Smt. C.janaki

APCH0C0000212025

C.C.No.15 of 20251Date :11.5.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

PUTTUR

PRESENT: Smt.C.Janaki,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th ) day of May, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.15 of 2025

(Crime No.160 of 2023, 63/2024 & 65/2024 of Vedurukuppam P.S)

Between:

The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police,

Vedurukuppam Police Station...Complainant.

And:

A1 Seejarla Prathap Raju @ Prathap, age 26 years, S/o. C.Narayana Raju, Ontillu Village, Jakkadona Post,… A1 to A3 Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

A2 Chinnantharaju Jayarama Raju, age 22 years, S/o C.JanardhanRaju,RamakrishnapuramVillage, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

A3 Kamasani Rajasekhar, age 27 years, S/o K.Krishna Reddy, Kalimichenu Village, Nallavenganapalli Post, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

C.C.No.15 of 20252Date :11.5.20

This case came before me on 5.5.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and Sri.N.Nadhamuni, Learned counsel for accused; upon perusing the material on record and this Court having stood over for consideration till this day, delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub inspector of police, Vedurukuppam police station filed charge sheet against accused in Crime Number 160/2023, 63/2024 and 65 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sec.379 or 411 of

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as IPC).

2.The facts of the prosecution case as mentioned in the charge sheet in nutshell are as follows: Between 28.11.2023 at 10.30 pm to 29.11.2023 at 1.30 am at Vacant place near Indian oil petrol bunk

Pachikapallam village, Vedurukuppam mandal, Chittoor District, some unknown offenders were committed theft of JCB batteries belongs to the complainant A.Murali and Rajanna, Madhavaiah, Babu Reddy

Venkatesh from their JCB Vehicles which were parked in the night time in a vacant place nearby Indian oil petrol bunk at near Pachikapallam village, Vedurukuppam mandal, Chittoor District all together eight (8) batteries worth of Rs.40,000/- and escaped with booty.

Basing on the complaint of LW1/A.Murali a case in Cr.No.160 of 2023 under Section 379 of IPC was registered and investigated.

On 22.11.2023 at 10.00 am to 23.11.2023 at 4.00 pm at GT

Kandriga village bus stop, on Chavatagunta pachikapalam road,

Vedurukuppam mandal, CHIttoor District, some unknown offenderes

C.C.No.15 of 20253Date :11.5.20 committed theft of Hero splendor blue chasis no.

MBLHAW123L6H00747 belongs to the complainant and escaped with booty. The motor cycle worth about Rs.70,000/-.

Basing on the complaint of LW5/P.Murali, a case in Cr.No.63 of 2023 under Section 379 of IPC was registered and investigated.

On 04.04.2023 during night time, some unknown offenderes committed theft of mootrs fixed at the agricultural fields of Lw11/K.Prakash Reddy and others and escaped with booty worth of Rs.25,000/-.

Basing on the complaint of LW.11/K.Prakash Reddy, a case in

Cr.No.63 of 2023 under Section 379 of IPC was registered and investigated.

3.This Court took cognizance of offence under Section 379 or 411 of IPC against A1 to A3.

4.On appearance of accused before the Court, relevant copies of documents were furnished to A1 to A3 as required under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. A1 to A3 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, they were explained in Telugu, the charges framed for the accusation of the offence punishable under Sec.379 of IPC and an alternate charge under

Section 411 of IPC is framed against A1 to A3, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. After closure of evidence on prosecution side, A1 to A2 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material

C.C.No.15 of 20254Date :11.5.20 in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.

8.Now the point that has arisen for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 to

A3 for the offence under Sec.379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code,

beyond reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.7.

P.W.1 is defacto complainant. P.W.2 is the villager. PW3 is the

Villager . Pw4 is the VRO. Pw5, PW6 and PW7 are the investigating officers.

10.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of PW1 to PW7 in this case. She argued that the prosecution proved the case of the prosecution through oral evidence by PW1 to PW7. She argued that the prosecution proved the recovery of stolen property and so proved the charges against the accused for the offence of theft or receiving stolen property and prays to convict the accused.

11.It is submitted by the learned defence counsel in his arguments that the prosecution did not prove the essential ingredients for the offence of Section 379 of IPC. He further submitted that the

C.C.No.15 of 20255Date :11.5.20 evidence of PW1 to PW7 is not reliable as there are many contradictions and there are no corroborative witnesses and as such, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

12.During the trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 deposed that on 28.11.2023 at 07.00 pm he has parked his JCB near Indian petrol bunk, Pachikapalam. One Madhava, Venkatesh, Babu,

Subramanyam and Raja Reddy also parked their JCBs at petrol bunk.

On the next day morning they found that the batteries from the JCB were stolen by some unknown offenders. They searched in the surroundings for batteries but in vain. As such on 28.11.2023 he gave report to the police.

13. PW2 deposed that on 04.04.2023 at 05.30 pm he returned from his agricultural lands. On the next day morning went to agricultural land and did not find the motor fixed to the well. He searched in the surroundings for his motor but in vain. Some unknown offenders have stolen his motor. As such on 29.05.2024 he gave report to the police.

14. Pw3 deposed that on 21.11.2023 he has parked his motorcycle bearing No.AP 39 FM 5075 infront of bus stop in

G.T.Kandriga village and went to get repair of his car. On the next day morning he did not find his motorcycle in the parked place. He searched in the surroundings for his motorcycle but in vain. Some unknown offenders have stolen his motorcycle. As such on the next day he gave report to the police. After five days police informed me that my motorcycle was recovered and I received the same from the court

C.C.No.15 of 20256Date :11.5.20 for interim custody. The motorcycle is on the name of my mother.

(Crl.MP.No.1046/2024, dated 15.07.2024). MO1 is the motorcycle bearing No.AP 39 FM 5075.

15. Pw4 deposed that he know LW17/Bhemmaiah. On 30.05.2024 at about 08.00 AM on the request of police he along with the police team went to Pathagunta junction on Vedurukuppam to

Penumuru road. Then A1 to A3 were coming on motorcycle, on seeing them they tried to skulk away. The police caught hold them and on enquiry individually and separately they revealed their name and address particulars. They stated that they have stolen the motorcycle at

Pachikapalam village and motors from the Upparalapalli and

Nambalapalli village and batteries from JCB at Pachikapalam petrol bunk. The SI of police, seized motorcycle, one mobile phone, Rs.500/- from the accused and arrested A1 to A3, and recorded their statement, under cover of mediator report. He along with other mediator and police people affixed their signatures in mediator report. Ex.P4 is the mediator report, dated 30.05.2024 at 08.30 AM. From there they went to the house of A1 in Ontilu village. The police has seized the batteries and motors concealed in the shed of A1, under cover of mediator report.

He along with other mediator and police people affixed their signatures in mediator report. Ex.P5 is the mediator report, dated 30.05.2024 at 11.00 AM.From there they returned to their work.

16. P.W.5 deposed that on 27.05.2024 at about 08.00 PM, PW3 came to police station and submitted written report to him basing on which he registered the case in Cr.No.63/2024 for the U/Sec.379 of IPC and submitted the FIR copies to all the concerned officers and took up

C.C.No.15 of 20257Date :11.5.20 investigation. Ex.P6 is the FIR in Cr.No.63/2024. On the same day he examined and recorded the statement of PW3. On the next day he visited the scene of offence i.e., G.T.Kandriga Bus stop. There he prepared the rough sketch. Ex.P7 is rough sketch in Cr.No.63/2024.

There he recorded the statements of LW6 to LW10. On 29.05.2024 at about 10.30 AM, PW2 came to police station and submitted written report to me basing on which he registered the case in Cr.No.65/2024 for the U/Sec.379 of IPC and submitted the FIR copies to all the concerned officers and took up investigation. Ex.P8 is the FIR in

Cr.No.65/2024. On the same day he examined and recorded the statement of PW2. On the same day he visited the scene of offence i.e., Agricultural field of PW2 in Nambalapalli village. There he prepared the rough sketchs 3Nos. Ex.P9 is rough sketch in Cr.No.65/2024, 3Nos.

There he recorded the statements of LW12 to LW16. On 30.05.2024, on receipt of credible information, he along with his staff and mediators went to Pathagunta junction on Penumur to Chavatagunta main road and conducting vehicle checking. A1 to A3 coming on motorcycle bearing No.AP 39 FM 5079. On seeing them they tried to skulk away.

They caught hold them. On enquiry individually and separately they revealed their identity particulars and stated that they have stolen motorcycles from various places like Pachikapalam and Onti Indlu, JCB and Motors at various places. He has recorded the statements of accused and arrested them and seized motorcycle bearing No.AP 39

FM 5075 and cell phones from the possession of accused, under cover of mediator report in the presence of mediators. From there A1 to A3 lead them to the house of accused No.1, in Ontiindlu village. There they have shown the other properties. He has seized the said

C.C.No.15 of 20258Date :11.5.20 properties i.e., 08 batteries, 03 motors, under cover of mediator report.

