide policy No.70000018808 and make the necessary payment in accordance with the policy provisions and terms.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 23rd day of April, 2025).

Sd/-

FAC.PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARSAMPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

F or Plaintiff : For Defendants:

PW1: Lingala Manju - None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Original Death certificate of Emani Ravindra Prasad, dated 12.07.2021. Ex.A2: Original Family Members Certificate, dated 08.09.2022 issued by Tahsildar. Ex.A3: Xerox copy of Aadhar card of the plaintiff compared with the original by СМО.

For Defendants:- - Nil -

Sd/-

FAC.PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARSAMPET

Os 224 of 2023

Dt.23-04-2025 1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NARSAMPET

Dated, this the 23rd day of April, 2025

Present:-Ms.Boyidi Valli Venkata Chandraprasanna II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal FAC.Principal Junior Civil Judge,Narsampet

O.S. NO.224 OF 2023

Between:

Lingala Manju W/o.Late Ravindra Prasad, Age:42years, Occu: ANM, R/o. H.No.14/141/1A, Narsampet, Municipality and Mandal, Warangal district. … Plaintiff AND 1.SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 6th floor, United India Towers, Opp police Commissionerate Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

2. Andhrapradesh Grameena Vikas Bank 5102 Akulavarighanpur mandal Etunagaram Rep, by its Local Branch Manager Eturunagaram.

3. Easam Padma, W/o Not Known, Age:44 years, Occu: ANM MPHS (F), Primary health center, Chegunta, (V) and (M) Medak district.

4. To Whomsoever it may concern.

… Defendants

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri.Padma Aravind, Advocate for defendant No.1 and the defendants no.2 to 4 were set exparte and on hearing and upon perusal of material on record and having the matter stood over for con- sideration this Court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff herein filed the present suit against the defendants seeking relief of declaration that the plaintiff is Legal Heir of late EmaniRavindra Prasad, who was expired on 12.7.2021 leaving behind the plaintiff as his Legal Heir.

2. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell: The plaintiff, Lingala Manju, has filed this suit seeking a declaration to declare her as the legal heir and successor of her late husband, Emani Ravindra Prasad. The plaintiff and the deceased were married in 2011 and did not have any children. The deceased worked as a police

Os 224 of 2023

Dt.23-04-2025 2 of 5 constable in various places in the undivided Warangal district and passed away due to ill-health on 12.07.2021, leaving the plaintiff as his sole legal heir.

3. During his lifetime, the deceased had taken a life insurance policy with SBI

Life Insurance Company Ltd., and the plaintiff was named as the nominee in the policy. Upon the death of her husband, the plaintiff approached Andhra Pradesh

Grameena Vikas Bank, the local branch representative of the insurer, to claim the policy amount. The bank, however, required the plaintiff to produce a Dependent

Certificate from the Tahsildar, which she did, but the bank insisted that the plaintiff obtain a court declaration regarding her status as the sole legal heir of the deceased before processing the claim.

4. Hence, the plaintiff filed this suit seeking a declaration that she is the legal heir and successor of the deceased, and thereby entitled to receive the life insurance policy amount.

5. The contention of the defendant No.1 nutshell: Defendant No. 1, SBI

Life Insurance Company Ltd., denied the claims made by the plaintiff and contended that the suit was filed before a court without jurisdiction, as the defendant's registered office is in Hyderabad. The defendant also contended that they had not received any claim intimation regarding the deceased's life insurance policy and that they came to know about the suit only upon receiving a notice from the court.

6. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank and Easam

Padma, failed to appear before the court and were set exparte. Hence, Defendants no.2 and 3 were set exparte. Paper publication was issued against D4, but no objections received.

Os 224 of 2023

Dt.23-04-2025 3 of 5

7. Basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by my Learned

Predecessor on 12.3.2025, for trial :-

i) Whether the plaintiff is the legal heir and successor of late Sri.Emani Ravindra Prasad?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit relief as prayed

for?

iii) Whether the suit is maintainable for want of territorial

jurisdiction of the court?

iv) To what relief?

8. On behalf of plaintiff, Plaintiff, PW1/Lingala Manju was examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were got marked. On behalf of defendant no.1 none was examined and no document was marked.

9. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

10. Evidence: On behalf of the plaintiff, PW1, Lingala Manju, was examined, and the following documents were marked as Exhibits:

Ex.A1: Original Death Certificate of Emani Ravindra Prasad, dated 12.07.2021 Ex.A2: Original Family Members Certificate, dated 08.09.2022, issued by the Tahsildar. Ex.A3: Xerox copy of Aadhar card of the plaintiff, compared with the original by CMO.

11. The defendants did not cross-examine the plaintiff and failed to present any evidence or witnesses.

12. Consideration of Issues:

Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is the legal heir and successor

of late Sri. Emani Ravindra Prasad?

Os 224 of 2023

Dt.23-04-2025 4 of 5

Upon perusal of the evidence, particularly the Death Certificate of the deceased (Ex.A1) and the Family Members Certificate (Ex.A2), it is clear that the plaintiff is the legal wife of the deceased and the sole legal heir and successor of her husband. The plaintiff's claim is supported by both documentary and oral evidence, and no other heirs have been identified or claimed succession rights.

13. Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit relief as prayed for?

Since the plaintiff has been recognized as the legal heir and successor of the deceased, she is entitled to the relief sought, which is a declaration that she is the sole heir and successor of late Sri. Emani Ravindra Prasad. Consequently, the plaintiff is also entitled to the life insurance policy amount as per the policy terms.

14. Issue No. 3: Whether the suit is maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction of the court?

The defendant has raised an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, asserting that the suit should be filed in Hyderabad. However, the plaintiff resides in Narsampet, and the death of the insured occurred in Warangal district. As the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court, the suit is maintainable.

15. Issue No. 4: To what relief? In view of the findings on the above issues, the plaintiff is entitled to the following relief:

A declaration that the plaintiff is the legal heir and successor of late Sri.  Emani Ravindra Prasad.

The defendants, particularly SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. and Andhra  Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, are directed to process the plaintiff's claim for the insurance policy amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

Os 224 of 2023

Dt.23-04-2025 5 of 5

16. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is declared as the legal heir and successor of late Sri.Emani Ravindra

Prasad. The defendants 1 and 2 are directed to process the plaintiff's claim for the life insurance policy amount vide policy No.70000018808 and make the necessary payment in accordance with the policy provisions and terms.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 23rd day of April, 2025).

Sd/-

FAC.PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARSAMPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

F or Plaintiff : For Defendants:

PW1: Lingala Manju - None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Original Death certificate of Emani Ravindra Prasad, dated 12.07.2021. Ex.A2: Original Family Members Certificate, dated 08.09.2022 issued by Tahsildar. Ex.A3: Xerox copy of Aadhar card of the plaintiff compared with the original by СМО.

For Defendants:- - Nil -

Sd/-

FAC.PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARSAMPET

OS No.229 of 2023 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NARSAMPET

Dated this the 12th day of March, 2025

Present:-Ms.Boyidi Valli Venkata Chandraprasanna II Addl.Junior Civil Judge,Warangal FAC.Principal Junior Civil Judge,Narsampet

O.S.No.229 of 2023

Between:-

Kasu Mallaiah, S/o.Late Agaiah, age:58 years, Occu:Labour, R/o.H.No.1-214, Nachinapally village of Duggondi Mandal, Warangal district. … Plaintiff

And

1.Kasu Lingaiah, S/o.Late Agaiah, aged 50 years, Occu: Labour. 2.Kasu Mallamma, W/o.Lingaiah, aged 45 years, Occu:House hold. 3.Kasu Raju, S/o.Lingaiah, aged 28 years, Occu:Private Employee. All are R/o.Nachinapally village of Duggondi Mandal, Warangal district. … Defendants

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.T.Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri.N.Ramesh, Advocate for defendants, and on hearing and upon perusal of material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, workmen etc., from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to award costs of the suit.

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

It is the case of plaintiff thatis resident of Nachinapally village of duggondi

Mandal, Warangal district. Plaintiff and defendant no.1 are real brothers, defendants No.2 and 3 are wife and son of defendant no.1. Plaintiff constructed

RCC building with four rooms and a Tin shed over 125 Sq.yards at Nachinapally

OS No.229 of 2023 2

village of Duggondi Mandal, Warangal district about 20 years back and residing therein. Plaintiff also constructed compound wall towards East, North and

Southern side of his house. The Gram panchayat, Nachinapally village also allotted House No.1-214 to the plaintiff, since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same,herein after called as “Suit schedule property”.

