Smt.C.Ratna Padmavathi

1 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. C.RATNA PADMAVATHI

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

DATED THE 10th DAY OF APRIL, 2025

AS No. 500 OF 2015

Between:

Mir Ahmedullah Khan S/o. Mir Azizullah Khan, Aged about 39yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. 10-2-286, Maqdoom Cottage, Shantinagar, Hyderabad.

...Appellant

And

1. K. Ramulu S/o. Late K. Laxmaiah, Aged about 66yrs, Occ: Agriculturist,

2. K. Yadaiah (died per LRs)

3. K. Narsimha S/o. Late K. Laxmaiah, Aged about 52yrs, Occ: Agriculturist

4. K. Anjamma W/o. Late K. Yadaiah, Aged about 50yrs, Occ: Household,

5. K. Srinivas S/o. Late K. Yadaiah, Aged about 30yrs, Occ: Business, all are R/o. Kothagudam Village, Batasingaram, Hayathnagar, R. R. District. (As per orders in IA no. 1684 of 2016 in

AS no. 500 of 2015 dt. 06.07.2018

Respondents no. 4 and 5 have been impleaded)

...Respondents

2 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

On Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.10.2015

passed by II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.

B. Nagar in

OS.No. 3620 of 2006

Between:

Mir Ahmedullah Khan S/o. Mir Azizullah Khan, Aged about 39yrs, Occ: Business, R/ o.10-2-286,MaqdoomCottage, Shantinagar, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

And

1. K. Ramulu S/o. Late K. Laxmaiah, Aged about 66yrs, Occ: Agriculturist,

2. K. Yadaiah (died per LRs)

3. K. Narsimha S/o. Late K. Laxmaiah, Aged about 52yrs, Occ: Agriculturist all are R/o. Kothagudam Village, Batasingaram, Hayathnagar, R. R. District.

...Defendants

This appeal is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of M/s. Habeeb Jaffer Bin Hasan,Advocate for the appellant and M/s. A. Venugopal, Advocate for Respondents no.1 and 3, Respondent no.2 reported died and after having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the legality of the judgment and decree dt. 13.10.2015 in OS.No. 3620 3 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

of 2006 passed by II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar where under the Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience and for better understanding of facts, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the case before the Trial Court.

3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in OS no. 3620 of 2006 which is filed by him for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff and his brother “Mir Hussain Mohiuddin Khan” are the joint owners of the property in sy.no. 149/1 admeasuring Ac.0-14gts situated at Guntapalli Village by virtue of registered gift deed dt.

16.05.2006 vide doc.no. 10644 of 2006 executed by their father “Mir

Azizullah Khan” who inherited the same from his mother “Ahmedi

Begum”. The brother of the plaintiff “Mir Hussain Mohinuddin Khan” is not available at Hyderabad due to his services at K.S.A on account of which he has not joined him as plaintiff and there is no adverse claim against the plaintiff (or) his brother.

Originally, said “Ahmedi Begum” who is the Grandmother of the plaintiff was the pattadar of the agricultural land forming part of Sy.no.

4 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

149 and 155 to 169 total admeasuring Ac. 9-11gts. After her demise, the father of the plaintiff by name “Mir Azizullah Khan” inherited the property being the son of “Ahmedi Begum”.

One “K. Lakshmaiah” who is the father of the defendants was the protected tenant and he during his life time, approached RDO for allotment and demarcation of the proportionate share of the protected tenant and accordingly he was allotted 60% of share as protected tenant and 40% of the share was allotted to the pattadar, “Ahmedi

Begum” by virtue of the proceedings of RDO dt. 26.07.1997 vide no.

L/4594/1997.

After the death of said original pattadar and the protected tenant, the legal heirs of both the parties arrived into a settlement on 26.05.2004 whereunder the red colour portion was allotted to the pattadar and blue colour portion was allotted to protected tenant and the defendants and their brothers and the father of the plaintiff signed therein. Subsequently, the MRO, Hayathnagar even issued proceedings

dt. 13.09.2006 in respect of property i.e., Ac0-14gts of land which was

acquired by them by virtue of the said registered gift settlement deed.

Though total extent of property fell to the share of the plaintiff’s father in sy.no. 149 is Ac0-16gts out of which their father gifted an extent of

Ac. 0-14gts only which is the plaint schedule property.