From there they returned to police station. He produced the A1 to A3

before the court for Judicial custody in Cr.No.63/2024. He has

produced the property before the court. He has obtained PT warrant against A1 to A3 in Cr.No.65/2024, executed and produced them for

Judicial custody. After completion of his investigation and verification

LW21 filed charge sheet.

17. P.W.6 deposed that on 29.11.2023 at about 01.30 PM, PW1 came to police station and submitted written report to him basing on which he registered the case in Cr.No.160/2023 for the U/Sec.379 of

IPC and submitted the FIR copies to all the concerned officers and took up investigation. Ex.P10 is the FIR in Cr.No.160/2023. On the same day he examined and recorded the statement of PW1. On the same day he visited the scene of offence i.e., infront of Indian Petrol Bunk in

Pachikapalyam village. There he observed scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch. Ex.P11 is the Rough sketch in

Cr.No.160/2023. There he examined and recorded the statements of

LW2 to LW4. He returned to police station. Further investigation was conducted by LW21.

18. P.W.7 deposed that in this case he has verified the previous investigation, found it in correct lines and he filed charge sheet.

19. Regarding the offences punishable U/Sec.379 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused/A1 to A3 have stolen the properties of PW1 and PW2. In this context, P.W.1 has categorically deposed that he parked his JCB at petrol bunk and some unknown offenders have stolen the batteries from the JCB and he gave report to

C.C.No.15 of 20259Date :11.5.20 the police. Pw2 who is the defacto complainant in Cr.No:65/2024 also deposed that some unknown offenders have stolen his motor in the agricultural fields and he gave report to the police. PW3 also deposed that some unknown offenders stolen his motorcycle. Thus there was no identification of the accused from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and their testimony is not useful to rope the accused/A1 to A3, to prove the guilt and charge under section 379 of Indian Penal Code. Apart from the evidence of PW.1, the remaining material before the court regarding the offence of 379 of IPC is that the confession of the accused/A1 to A3, stated by the P.W5/the Investigating Officer and P.W.4/the mediator in their respective testimonies. They both categorically deposed that the accused/A1 to A3 confessed before them regarding the offences they committed. But the said confession before the Investigating

Officer/P.W.5 is not admissible as per Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act.

Except the said confession, there is no other material to show that the accused has committed the offence of theft of the properties of P.W1 to

PW.3. Thus, the ingredients for the offence U/Sec.379 of IPC are not at all established by the prosecution against the accused.

20.Coming to the offence U/Sec.411 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that they have seized stolen property from the possession of the accused having knowledge that it was stolen property. The case of the prosecution is totally about the seizure of the stolen properties and the said factum of seizure has to be corroborated by the mediators’ evidence in detail and meticulously.

21.The investigation officer who is said to have seized the stolen property, i.e., PW5 has deposed that he has seized the stolen

C.C.No.15 of 202510Date :11.5.20 property/the motor cycle and cell phones from the possession of A1 to

A3 under cover of mediator report/Ex.P4. As seen from the recitals of

Ex.P4, it depicts that the police seized the cash of total Rs.1150/- from the possession of A1 to A3. But the testimony of PW5 is very much silent in that aspect of seizing cash. Here, the mediator/PW4 has deposed that Pw5 seized cash of Rs.500/- which is clear inconsistent with the recitals of Ex.P4, thereby it gives rise to suspicion as to the presence of PW4/mediator. If really PW4 accompanied the police team he would have deposed about the amount of seized cash,but he failed do so, which gives rise to suspicion as to his presence at the time of alleged seizure. PW5/the investigating officer further deposed that he has seized the other properties i.e., 8 batteries and three motors from the concealed place under cover of mediator report/Ex.P5. Where as the recitals of Ex.P5 depict contra from the statement of Pw5, by showing that the Pw5 has seized 5 batteries only. This inconsistency also throws an amount suspicion on the version of the prosecution.

22. As per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, the discovery of material objects basing on the confessional statement before the police is admissible evidence. But when the seizure was not corroborated by the independent mediators, this Court cannot rely on the testimony of sole police personnel and so that the evidence of mediator cannot be taken into consideration as corroborative to the relevant and admissible portion of the confessional statement under Section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act. Hence, to prove the factum of seizure of stolen property, there is no corroborative and cogent evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Though PW5/ investigation officer has produced the

C.C.No.15 of 202511Date :11.5.20 property before this court, it is not proved that the stolen property was recovered by the police from the possession of the accused. So that it is held that the prosecution has not proved the ingredients for the offence punishable U/Sec.411 of IPC. Further, though the allegation of the prosecution is that Pw5 has seized the total cash of Rs 1150/- from the possession of the accused under cover of Ex.P4, but in the recitals of

Ex.P4, no where it is mentioned that it is the cash involved in the present crime and it is not mentioned whether it is the amount got by the accused by selling the property involved in the present crimes and there is no claim and explanation with regard to the said cash of

Rs.1150/- . Hence the seized cash has to be confiscated to the state.

23. On considering the discussion supra, facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused/A.1 to A.2 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. As such,

Accused/A.1 and A.2 are entitled for acquittal.

24.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months from today as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property in CPR No.23 of 2024 was given to PW3 in Crl.M.P.No.1046/2024 dt.15.7.2024 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property in CPR No.80 of 2024 shall be given to PW2/K.Prakash Reddy after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property in CPR No.81 of

C.C.No.15 of 202512Date :11.5.20 2024 shall be given to PW1/A.Murali after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property in CPR No.84 of 2024 i.e. cash of Rs.1150/- shall be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal time

Typed to my dictation by the Addl.Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-C.Janaki/-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1:A.Murali None

P.W.2:K.Prakash Reddy,

P.W.3P.Murali

P.W.4K.Sambasiva Reddy

P.W.5S.Gajendra,

P.W.6G.Ramesh Babu,

P.W.7D.Seshagiri,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1: Report submitted by Pw1 to the police inNil Cr.No.160/2023.

Ex.P2Report dt.29.5.2024 submitted by Pw1 to the police in Cr.No.65/2024.

Ex.P3: Report dt.22.11.2023 submitted by Pw3 to the

C.C.No.15 of 202513Date :11.5.20 police in Cr.No.63/2024.

Ex.P4: Mediator Report dt.30.5.2024 at 8.30 am,

Ex.P5: Mediator Report dt.30.5.2024 at 11.00 am,

Ex.P6 FIR.

Ex.P7: Rough sketch in Cr.No.63/2024

Ex.P8: FIR.

Ex.P9: Rough sketch in Cr.No.65/2024, 3 Nos

Ex.P10 FIR in Cr.No.160/2023.

Ex.P11 Rough Sketch in Cr.No.160/2023.

Material objects :-

Mo.1 is motor cycle bearing number AP 39 FM 5075.

Sd/-C.Janaki/-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur.

//True Copy//

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur.

C.C.No.15 of 202514Date :11.5.20

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

PUTTUR.

CALENDAR CASE No. 15 OF 2025

Date of offence:28.11.2023,22.11.2023and 4.4.2023.

Date of complaint:28.11.2023, 27.5.2024 & 29.5.2024

Date of taken on file:16.1.2025

Date of apprehension of accused:17.2.2025

Date of commencement of trial:14.8.2025

Date of close of trial:4.2.2026

Explanation for delay:No delay

Date of sentence or order:11.5.2026

Complainant:The State represented by Sub- Inspector of Police, Vedurukuppam Police Station

A1 Seejarla Prathap Raju @ Prathap, age 26 years, S/o. C.Narayana Raju, Ontillu Village, Jakkadona Post, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. A2 Chinnantharaju Jayarama Raju, age 22 years, S/o C.Janardhan Raju, Ramakrishnapuram Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. A3 Kamasani Rajasekhar, age 27 years, S/o K.Krishna Reddy, Kalimichenu Village, Nallavenganapalli Post, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

Nature of offence: Theft, dishonestly received or retained the stolen property.

Section of Law: 379 or 411 of IPC

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

C.C.No.15 of 202515Date :11.5.20

Sentence or order: In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months from today as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property in CPR No.23 of 2024 was given to PW3 in Crl.M.P.No.1046/2024 dt.15.7.2024 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property in CPR No.80 of 2024 shall be given to PW2/K.Prakash Reddy after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property in CPR No.81 of 2024 shall be given to PW1/A.Murali after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property in CPR No.84 of 2024 i.e. cash of Rs.1150/- shall be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal time

Sd/-C.Janaki/-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

//True Copy//

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur.