3. It is further submitted that defendant no.1 is having his own house towards

Eastern side of the house of plaintiff after compound wall of plaintiff. There is a 10’ feet common path way in joint towards Northern side of the house of plaintiff and defendants and it is exclusively for the usage of plaintiff and defendants.

Plaintiff constructed bathroom, lavetrin with septic tank and also obtained tap connection from the Gram panchayat, Nachinapally towards Eastern side of his house and paying house tax to them every year.

4. It is further submitted that the defendants are no way concerned with the suit schedule property, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, on 16.10.2023, the defendants came to the suit schedule property along with unsocial elements and tried to dismantle the Eastern side compound wall of plaintiff and threatened him, but the plaintiff has resisted the same with the help of his well wishers. The plaintiff is unable to prevent the illegal acts of the defendants. As such, approached the Court to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

OS No.229 of 2023 3

5. Though defendants filed Vakalath, but did not file written statement within stipulated time, hence, their right to file written statement is forfeited on 26.6.2024.

6. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself got examined as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 in support of his case. N. Ram Reddy and B.

Sambaiah were examined as PW2 and PW3 on behalf of plaintiff.

7. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for?”

9.POINT:In order to prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff filed chief examination affidavit as PW1, which is the replica of plaint and got marked Ex.A1.

the ownership certificate dt.17.10.2023, issued by panchayat secretary, Gram

Panchayath, Nachinapally, Ex.A2 the House tax receipt, dt: 31.03.2023 and Ex.A3 the house tax receipt, dt: 17.10.2023.

10. After considering the submissions made by the plaintiff and on perusal of entire record, it is crystal clear that the suit claim of plaintiff is unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendants. Hence in the absence of any contra evidence, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 coupled with Exs.A1 to Ex.A3 is unchallenged and unrebutted, as such, plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favor of the plaintiff.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting Permanent Injunction in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendants their agents, servants, workmen

OS No.229 of 2023 4

etc., from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of March, 2025.)

Sd/-

FAC.PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARSAMPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1:Kasu Mallaiah - None- PW2: N.Ram Reddy PW3: B.Sambaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Ownership certificate, dt.17.10.2023 issued by panchayat secretary, Gram Panchayath, Nachinapally. Ex.A2: House tax receipt, dt: 31.03.2023. Ex.A3: House tax receipt, dt: 17.10.2023

For Defendants: - Nil-

Sd/-

FAC.PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARSAMPET

TSWL0E0001642025

Presented on : 03-03-2025 Registered on : 10-03-2025 Decided on : 08-03-2025

IN THE COURT OF

Addl Junior Civil Judge cum Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class

AT NARSAMPET ,WARANGAL

(Presided Over by Ms.Boyidi Valli Venkata Chandra Prasanna)

CC/49/2025

STATE OF TELANGANA PS Nallabelly

VERSUS 1.Yakub Pasha Mohammed 2:Sunil Bathini

ORDER

Accused Nos.1 and 2 called Present. Police Present and reported tat in view of pre-National Lok Adaith, accused voluntarily ready to admit their guilt. Accused

No1 and No 2 are examined under Section 239 of 239 of CRC acquisition on for the 303 (2) of BNS by explaining to them in telugu for for which they voluntarily pleaded quilty for the offence under Section 103 (2) of BNS. Hence, the accused nos.1 and 2 admitted the guilt voluntarily and therefore, they are found guilty and convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. On questioning the quantum of sentence, accused/A1 and A2 stated that they have dependent family members on them and prayed to take a lenient view. Hence, this Court inclined to take lenient view upon the accused nos.1 and 2 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each (Rupees Three

Thousand Only) each for the offence under Section 303 (2) of BNS. Total fine amount is Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand Only). In default of payment of the fine the accused/A1 and A2 shall suffer imprisonment for a period of 15 days. No property was produced before this Court, as such no property order is passed. The bail bonds of the accused/Al and A2, if any shall stand cancelled till appeal period lapsed. Office is directed to issue fine receipt to accused/Al and A2, if paid, remit the fine amount to the state forthwith. Accordingly the case isclosed.

Sd/-(Ms.Boyidi Valli Venkata Chandra Prasanna)

FAC. Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class Narsampet

WARANGAL