5 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

It is further asserted in the plaint that Sy.no. 149 was bifurcated

into Sy.no. 149/1, 149/2 and 149/3 out of which the father of the

plaintiffs got Ac.0-16gts. Whereas, the defendants and their

brothers got Ac.0-19gts in Sy.no. 149. Whereas the land in Sy.no.

149/3 was acquired under road widening under NH9. The defendant no. 3 from out of Ac. 0-19gts of property allotted to them in Sy.no. 149 sold away an extent of Ac.0-05gts on 03.12.2004 to one “Jayam Realtors

Pvt. Ltd” under a registered sale deed. The portion allotted to the defendants and their brothers is towards Western side of NH 9.

Whereas the suit schedule property which is in triangular shape is towards Eastern side of NH 9. While so, when the plaintiff was proceeding to construct compound wall, the defendants tried to interfere with the help of unsocial elements on 02.11.2006 and 05.11.2006 on which the plaintiff lodged a complaint before police, but of no avail as the matter is of civil nature. Hence, the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction to protect his possession over the schedule property.

4. Defendant no.1 filed written statement which is adapted by defendants no. 2 and 3. Defendant no. 3 admitted in his written statement that “Ahmedi Begum” is the pattadar of agricultural land admeasuring Ac9-11gts situated at Guntapally village. Whereas, the 6 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

father of the defendants was the protected tenant in respect of the said land.

It is further admitted by the defendant that during the life time of their father “K.Lakshmaiah” he approached RDO for demarcation of the proportionate share and accordingly, said “K.Lakshmaiah” being the protected tenant was allotted 60% of share and the remaining 40% of share was allotted to the pattadar by name ”Ahmedi Begum” under proceedings dt. 26.07.1997. As per the said proceedings, the protected tenant got total Ac. 5-22gts out of Ac.9-11gts and after the demise of their father “Lakshmaiah”, the name of defendant no. 3 was entered in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor of the said land in Sy.no.

149. An extent of Ac. 1-04gts was acquired by the Government for laying NH 9 road and in the remaining extent of Ac.0-33gts the

defendants have got an extent of Ac.0-19gts and the plaintiff’s

father has got remaining extent of Ac.0-14gts and not Ac.0-16gts as alleged. The defendants admitted that out of Ac.0-19gts an extent of

Ac.0-05gts of land in Sy.no. 149 is on the “Western” side of NH-9 Road and the remaining Ac.0-14gts is towards “Eastern” side of NH-9 road, out of which they sold away Ac. 0-05gts on the “Western” side and after the said alienation an extent of Ac.0-14gts towards “Eastern” side of NH- 9 road is left for the defendants. As such, the defendants are having

Ac.0-14gts of land towards “Eastern” side of NH-9 according to their 7 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

allotted shares and denied the alleged interference and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Basing on the respective pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

6.During the course of trial before the Trial court, on behalf of plaintiffs , PW1 and PW2 are examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 are marked. Whereas, on behalf of Defendants, DW1 is examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 are marked.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial court dismissed the suit by its Judgment and Decree dated 13.10.2015.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred the present appeal challenging the same on various grounds which are urged as follows:

I) The judgment and Decree of the court below is contrary to law

and weight of evidence.

8 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

II) The Trial court failed to see that the appellant has proved his

title and possession in respect of the plaint schedule property by

filing Ex.A1 to Ex.A3.

III) The Trial Court failed to consider the important admissions of

DW1 and though Ex,.A4 to Ex.A7, Ex.A11 and Ex.A13 establishes that

the appellant is the absolute owner and possessor of the plaint

schedule property.

IV) The Trial Court failed to see that the Respondents failed to file

any separate plaint contrary to Ex.A4 plaint to show that they own a

piece of land on the “Eastern” side of NH-9 road.

V) The Trial Court erroneously held that the plaintiff is not having

any possession over the plaint schedule property though held that

the appellant is having title in respect of the plaint schedule

property.

VI) The Trial Court incorrectly appreciated the evidence of PW1 and

PW2 and erroneously held that the appellant failed to regularize the

plaint schedule property

VII) The Judgment of the Trial Court is based on assumptions and

presumptions and prayed for setting aside the same.

9. Heard both sides. Appellant’s counsel filed written synopsis.

Respondent’s counsel filed written arguments. Perused the same.