C.C.No.15 of 202516Date :11.5.20

APCH0C0003722017

O.S.No.153 of 20171Date :9.4.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

PUTTUR.

PRESENT: Smt C.Janaki,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur.

Thursday, this the Ninth (9th)day of April Two Thousand Twenty Six.

ORIGINAL SUIT No: 153 of 2017

Between:

1. Bodi Reddy Narasamma,

2. Bodireddy Doraswamy Reddy,

3. Bodireddy Hemasekhar Reddy, … Plaintiffs AND

1. B.Jagannadham Reddy (Died),

2. B.Narasimha Reddy,

3. B.Bhupathi Reddy,

4. Y.Eswari,

5. Y.Ramasudha,

6. P.Lakshmi Narasamma, .… Defendants.

This suit is coming up before me on 16.3.2026 for final hearing, in the presence of Sri K.Purushotham, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Sri Gali Ramesh, counsel for defendant D2, D4 To D6, and Defendant no.1 is died, Defendant no.3 is Exparte upon hearing, on perusal of records and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, relatives, nominees, friends etc. from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for cost.

O.S.No.153 of 20172Dt:09.04.2026

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

(a).The plaint schedule survey no.236/5, Pachikapallam village accounts, vedurukuppam mandal is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. The father in law of the 1st plaintiff by name Bodi Reddy

Chenga Reddy and his wife Chinnakka are absolute owners of the said land in possession and enjoyment of the same to an extent of Ac.0.98 cents. The said Bodireddy Chenga Reddy and his wife Chinnakka had no male issues and as such they had adopted and brought up Chinna

Krishna Reddy, husband of 1st plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 as their adopted son. As such the said Chinnakka got two daughters and one son namely 1.Eragamma 2. Ramakka and 3. Chinna Krishna

Reddy. Chinnakka during her life time had settled an extent of Ac.0.39 cents to the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 by a registered settlement deed dt.11.10.1966 under document no.1362/1966, prior to his marriage. The remaining property in the suit survey number was divided orally among the China Krishna Reddy and his two sisters and he was allotted to an extent of Ac.022 cents on southern side and the remaining property was allotted to his sisters and they are in possession and enjoyment of their share jointly. While so, after death of Eragamma, her husband and her sons alienated some properties in favour of one Rami Reddy along with Ramakka by a registered sale deed dt. 19.12.1973 under document no.2732/1973.

Subsequently, the said Ramireddy also settled the property under registered settlement deed dt.27.9.1985 under document no.1840/1985 in suit survey number to her daughter in law and her sons namely

Chengamma, Balaraju and Bhupathi Reddy (3rd defendant). It seems

O.S.No.153 of 20173Dt:09.04.2026

RamiReddy,Chengamma amd others alienated more extent than acual possession under regd deed dated.13.04.1988.

(b).It is submitted that, the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 died intestate on 24.6.2017 leaving the plaintiffs as his legal heirs to succeed the plaint schedule properties and other properties. Since then the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any interruption.

There is a five variety trees in the ridges and dilapidated well is existing in the plaint schedule property. The defendants have no right, title interest or possession over the plaint schedule properties. On 11.8.2017 at 10.00 am, the defendants came with a mob and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. But timely intervention of the neighbouring land owners, the plaintiff could resist the same and they went away from the suit property . Hence the suit.

3.Defendants filed written statement by denying the contents of the plaintiff point wise and para wise and contended that the land in

S.No.236/5 an extent of Ac.0.98 cents, at Pachikapalem village accounts, vedurukuppam Mandal, is originally belongs to one Chinna

Akkamma W/o Bodi Reddy. Chenga Reddy of Pedda Poduchenu village, the said Chinna Akkamma, had executed a registered settlement deed dt.11.10.1966 infavour of one Chinna Krishna Reddy

S/o Yerrama Reddy who is the son of her husband elder brother for an extent of Ac.0.39 cents out of Ac.0.98 cents with specific boundaries and deliver possession to him on the same day, again the said Chinna

Akkamma with love and affection, executed a registered settlement deed on 15.12.1966 vide document no.1724/66 for an extent of Ac.0.59 cents infavour of her daughters i.e. Eragamma w/o Chinnamma Reddy

O.S.No.153 of 20174Dt:09.04.2026

and Ramakka W/o Chenga Reddy and delivered possession to them on the same day. So the said settlement deed was duly accepted and acted upon.

The defendant submits that, one B.Ramakka, Chinnamma Reddy his minor son Narasimha Reddy jointly executed a registered sale deed dt.19.12.1973 under document NO.2732/73 infavour of Maryada Rami

Reddy for an extent of Ac.0.68 cents in Sy.No.236/5 with specific boundaries and delivered possession to him on the same day. The defendant submits that, B.Rami Reddy S/o Yaragam Reddy executed a registered settlement deed in favour of his daughter in law and grand sons of B.Chengamma and her son Balaraju and minor son Bupathi

Reddy dt.27.9.1985, with specific boundaries, again the said

B.Chengamma and her sons Balaraju and minor Bupathi and also

Maryada Rami Reddy, sold the same infavour of Jagganadam Reddy (this defendant), Narasimha Reddy (2nd defendant) dt.13.4.1988 for sum of Rs.12,500/-, but at the time of executing the sale deed they have mentioned an extent of Ac,0.64 cents with specific boundaries as per existing possession of them. The defendant submits that, the said

Chinna Krishna Reddy has sold an extent of Ac.0.27 cents out of

Ac.0.39 cents in SY.No.236/5 to one Subramanyam S/o C.Sosalaiah retaining an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, the said Chinna Krishna Reddy died recently, there after his wife and children misrepresented before revenue official and obtained pattadar pass book and title deed for an extent of Ac.0.27 cents instead of Ac.0.12 cents with out any right what so ever filed the suit with a malafide intention knock away the plaint schedule property.

O.S.No.153 of 20175Dt:09.04.2026

4.Basing on the pleadings of both parties the following issues are framed for the purpose of trial:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment

of the plaint schedule mentioned property as pleaded?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent

injunction as prayed for?

(3) To what relief ?

5.During the trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A11. On the other hand the defendants examined and Dw.1 to DW3 and marked Ex.B1 to B10.

6.Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the entire record.

Issue No.1 :- Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and

enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property as pleaded?

7. The plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac 0.22 cents in

Sy.No:236/5D in pachikapallam village accounts. The main case of the plaintiff is that Chinna Krishna Reddy (husband of the first plaintiff) is the adopted son of Chinnakka and Chenga Reddy and that he was given Ac.0.39 cents under a registered settlement deed dated 11.10.1966; that in a subsequent oral partition among family members, he obtained an additional extent of Ac.0.22 cents. The plaintiffs claim that they are in possession of this extent.

8. On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that entire land in Sy.No.236/5 (Ac.0.98 cents) originally belonged to Chinnakkamma, who alienated the said land under two registered settlement deeds i.e.,

Ac.0.39 cents to Chinna Krishna Reddy and Ac.0.59 cents to her daughters and delivered the possession and acted upon.nFrom there,

O.S.No.153 of 20176Dt:09.04.2026

they state about a chain of transactions i.e., parts of the property were sold in 1973 to Maryada Rami Reddy, later it was settled by him within his family, and it was finally sold in 1988 to the present defendants and since then the defendants have been in the possession based on those documents. They further contend that Chinna Krishna Reddy had only

Ac.0.12 cents left after selling Ac.0.27 cents earlier, but his legal heirs falsely obtained revenue records for the larger extent and filed the present suit with intention to grab the defendants’ property.

9. In order to prove the contention and case of the plaintiff, he has got examined himself as PW1, got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 and got examined PW2 and PW3. The chief affidavit of PW1,who is the son of the first plaintiff , is nothing but the averments of plaint pleadings. He admits that the entire extent of Ac.0.98 cents originally belonged to

Chinnakka. He categorically admits about the execution of the registered settlement deeds , one is in favour of his father for Ac.0.39 cents under Ex.A1/Ex.B.2 and another is in favour of the daughters of

Chinnakka for Ac.0.59 cents under Ex.B3/settelement deed dated 15.12.1966. The relevant document for the above admitted transaction is marked as Ex.B2 on behalf of the defendants. PW1 further admits the subsequent of transactions i.e., the sale dee d executed by

Ramakka(daughter of Chinnakka) and others in favour of Rami Reddy

dated 19.12.1973/Ex.A2/Ex.Ex.B4, the gift settlement executed by

Ramireddy in favour of Chengamma under Ex.A3 dated 17.09.1985, and the sale deed executed by Rami Reddy in favour of defendants 1 and 2 under Ex.A4 dated13.04.1988.

10. With regard to the aspect of adoption PW1 clearly admits that there is no document executed for adoption and that he does not know

O.S.No.153 of 20177Dt:09.04.2026

when the alleged adoption took place, and that even in Ex.A1, the registered settlement deed, there is no recital that Chinna Krishna

Reddy was adopted son of Chinnakka and ChengaReddy. As seen from the of Ex.A1 it was referred Chinni krishna Reddy therein as the son of elder brother of Chinnakka’s husband. Thus it is clear that their own document is not supporting the version of the plaintiffs. Apart from that there was no strong and convincing evidence to prove the alleged adoption.

11. Another contention of the plaintiffs is that there was oral partition took place between the chinni krishnareddy and the daughters of Chinnakka. P.W.1 admits that he does not know when such partition took place and that there is no revenue record or other documents to show the relevant portions in pursuance of alleged partition. Thus, the alleged allotment of Ac.0.22 cents is not unsupported by any subsequent record or reliable testimony.

12. Further, Pw1 admits that his father had sold away Ac.0.27 cents out of the Ac.0.39 cents and was left with Ac.0.12 cents only.

Ex.B6 is the the document for the said sale transaction by Chinni krishna Reddy in favour one C.Subramanyam and the recitals of the

Ex.B6 depict the same. It is pertinent to observe that the said transaction is not put forth by by the plaintiffs themselves. Further P.W.2 also admitted that ChinniKrishna Reddy sold away ac 0.27 cents out of

Ac 0.39 cents and for the remaining extent of Ac 0.12 cents, the plaintiff obtained pattadar pass book. The above admissions contradict the contention and claim of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of

Ac.0.22 cents. If the plaintiffs left with Ac 0.12 cents out of Ac 0.39 cents and as per their claim the additional Ac 0.22 cents, the total land in the

O.S.No.153 of 20178Dt:09.04.2026

possession of the plaintiffs in the suit survey number 236/5D would be

Ac 0.34 cents and the plaintiffs should have the revenue records for that extent.

13. Ex.A5 to Ex.A7 are the revenue records relied by the plaintiffs.

Ex.A5/pattadar pass book, Ex.A6/1-B and Ex.A6/adangal does not show the total extent of the total land in Sy No:236/5D i.e.,Ac 0.12 + Ac 0.22 cents as claimed by the plaintiff. There is no other entry in Ex.A5 to

Ex.A7 for the land in suit survey number on the name of plaintiffs. Thus the above referred documents do not support the possession of the total land claimed by the plaintiffs in suit survey number.

14. Further Pw3 stated that he does not know who is in possession of the suit property and that the land has remained barren land for about twenty years. Such statement does not support the plaintiff in any manner in a suit for permanent injunction based on the possession.

15. Coming to the defendants case, D.W.1 has deposed about chronological chain of transactions beginning from Chinnakka, through the settlement deeds of 1966, the sale in 1973, the settlement in 1985, and finally, the sale deed dated 13.04.1988 (Ex.B1) in favour of defendants 1 and 2. All the said transactions are supported by documentary evidence marked as Exs.B1 to B6. Though, this present suit is for injunction simplicitor, but the existence of such a documents for the sequence of transactions cannot be ignored, particularly when it is admitted by P.W.1 himself.

16. D.W.1 further states about their possession and enjoyment of the property and refers to the enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar, the report of whom is marked as Ex.B7. The report clearly reveals about the possession of different persons in suit survey number for the

O.S.No.153 of 20179Dt:09.04.2026

respective extents and it does not support the plaintiffs’ claim of exclusive possession. Though revenue records are not conclusive of title, they are relevant in proof of possession unless those are disproved. D.W.1 admits that pattadar passbook was issued in the name of the husband of the first plaintiff in the year 2014.

However,under Ex.B7 it was submitted by the Tahsildar that the said entry on the name of the plaintiff is not supported by any physical possession of the plaintiff.

17. On summing up of the case, there is no clear, cogent, and consistent proof on behalf of the plaintiff to establish their exclusive possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiffs.

Issue No.2:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

18. In view of the findings in Issue No.1 that the plaintiffs could not prove their possession over the plaint schedule property during the relevant period of filing of the suit, they are not entitled for permanent injunction. Accordingly the issue No:2 is answered against of the plaintiffs.

19.Issue No.3 :- to what relief?

In view of the findings in Issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is not entitled for decree of the suit as prayed for.

20. In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Addl.steno, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 9 th day of April, 2026.

Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

Puttur.

O.S.No.153 of 201710Dt:09.04.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendants:

PW1 : B.Hemasekhar Reddy, Dw1 : B.Narasimha Reddy,

PW2 : B.Krishna Reddy, Dw2 : Y.Eswari,

PW3 : G.Muniraja Reddy, Dw3 : K.Bruhaspathi Reddy,

Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of Registration copy of registered settlement deed dated 11-10-1966 executed by Chinnakka infavour of the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3.

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of Registration copy of registered sale deed

dated 19.12.1973 executed by Ramakka and others in favour of Rami

Reddy.

Ex.A3 : Certified copy of Registration copy of registered settlement deed dated 17.09.1985 executed by Rami Reddy infavour of

Chengamma and others

Ex.A4 : Certified copy of Registration copy of register sale deed dated 13.04.1988 executed by Rami Reddy and others in favour of

Jagannadha Reddy and others.

Ex.A5 : Original pattadar passbook stands in the name of husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3.

Ex.A6 : Computerized 1-B stands in the name of husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3.

Ex.A7 : Computerized Adangal stands in the name of husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3.

O.S.No.153 of 201711Dt:09.04.2026

Ex.A8 : Death Certificate of Chinnakrishna Reddy.

Ex.A9 : Certified copy of Registered partition deed dt.9.10.2020 between the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of suit survey number property.

Ex.A10 : Certified copy of Registered sale deed, dt.20.1.2021 executed by the 2nd defendant and others in favour of one B.Rani who is daughter of 2nd defendant herein in respect of Suit survey number property .

Ex.A11 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt, 11.2.2021 executed by B.Rani in favour of 2nd respondent in respect of suit.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendants :

Ex.B1 : Registered sale deed, dated 13.04.1988 vide Doc.No.485/1988 executed by B.Chengamma W/o Late Ranga Reddy and her son

B.Balaraju in favour of defendants No.1 and 2.

Ex.B2 : Certified copy of Registration Extract of settlement deed, dated 11.10.1966 vide Doc.No.1362/1966 executed by B. Chinnakka W/o

B.Chenga Reddy in favour of B.Chinna Krishna Reddy S/o B.Yarramma

Reddy.

Ex.B3 : Certified copy of Registration Extract of settlement deed, dated 15.12.1966 vide Doc.No.1724/1966 executed by B. Chinnakka W/o

B.Chenga Reddy in favour of her two daughters by name 1)Bandi

Yaragamma and 2) Ramakka.

Ex.B4 : Certified copy of Registration Extract of sale deed, dated 19.12.1973 vide Doc.No.2732/1973 executed by Bandi Ramakka W/o

B.Chenga Reddy, her sister's husband by name B.Chinnama Reddy and her son by name Narasimha Reddy in favour of B. Maryadarama

Reddy S/o B. Yargam Reddy.

O.S.No.153 of 201712Dt:09.04.2026

Ex.B5 : Certified copy of Registration Extract of settlement deed, dated 27.09.1985 vide Doc.No.1840/1985 executed by B. Ramirerddy S/o B.

Yaragam Reddy in favour of B. Chengamma W/o Late B. Ranga Reddy and her sons by name B. Balaraju and B. Bhoopathi Reddy.

Ex.B6 : Certified copy of Registration Extract of sale deed, dated 12.08.1987 vide Doc.No.1283/1987 executed by B. Chinna Krishna

Reddy S/o B. Yarramma Reddy in favour of C.Subramanyam S/o C.

Sosalaiah.

Ex.B7 : Enquiry report, dated 06.02.2019 issued by the Tahsildar,

Vedurukuppam regarding land an extent of Ac.0.98 cents in

Sy.No.236/5 to submit to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor.

Ex.B8 : Certified copy of Partition deed, dt.25.9.2020 between the sisters of the plaintiffs no.2 and 3 and the 1st plaintiff,

Ex.B9 : 1B namuna register stands in the name of 3rd plaintiff obtained from Meeseva for the land an extent of Ac.0.06 cents in Sy.No.236/56C, dt.26.10.2024.

Ex.B10 : No.2 adangal stands in the name of the 3rd plaintiff obtained from Meeseva for the land an extent of Ac.0.06 cents in Sy.No.236/5C1, dt.26.10.2024.