9 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

10 . Now the point that arises for determination in the present appeal is:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

2. Whether the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dt. 13.10.2015 in OS no. 3620 of 2006 suffers from any

illegality and warrants any interference (or) not?

POINT:

11. This being the Appellate court, the evidence on record can be re-appreciated to find out whether the Judgment of the Trial court in dismissing the suit in OS no. 3620 of 2006 suffers from any illegality and warrants any interference (or) not.

12.The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit in OS no. 3620 of 2006 which was dismissed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, he preferred the present appeal.

13. Now it is to be seen whether the said judgment and the decree of the Trial Court is in accordance with law (or) not .

14. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in OS no. 3620 of 2006 who sought for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of plaint schedule property, i.e., of an extent of Ac. 0-14gts, in

Sy.no. 149/1.

This being a suit for the relief of permanent injunction,

primarily, it is for the plaintiff to establish his lawful possession over

10 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

the plaint schedule property as on the date of suit. Secondly, it is

for the plaintiff to establish that there is interference on the part of

the defendants with his possession and enjoyment over the schedule

property which gave cause of action with the present suit.

15. Now it is to be seen whether the plaintiff established his

lawful possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date

of the suit (or) not.

As could be seen from record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove his lawful possession over the entire extent of suit schedule property.

16. In support of his case, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and also examined PW2.

PW1 during his course of his chief examination reiterated the plaint averments and his entire chief examination is nothing but mere replica of the plaint averments and thereby deposed in support of his case.

It is an undisputed fact that originally, plaintiffs grandmother

“Ahemdi Begum” was the pattadar of the agricultural land

admeasuring Ac. 09-07gts covered under Sy.no. 149, 155 to 159.

11 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

It is also an undisputed fact that the father of the defendants by name “K.Lakshmaiah” was the protected tenant of the said land, and he during his lifetime approached the RDO for allotment and demarcation of the proportionate share in the said property.

It is also undisputed fact that 60% of the land was allotted to the share of protected tenant “Lakshmaiah” and 40% of the land was allotted to the share of the pattadar (Ahmedi Begum) as per the proceedings of the RDO dt. 26.04.1997.

It is also an undisputed fact that after the death of “K.Lakshmaiah” (protected tenant) his sons i.e., defendants herein are enjoying all the said extent of Ac. 5-22gts as pattadars and possessors and the name of defendant no. 3 is entered in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor. It is also an undisputed fact that after the lifetime of the pattadar “Ahmedi Begum”, the said 40% of allotted land was succeeded by the plaintiffs father, “Azizullah Khan”.

17. The contention of the plaintiff as per the plaint pleadings and as

per the evidence of PW1, is that he along with his brother acquired

the plaint schedule property by virtue of registered gift settlement

deed executed by their father “Azizullah Khan” on 16.05.2006 where

under he gifted an extent of Ac.0-14gts in Sy.no. 149/1. In this

regard, there is no denial at all by the defendants in their written

12 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

statement and as such the said material fact remained undisputed by

the defendants and they clearly asserted in the written statement

that out of Ac.0-33gts in Sy.no. 149, Defendants has got Ac. 0-19gts

and whereas, the plaintiffs father has got remaining extent of Ac. 0-

14gts. Therefore, the fact that plaintiffs father got Ac 0-14gts of land in

Sy.no. 149/1 is not in dispute so also the fact that he gifted the said extent of land to the plaintiffs and his brother under registered gift settlement deed dt. 16.05.2006 which is also an undisputed fact.

18. In this context, the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A3 which is the original registered gift settlement deed, by virtue of which the plaintiff and his brother “Meer Hussain Mohiuddin Khan” acquired the plaint schedule property from their father. Ex.A3 lends enough support to the testimony of PW1.

PW1 further relied upon Ex.A5 proceedings of the RDO dt. 26.07.1997 where under there is demarcation of the allotment of shares in between the protected tenant and the pattadar in the ratio of 60% and 40% of the land in sy.no. 149/1, 149/2, 155, 156, 157, 158 and 159. PW1 further relied upon Ex.A6 which is the certificate issued in favour of

“K.Lakshmaiah” which clearly shows the allotment of Ac. 0-19gts to

said “K.Lakshmaiah” in Sy.no. 149 apart from other lands in Survey

numbers as mentioned thereunder.