PJCJ, PTR

Fair JUDGMENT IN O.S.No:153 of 2017 Dt.9.4.2026

APCH0C0000192025

C.C.No.13 of 20251Date :11.5.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

PUTTUR

PRESENT: Smt.Janaki.Challa,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th ) day of May, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.13 of 2025

(Crime No.165 of 2023 of Vedurukuppam P.S and Crime No.1 of 2024 of Vedurukuppam P.S) Between:

The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police,

Vedurukuppam Police Station...Complainant.

And:

A1 Seejarla Prathap Raju @ Prathap, age 26 years, S/o. C.Narayana Raju, Ontillu Village, Jakkadona Post, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

A2 Chinnantharaju Jayarama Raju, age 22 years, S/o C.JanardhanRaju,RamakrishnapuramVillage, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

A3 Kamasani Rajasekhar, age 27 years, S/o K.Krishna Reddy, Kalimichenu Village, Nallavenganapalli Post, … A1 to A3 Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

This case came before me on 5.5.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and Sri.N.Nadhamuni, Learned counsel for accused; upon perusing the material on record and this Court having stood over for consideration till this day, delivered the following:

C.C.No.13 of 20252Date :11.5.2026

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub inspector of police, Vedurukuppam police station filed charge sheet against accused in Crime Number 165 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sec.379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as IPC).

2.The facts of the prosecution case as mentioned in the charge sheet in nutshell are as follows:

The complainant K.Sudhakar Reddy was transporting sugar cane from his fields and unloading it in the main road . As usual on 16.12.2023 at about 7.00 he parked the trailer bearing number AP 39

HR 6015 with sugar cane in the night time near Nagarjuna colony, some unknown offenders were unloading the sugar cane from the trailer and committed theft of Tractor trailer no.AP39 HR 6015 chassis no.ACHBTW21A067JA2TT worth about Rs.60,000/- and escaped with booty.

Basing on the complaint of LW1/K.Sudhakar Reddy a case in

Cr.No.165 of 2023 under Section 379 of IPC was registered by

LW11/K.Samba Siva Reddy and took up investigation.

On 19.11.2023 at 8.00 pm to 20.11.2023 at 5.30 am infront of the house of the complainant at Aggichenupalli H/Wada, Vedurukuppam

Mandal, Chittoor District, some unknown offenders were committed theft of Tractor Trailer Reg.NO.AP26 AX 2910, Chasis no.M201204470OSRTWNEL000200502TT worth about Rs.50,000/-

C.C.No.13 of 20253Date :11.5.2026 belongs to the complainant which was parked at the house of the complainant and escaped with booty.

Basing on the complaint of Y.Sampath on 10.1.2024 at 8.30 am a case in Cr.No.1 of 2024 under Section 379 of IPC was registered at

Vedurukuppam PS and investigated by Lw14 G.Ramesh Babu.

3.This Court took cognizance of offence under Section 379 or 411 of IPC against A1 to A3.

4.On appearance of accused before the Court, relevant copies of documents were furnished to A1 to A3 as required under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. A1 to A3 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, they were explained in Telugu, the charges framed for the accusation of the offence punishable under Sec.379 of IPC and an alternate charge under

Section 411 of IPC is framed against A1 to A3, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. After closure of evidence on prosecution side, A1 to A2 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.

8.Now the point that has arisen for consideration is:

C.C.No.13 of 20254Date :11.5.2026

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 to

A3 for the offence under Sec.379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code,

beyond reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6.

P.W.1 is defacto complainant. P.W.2 is the villager. PW3 is the VRO.

Pws4, Pw5 and Pw6 are investigating officers.

10.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of PW1 to PW6 in this case. She argued that the prosecution proved the case of the prosecution through oral evidence by PW1 to PW6. She argued that the prosecution proved the recovery of stolen property and so proved the charges against the accused for the offence of theft or receiving stolen property and prays to convict the accused.

11.It is submitted by the learned defence counsel in his arguments that the prosecution did not prove the essential ingredients for the offence of Section 379 of IPC. He further submitted that the evidence of PW1 to PW6 is not reliable as there are many contradictions and there are no corroborative witnesses and as such, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

12.During the trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 deposed that he has purchased tractor and tailor bearing No.AP 39 HR 6015, for agricultural works of his own use. On 16.12.2023 at 07.00 pm he has

C.C.No.13 of 20255Date :11.5.2026 parked his trailor bearing No. AP 39 HR 6015 near Nagarajuna Colony.

On the next day morning he did not find his trailor in the parked place.

He searched in the surroundings for his trailor but in vain. Some unknown offenders have stolen his trailor. As such on 19.12.2023 he gave report to the police. He further deposed that after 20 days police informed him that his trailor was recovered. He received his trailor from the court for interim custody (Crl.MP No.632/2024, dated 07.05.2024).

13. Pw2 who is the de facto complainant in Cr.No. 01 of 2024, deposed that he know PW1, LW2, LW5 and LW7 to LW10. He has purchased tractor bearing No.AP 26 AX 2910 and its tailor, for agricultural works of his own use. On 19.11.2023 at night he has parked his tractor and its trailor infront of his house. On the next day morning he did not find his trailor in the parked place, but only tractor was there. He searched in the surroundings for his trailor but in vain.

Some unknown offenders have stolen his trailor. As such on 10.01.2024 he gave report to the police.

14. Pw3 who is said to be the mediator, has deposed that heon 10.01.2024 at about 03.00 pm on the request of police he along with the police team went to T-junction in Jakkadona village. Then A1 and

A2 were coming on tractor, on seeing them they tried to skulk away.

The police caught hold them and on enquiry individually and separately they revealed their name and address particulars. They stated that they have stolen the trailor of a tractor in Allamadugu village and they were taking the said trailor to sell away. The further stated that they have

C.C.No.13 of 20256Date :11.5.2026 changed the paint colour of the trailor. The SI of police, seized trailor bearing No.AP 39 H 6105, the tractor and seized Rs.6000/- from the possession of A1 and Rs.5,000/- from the possession of A2 and arrested A1 and A2, and recorded their statement, under cover of mediator report. He along with other mediator and police people affixed their signatures in mediator report. Ex.P3 is the mediator report,

dated 10.01.2024. From there they returned to their work.

15. Pw4 deposed that on 10.01.2024 at about 08.30 AM, PW2 came to police station and submitted written report to him basing on which he registered the case in Cr.No.01/2024 for the U/Sec.379 of

IPC and submitted the FIR copies to all the concerned officers and took up investigation. Ex.P4 is the FIR in Cr.No.01/2024. On the same day he examined and recorded the statement of PW2. On the same day he visited the scene of offence i.e., infront of the house of PW2 in

Agichenupalli H/w. There he prepared the rough sketch. There he examined and recorded the statements of LW7 to LW10. He returned to police station. On same day at about 04.00 PM on receipt of credible information he along with his staff and mediators, went to

Jakkidona T-Junction and conducted vehicle checking. On seeing them two persons who were coming on a tractor from a Kannikapuram side, tried to skulk away. They caught hold them. On enquiry individually and separately, they revealed their identity particulars and stated that they along Rajasekhar(A3) have stolen the tractor tralies at Allamadugu and Agichenupalli H/w. The further stated that they have sold away the traly bearing No.AP 26 AS 2911, for Rs.40,000/-. They have searched and found Rs.6,000/- in the possession of A1/Prathapraju and found

C.C.No.13 of 20257Date :11.5.2026

Rs.5,000/- in the possession of A2/Jayaramaraju. The traly bearing

No.AP 39 HR 6015 was in the possession of A1 and A2. He has seized the above said traly and the tractor of the accused and seized the cash of Rs.6,000/- from A1 and Rs.5,000/- from A2, under cover of mediator report/Ex.P3 in the presence of mediators. He has affixed their signatures in Ex.P3. From there were returned their police station. He served 41-A Cr.PC notice to A1 and A2. He has produced the property before the court. Further investigation was conducted by

LW15.

16. Pw5 deposed that in this he has verified the previous investigation found it in correct lines and he filed charge sheet.

17. Pw6 deposed that on 19.12.2023 at about 03.30 PM, PW1 came to police station and submitted written report to him, basing on which he registered the case in Cr.No.165/2023 for the U/Sec.379 of

IPC and submitted the FIR copies to all the concerned officers and took up investigation. Ex.P5 is the FIR in Cr.No.165/2023. On the same day he examined and recorded the statement of PW1. On the same day he visited the scene of offence i.e., near Nagarujuna Colony, Allamadugu village. There he prepared the rough sketch. Ex.P6 is rough sketch in

Cr.No.165/2023. There he recorded the statements of LW2 to

LW5.Further investigation was conducted by LW14.

18. Regarding the offences punishable U/Sec.379 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused/A1 to A3 have stolen the tractor trailors of PW1 and PW2. In this context, P.W.1 has categorically deposed that he parked his tractor trailor bearing number Ap 39 HR

C.C.No.13 of 20258Date :11.5.2026 6015 and some unknown offenders have stolen it and he gave report to the police. Pw2 who is the de facto complainant in Cr.No:01/2024 also deposed that some unknown offenders have stolen his tractor trailor and he gave report to the police. Thus there was no identification of the accused from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and their testimony is not useful to rope the accused/A1 to A3, to prove the guilt and charge under section 379 of Indian Penal Code. Apart from the evidence of PW.1, the remaining material before the court regarding the offence of 379 of IPC is that the confession of the accused/A1 and A2, stated by the P.W4/the

Investigating Officer and P.W.3/the mediator in their respective testimonies. They both categorically deposed that the accused/A1 and

A2 confessed before them regarding the offences he committed. But the said confession before the Investigating Officer/P.W.4 is not admissible as per Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act. Except the said confession, there is no other material to show that the accused has committed the offence of theft of Tractor trailors of P.W1 and PW.2. Thus, the ingredients for the offence U/Sec.379 of IPC are not at all established by the prosecution against the accused.

19.Coming to the offence U/Sec.411 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that they have seized stolen property from the possession of the accused having knowledge that it was stolen property. The case of the prosecution is totally about the seizure of the stolen properties and the said factum of seizure has to be corroborated by the mediators’ evidence in detail and meticulously.

C.C.No.13 of 20259Date :11.5.2026

20.The investigation officer who is said to have seized the stolen property, i.e., PW4 has deposed that he has seized the stolen property,i.e the trailor and cash of Rs.11000/- from the possession of

A1 and A2 under cover of mediator report/Ex.P3, in the presence of mediators.

21.Coming to the evidence of mediator/PW.3, he has corroborated with the evidence of P.W4/Investigating officer in all aspects. Ex.P3/the mediator report was marked through the media tor/PW3. PW3 has deposed in the cross examination that they have affixed the signatures in Ex.P3 between 4.00 P.M to 5.00 Pm and at 5.00 PM, they returned to Police station. But, the recitals of Ex.P3 depict that the said mediator report was completed its preparation at 6.00 PM. It is supposed to affix the signatures of mediators in the mediator report/Ex.P3 after its preparation i.e., after 6.00 PM only. But

PW3 deposed that he affixed his signature between 4.00 P.M to 5.00

Pm. The said circumstance is inconsistent with the normal course of human conduct and ordinary prudence , thereby giving rise to serious suspicion regarding the authenticity , genuineness and credibility of the mediator report. If really PW3 accompanied the police team he would have deposed about the time of completion of preparation of mediator report accurately,but he failed do so, which gives rise to suspicion as to his presence at the time of alleged seizure.

22. As per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, the discovery of material objects basing on the confessional statement before the police is admissible evidence. But when the seizure was not corroborated by

C.C.No.13 of 202510Date :11.5.2026 the independent mediators, this Court cannot rely on the testimony of sole police personnel and so that the evidence of mediator cannot be taken into consideration as corroborative to the relevant and admissible portion of the confessional statement under Section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act. Hence, to prove the factum of seizure of stolen property, there is no corroborative and cogent evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Though PW4/ investigation officer has produced the property before this court, it is not proved that the stolen property was recovered by the police from the possession of the accused. So that it is held that the prosecution has not proved the ingredients for the offence punishable U/Sec.411 of IPC.

23. On considering the discussion supra, facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused/A.1 to A.093 for the offence punishable U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. As such, Accused/A.1 to A.3 are entitled for acquittal.

24. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months from today as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

The unmarked property in CPR No.19 of 2024 was already given to their owners as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.632 of 2024, dt.7.5.2024 and

Crl.M.P.No.855/2024 dt.18.6.2024. They shall be made absolute after

expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property i.e. cash of Rs.11000/- in

C.C.No.13 of 202511Date :11.5.2026

CPR No.83/2024 shall be given to PW2/Y.Sampath after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Addl.Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-C.Janaki/-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1:Sudhakar Reddy,None

P.W.2:Y.Sampath,

P.W.3K.Sambasiva Reddy,

P.W.4G.Ramesh Babu,

P.W.5D.Seshagiri,

P.W.6M.S.Murali,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1: Report dt.19.12.2023 submitted by Pw1 to theNil police in Cr.No.165/2023.

Ex.P2Report dt.10.1.2024 submitted by Pw1 to the police in Cr.No.1/2024.

Ex.P3: Mediator report dt.10.1.2024

Ex.P4: FIR in Cr.No.1/2024

C.C.No.13 of 202512Date :11.5.2026

Ex.P5: FIR in Cr.No.165/2023

Ex.P6 Rough Sketch in Cr.No.165/2023.

Sd/-C.Janaki/-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

PUTTUR.

CALENDAR CASE No. 13 OF 2025

C.C.No.13 of 202513Date :11.5.2026

Date of offence:16.12.2023

Date of complaint:19.11.2023

Date of taken on file:16.1.2025

Date of apprehension of accused:17.2.2025

Date of commencement of trial:14.8.2025

Date of close of trial:25.2.2026

Explanation for delay:No delay

Date of sentence or order:11.5.2026

Complainant:The State represented by Sub- Inspector of Police, Vedurukuppam Police Station

A1 Seejarla Prathap Raju @ Prathap, age 26 years, S/o. C.Narayana Raju, Ontillu Village, Jakkadona Post, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. A2 Chinnantharaju Jayarama Raju, age 22 years, S/o C.Janardhan Raju, Ramakrishnapuram Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. A3 Kamasani Rajasekhar, age 27 years, S/o K.Krishna Reddy, Kalimichenu Village, Nallavenganapalli Post, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

Nature of offence: Theft, dishonestly received or retained the stolen property.

Section of Law: 379 or 411 of IPC

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for six months from today as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property in CPR No.19 of 2024 was

C.C.No.13 of 202514Date :11.5.2026 already given to their owners as per orders in

Crl.M.P.No.632of2024,dt.7.5.2024and

Crl.M.P.No.855/2024 dt.18.6.2024. They shall be made

absolute after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property i.e. cash of Rs.11000/- in CPR No.83/2024 shall be given to PW2/Y.Sampath after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-C.Janaki/-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

APCH0C0010162025

C.C.No.521 of 20251Date :7.5.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

PUTTUR

PRESENT: Smt.C.Janaki,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur. Thursday, this the Seventh (7th ) day of May, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.521 of 2025

(Crime No.13 of 2025 of S.R.Puram P.S) Between:

The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police,

S.R.Puram Police Station...Complainant.

And:

P.Srilatha, age 38 years, W/o. P.Karthik, r/at Chinna Thayyuru H/wada, S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. … Accused

This case came before me on this day i.e., 5.5.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and Sri.Gali Suresh Babu, Learned counsel for accused; upon perusing the material on record and this Court having stood over for consideration till this day, delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub inspector of police, S.R.Puram police station filed charge sheet against accused in Crime Number 13 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Sec.7(B) r/w 8 (A) (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

C.C.No.521 of 20252Date :7.5.2026

2.The facts of the prosecution case as mentioned in the charge sheet in nutshell are as follows: On 15.2.2025 at 5.15 am in front of house of the accused of you Chinna Thayyuru H/wada, S.R.Puram

Mandal, Chittoor District, indulged in the activities of ID Arrack, on receiving the credible information M.S.Venkatesh, ASI conducting raid in the presence of two mediators, during the ride he noticed suspect while she was carrying a plastic can and standing infront of her house, on noticing the police party she left the plastic can and absconded from the spot. M.S.Venkatesh, ASI examined the plastic can and found 05 ltrs of

ID Arrack, worth of Rs.1,250/- separated sample of 180 ml, seized the contraband of 05 ltrs of ID Arrack, and drafted a seizure mahazarnama.

Basing on the strength of mediator report, LW9/M.S.Venkatesh,

Asst.Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.13/2025 under

Section 7(B) r/w 8 (A) (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act. On 15.2.2025 at 4.00 pm and submitted FIR to all concerned officers and took up the investigation into this case.

During the course of investigation on 11.3.2025, Lw9 arrested the accused T.Srilatha, recorded her confession statement in the presence of Lws6 and 7 forwarded the accused along with remand report, produced before this Court to the Judicial Custody.

3.This Court took cognizance of offence under Sec.7(B) r/w 8 (A) (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act against the accused.

C.C.No.521 of 20253Date :7.5.2026

4.On appearance of accused before the Court, relevant copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, he was explained in Telugu, the charges framed for the accusation of the offence punishable under Sec.7(B) r/w 8 (A) (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. After closure of evidence on prosecution side, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.

8.Now the point that has arisen for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence under Sec. 7(B) r/w 8 (A) (B) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doubt?”

9. POINT:

To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4.

P.W.1 is the VRO. PW2 is the mediator. PW3 is the investigation officer.

PW4 is Head Constable.

C.C.No.521 of 20254Date :7.5.2026

10.The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued before this court that the guilt of accused is clearly established with the evidence of

PW1 to PW4 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Therefore, accused is liable for conviction.

11. The learned defense counsel argued that accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that no independent witness was examined before this court and the evidence of police people is not believable and the accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

12.Perused the record. Out of the listed witnesses, the prosecution got examined 04 witnesses i.e., PW.2 is the mediator.

P.W.1 is the VRO. PW3 is the investigation officer. PW4 is Head

Constable. Ex.P1 is mediator report dated 15.2.2025. Ex.P2 is is mediator report dated 11.3.2025. Ex.P3 is FIR. Ex.P4 is letter of advice. Ex.P5 is Analysis report. M.O.1 is sample bottle.

13.During the trial, on behalf of prosecution,

P.W.1/K.Prabhavathi, deposed that she know LW5/Ammulu. On 15.02.2025 at about 05.15 AM on the request of police she along with the police team went to near to the house of the accused in Chinna

Thayuru village. On seeing them the accused who was with plastic can, skulk away by leaving the plastic can. The police found 05 liters of ID arrack in the can. The ASI of police drawn the sample, seized the 05 liters of ID arrack, under cover of mediator report. She along with other mediator and police people affixed their signatures in mediator report.

C.C.No.521 of 20255Date :7.5.2026

Ex.P1 is the mediator report, dated 15.02.2025. MO1 is the sample bottle of ID arrack. From there they returned to their work.

14. P.W.2/P.Deepa, deposed that she know LW7/M.Jayalakshmi.

On 11.03.2025 at about 11.00 AM on the request of police she along with the police team went to the house of accused in Chinna Thayuru village. On seeing them the accused went into the house and closed the door. The police asked her and on enquiry she revealed her name and address particulars. She stated that he was manufacturing and selling ID arrack and skulk away on 15.02.2025. The ASI by name

Jayaramaiah arrested the accused under cover of mediator report.

She along with other mediator and police people affixed their signatures in mediator report. Ex.P2 is the mediator report, dated 11.03.2025. From there they returned to their work.

15. P.W.3/M.S.Venkatesulu, deposed that on 15.02.2025 on receipt of credible information he along with his staff and mediators at about 05.00 pm went to house of accused in Chinna Thayuru village.

On seeing them one female person who was sitting with plastic can skulk away by leaving the plastic can. They found 05 liters of ID arrack in the plastic can. He has seized the contraband and he has drawn one sample of 180ml from ID arrack under cover of mediator report/Ex.P1. He has affixed their signatures in Ex.P1. From there they returned their police station. Basing on the strength of Ex.P1 he registered the case in Cr.No.13/2025 U/sec.7 A r/w 8A, 8B of AP prohibition Act, submitted the FIR copies to all the concerned officers and tookup investigation. Ex.P3is the FIR. Further investigation was conducted by LW10.

C.C.No.521 of 20256Date :7.5.2026

16. P.W.4/A.Jayaramaiah, deposed that on 11.03.2025 on receipt of credible information he along with his staff and mediators at about 10.45 am went to the house of accused in Chinna Thayauru village. On seeing them the accused tried to skulk away. They caught hold her.

On enquiry she revealed her identity particulars and stated that she was manufacturing and selling the ID arrack and skulk away on 15.02.2025.

she has arrested the accused, under cover of mediator report/Ex.P2.

She produced the accused before the court for Judicial custody.

Further investigation was conducted by LW10.

17. As this is the case U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8 (A) (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act, the prosecution has to establish that accused carrying the ID arrack and was in the possession of 05 liters of I.D. arrack and Police seized the said I.D.arrack from the possession of accused under the cover of police proceedings.

18.As per the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, the accused confessed before them/ the police personnel she was carrying ID arrack for selling to general public and was found in possession of 05 liters of I.D. arrack and the same confession was reduced in the mediator report/Ex.P.1.Except the said confession of the accused

before the police, there is no other material produced by the

prosecution, which is not admissible, as the confession before the police is hit under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

19.Further regarding the alleged seizure of contraband, PWs 1 and 2 deposed in corroboration with each other that accused was found in possession of 05 liters of ID arrack at the scene of offence. The prosecution is heavily relying on the evidence of PW1, the mediator.

PW2 admitted that she is not the GMSK for Ammapalli village, the scene of offence and so, she is apparently not the resident of that

C.C.No.521 of 20257Date :7.5.2026 inhabitant. PW2 further categorically admitted in the cross-examination that her office is situated in the premises of police station in S.R.Puram.

She did not obtained prior permission from Panchayathi secretary. Lw7

Jayalakshmi was GMSK for Pillarikuppam village, Pillarikuppam sachivalayam is situated on the way from police station to Chinna

Thayuru village. ASI/Jayaramulu has typed Ex.P2. Ex.P2 was prepared from 10.45 am to 11.00 am.

20. PW1 categorically admitted in the cross-examination that her native village is Beeraka Nellore village in G.D. Mandal and she is residing in Venkatapuram village of S.R.Puram mandal. It is admitted that Venkatapuram village is not situated on the way from Police station to Thayuru. It is admitted that it is not mentioned in Ex.P1 at which place they joined with police team. There are houses in the surroundings of alleged scene of offence. She do not know who ever affixed signatures in Ex.P1. She cannot say the name of the person who typed Ex.P1. She do not know where Ex.P1 was printed. Ex.P1 was printed at somewhere else and it was brought to the alleged place of seizure.

21. PW3 categorically admitted in the cross-examination that,

Pw1 not resident on the way from police station to the house of accused. It is admitted that it is not mentioned in Ex.P1 from which place they secured mediators. The place of offence is infront of the house of accused.

22. PW4 categorically admitted in the cross-examination that, the distance between their police station and scene of offence is 4 kms.

C.C.No.521 of 20258Date :7.5.2026

He did not issue written notices to the mediators, to act as mediators.

They went, to the place of arrest in a car, but that car does not have the number plate. It it admitted that they did not mention the door number and boundaries of accused house in Ex.P2.

23.In a case, our Hon'ble High Court, which is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, Yeduru Sreenivasul Reddy Vs

State of A.P 2002(1) ALD(Crl.) 347(A.P) held that when no mediators examined though search was conducted in a busy locality, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.

24.In another case, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P in a judgment Between S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P. cited in 2010 (1) A.L.T. (Crl.) held in Para No: 32, “When conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise or Prohibition officials are bound to take the local respectable mediators, that is mandate U/sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C.”

25.In another case our Hon'ble High Court in Adapa

Ramababu@Ramu Vs. State of A.P 2014 (1)ALD(Crl)966(A.P) In

para NO.13 held that, whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of Police officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that. It is only in Extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusion on the evidence of the police officials.

26.In the present case on hand, the prosecution has not examined any such independent witnesses in this case, even though

C.C.No.521 of 20259Date :7.5.2026 there is possibility for PW3 to secure them at the scene of offence. As per the admission of PW2 and also as per the contents of Ex.P1, it is apparent that the scene of offence is within the village of scene of offence which leads to the inference that there is every possibility to secure the villagers to act as mediators, but Ex.P1 does not show any such steps taken by him to secure local people as mediators. As such the seizure was not proved in accordance with law.

27.From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the Accused. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

28.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section. 7(B) r/w 8 (A) (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the above offence under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for six months from today as per

Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO1-180 ml sample bottle of I.D arrack in

C.P.R.No.30 of 2025 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Addl.Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 7 th day of May, 2026.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

C.C.No.521 of 202510Date :7.5.2026

P.W.1:K.Prabhavathi,None

P.W.2:P.Deepa,

P.W.3:M.S.Venkatesulu.

P.W.4: A.Jayaramaiah,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1: is mediator report dated 15.2.2025. Nil

Ex.P2: is mediator report dated 11.3.2025.

Ex.P3:is FIR.

Ex.P4:is Letter of Advice

Ex.P5is Analysis Report.

Material objects :-

MO1: sample bottle.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Puttur.

C.C.No.521 of 202511Date :7.5.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

PUTTUR

CALENDAR CASE No.521 of 2025

Date of offence:15.2.2025

Date of complaint:15.2.2025

Date of taken on file:27.9.2025

Date of apprehension of accused:28.10.2025

Date of commencement of trial:21.01.2026

Date of close of trial:25.02.2026

Explanation for delay:No delay

Date of sentence or order:7.5.2026

Complainant:The State represented by Sub- Inspector of Police, S.R.Puram P.S. P.Srilatha, age 38 years, W/o. P.Karthik, r/at Chinna Thayyuru H/wada, S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District.

Nature of offence: Manufacturing or transporting or selling or buying of alcoholic liquor otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of A.P. Excise Act.

Section of Law: Under Sec.7(B) r/w 8 (A) (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act

Pleaofthe: Pleaded not guilty accused Finding of the: Found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 7(B) r/w 8 (A) Court(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

Sentence or order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section. 7(B) r/w 8 (A) (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the above offence under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for six months from today as

C.C.No.521 of 202512Date :7.5.2026 per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO1-180 ml sample bottle of I.D arrack in C.P.R.No.30 of 2025 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Puttur

APCH0C0006872025

O.S.No.207 of 20251Date:7.5.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) :: PUTTUR.

PRESENT: Smt C.Janaki,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Puttur.

Thursday, this the Seventh (7th ) day of May, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No: 207 of 2025

Between:

N.K.Dinakar Samrat,

... Plaintiff

And:

N.Hari Babu,

..Defendant

This suit is coming up before me on 20.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Modi Sanjeevi, Learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant is exparte and on perusal of record, having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Suit for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants, relatives, nominees, their followers, friends etc., from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

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

O.S.No.207 of 2025 2 Date :7.5.2026

The plaint schedule mentioned property is absolute property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff got the plaint schedule mentioned property through registered settlement deed from his father on 15.6.2020 under vide document no.809/2020. The same was accepted by the plaintiff and got the possession on the same day. So, since the date of the settlement deed the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property with absolute right, title, interest and possession. Subsequently the revenue authorities of S.R.Puram also recognized plaintiff possession and enjoyment with prefect title and mutated his name in all concerned revenue records and issued 1B namuna and adangal in his favour under katha no.847.

Plaintiff submit that originally the plaint schedule mentioned property belongs to the father of the plaintiff. He purchased the plaint schedule mentioned property under two registered sale deeds for legally valid consideration i.e. 30.6.1994 the father of the plaintiff purchased Ac.0.17 cents in Sy.No.94/8 from N.Pandurangaiah, S/o

N.Rama Mandadi for valid consideration of Rs.3,500/- under document no.1116/1994. Similarly on 24.4.1997 the father of the plaintiff purchased Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.94/6 from N.Govindaiah, S/o

N.Yarrabba for valid consideration of Rs.6000/- under document no.492/1997. So, since the date of the purchase under two sale deeds the father of plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property with absolute right, title, interest and possession. Subsequently the revenue authorities of S.R.Puram also recognized father of plaintiff possession and enjoyment with prefect title and mutated his name in all concerned revenue records and issued E-

Pattadar pass book cum title deed in his favour under katha no.373.

O.S.No.207 of 2025 3 Date :7.5.2026

Subsequently the father of the plaintiff transferred the said property in the name of the his son under his love and affection under afore said registered settlement deed on 15.6.2020.

Plaintiff submit that the defendant is cousin brother of plaintiff, he is residing in the same village, he too got the lands in the same village. The plaintiff family is well developed. So the defendant bore grudge and with help of his friends severely trying to change the physical features of the Plaintiff schedule mentioned property and to tresspass into the same and to cause damage to the plaintiff and to occupy the same. The defendant is powerful person having large number of supporters and the plaintiff is not match to him. Unless the defendant is restraining by grant of permanent injunction from in any way of the interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same suit property the plaintiff cannot protect his possession and enjoyment. Hence the suit.

3. The suit summons were served to the defendant through

Court. Inspite of which the defendant failed to appear before this

Court and so he is set ex-parte on 17.7.2025. Hence this Court proceeded to record the evidence of plaintiff.

4. During the examination, the plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit, he was examined as PW1 and examined third party as

PW2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6.

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

6. Now the point for consideration is :-

“ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for”?

O.S.No.207 of 2025 4 Date :7.5.2026

7. POINT:

To prove their title and possession, the plaintiff examined himself as Pw1, Examined Pw2 and marked Ex.A1 to A6. The plaintiff reiterated the contents of the plaint in his proof affidavit. The case of the plaintiff and the contents of chief affidavit of PWs1 & PW2 reveal that, the plaint schedule mentioned property is absolute property of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got the plaint schedule mentioned property through registered settlement deed from his father on 15.6.2020 under vide document no.809/2020, the same was accepted by the plaintiff and got the possession on the same day. So, since the date of the settlement deed the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property with absolute right, title, interest and possession. Subsequently the revenue authorities of S.R.Puram also recognized plaintiff possession and enjoyment with prefect title and mutated his name in all concerned revenue records and issued 1B namuna and adangal in his favour under katha no.847.

Plaintiff further submit that originally the plaint schedule mentioned property belongs to the father of the plaintiff, he purchased the plaint schedule mentioned property under two registered sale deeds for legally valid consideration i.e. 30.6.1994 the father of the plaintiff purchased Ac.0.17 cents in Sy.No.94/8 from N.Pandurangaiah,

S/o N.Rama Mandadi for valid consideration of Rs.3,500/- under document no.1116/1994 and on 24.4.1997, the father of the plaintiff purchased Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.94/6 from N.Govindaiah, S/o

N.Yarrabba for valid consideration of Rs.6000/- under document no.492/1997. So, since the date of the purchase under two sale deeds

O.S.No.207 of 2025 5 Date :7.5.2026

the father of plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property with absolute right, title, interest and possession. Subsequently the revenue authorities of S.R.Puram also recognized father of plaintiff possession and enjoyment with prefect title and mutated his name in all concerned revenue records and issued E-

Pattadar pass book cum title deed in his favour under katha no.373.

Subsequently the father of the plaintiff transferred the said property in the name of the his son under his love and affection under afore said registered settlement deed on 15.6.2020.

Plaintiff further submits, that the defendant is cousin brother of plaintiff, he is residing in the same village, he too got the lands in the same village. The plaintiff family is well developed. So the defendant bore grudge and with help of his friends severely trying to change the physical features of the Plaintiff schedule mentioned property and to tresspass into the same and to cause damage to the plaintiff and to occupy the same. The defendant is powerful person having large number of supporters and the plaintiff is not match to him. Unless the defendant is restraining by grant of permanent injunction from in any way of the interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same suit property the plaintiff cannot protect his possession and enjoyment. Ex.A1 Original registered settlement deed, dated 15.06.2020 executed in favour of the plaintiff by his father,

Ex.A2 1B Namuna stands in the name of the plaintiff, dated 30.05.2025, Ex.A3 Adangals two in number stands in the name of the plaintiff, dated 30.05.2025, Ex.A4 Original registered sale deed, dated 30.06.1994 executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff by

N.Pandurangaiah, Ex.A5 Original registered sale deed, dated

O.S.No.207 of 2025 6 Date :7.5.2026

24.04.1997 executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff by

N.Govindaiah and Ex.A6 E-Pattadar passbook cum title deed stands in the name of the father of the plaintiff. Therefore, Ex.A1 to A6 prove the case of the plaintiff as per his pleadings and also prove his possession as per the revenue records. The defendant did not appear and did not deny the case and documents of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled for protecting his possession from the defendant.

8.The unchallenged oral testimony of PWs1 & PW2 and the documentary evidence/ Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 prove the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. Hence, it is held that the plaintiff proved his possession through Ex.A1 to A6 and their ocular evidence and thereby proved their case and he is entitled for permanent injunction.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants, relatives, nominees, their followers, friends etc., from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule mentioned property.

Typed to my dictation by the Addl.Stenographer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me, this the 7 th day of May, 2026.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

O.S.No.207 of 2025 7 Date :7.5.2026

PW1 : N.K.Dinakar Samrat,Exparte PW2 : P.Chandraiah,

Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiffs :

Ex.A1 : Original registered settlement deed, dated 15.06.2020 executed in favour of the plaintiff by his father.

Ex.A2 : 1B Namuna stands in the name of the plaintiff, dated 30.05.2025.

Ex.A3 : Adangals two in number stands in the name of the plaintiff, dated 30.05.2025.

Ex.A4 : Original registered sale deed, dated 30.06.1994 executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff by N.Pandurangaiah.

Ex.A5 : Original registered sale deed, dated 24.04.1997 executed in favour of the father of the plaintiff by N.Govindaiah.

Ex.A6 : E-Pattadar passbook cum title deed stands in the name of the father of the plaintiff.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendants:Nil

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Puttur.

FAIR JUDGMENT IN

O.S.No:207 of 2025 Dt.7.5.2026