13 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

Even the defendants relied upon the same certificate as they produced original certificate issued under Se. 38E of Telangana

Tenancy Act marked as Ex.B3.

As stated supra the very allotment of share in between the original pattadar and the protected tenant in the ratio of 60% and 40% is an undisputed fact. Therefore the said documentary evidence more particularly Ex.A5, Ex.A6 and Ex.B3 are in support of the said admitted facts.

19. The further contention of the plaintiff as per the plaint pleadings and as per the evidence of PW1 is that the plaint schedule property is towards “Eastern” side of NH-9 road and it is in Triangular shape.

Though the contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants has got

Ac.0-19gts in Sy.no. 149 towards “Western” side of the NH-9 road, but the defendants are contending that only Ac. 0-05gts is lying towards “Western” side of NH-9 Road, and remaining Ac. 00-14gts in suit survey numbers is lying towards “Eastern” side of NH-9 Road.

In this regard, the defendants in their written statement clearly pleaded as follows:

The defendants and the plaintiffs are having

Ac. 0-14gts each towards “Eastern” side of the

NH-9 Road according to their allotted shares.

14 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

20. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that DW1 during the course of his cross examination clearly admitted that the boundaries shown in the plaint schedule are true and correct.

During the course of his cross examination, DW1 categorically admitted as follows:

The plaintiffs share is situated on the “Eastern”

side of NH-9 in Sy.no. 149/1.

Even DW1 relied upon Ex.B5/ CC of the pahani for the year 2002- 03 which is also marked without any objection where under the allotment of Ac. 0-14gts in Sy.no. 149 in favour of father of plaintiff by name “Azizullah Khan” and allotment of Ac.0-19gts in in favour of defendant no. 3 i.e., Son of “K. Lakshmaiah” is clearly evident.

The above said material admission in the evidence of DW1

substantiates the plea of the plantiff.

21. On the own showing of the defendants they alienated Ac.0-05gts of land in Sy.no. 149/1 which is situated towards “Western” side of NH-9

Road under Ex.A2 / sale deed dt.03.12.2004 along with land in

Sy.no.157/1. The dispute is that remaining portion of Ac. 0-14gts of

land of the defendants in the said Survey number is situated towards

“Western” side of NH-9 according to the version of plaintiff. But

15 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

according to the defendants, the said Ac. 0-14gts is lying towards

“Eastern” side of NH9 road.

For ascertaining the exact location of remaining extent of Ac.0- 14gts of land of the defendants in Sy.no. 149/1, the boundaries in Ex.A2/

Sale deed can be looked into.

But apparently the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A2/Sale deed dt.

03.12.2004 cannot be relied as the land in Sy.no. 149/1 (suit survey number) and so also the land in sy.no. 157/1 were sold out thereunder and common boundaries were shown to the said property. Hence, the boundaries as mentioned in Ex.A2 is of no help in ascertaining whether the defendants have got the remaining extent of land in suit survey number towards “Western” side of NH-9 road. Therefore, Ex.A3/gift

settlement deed which is an undisputed document and the

boundaries there under can be relied upon and can be looked into.

On perusal of the boundaries in Ex.A3 the “Eastern” and “Western” boundary is clearly mentioned as follows:

East: Neighbouring land covered by land in

Sy.no.149/1,

West: National High Way no. 9 16 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

Therefore, the above said boundaries in Ex.A3 clearly establishes the existence of the remaining portion of land in Sy.no. 149/1 towards “Eastern” side of the plaint schedule property which lends support to the contention of defendants that their remaining portion of land in Suit survey number is situated towards “Eastern” side of NH-9 road.

Even while cross examining PW1, it was elicited that the owner and tenant have got Ac. 0-14gts each in Sy.no. 149 situated on “Eastern” side of NH-9 road.

22. However, as the plaintiff is seeking for the equitable relief of injunction burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish his case by establishing his possession over the plaint schedule property i.e., of an extent of Ac. 0-14gts in sy.no. 149 /1 irrespective of the fact whether the defendants proved their contention (or) not.

23. Evidently, the defendants themselves admitted in their written

statement that the plaintiffs are having Ac. 0-14gts of land which is

situated towards “Eastern” side of NH-9 Road in Sy.no. 149/1, which is nothing but the plaint schedule property and that itself amounts to a

material admission in the pleadings and lends enough support to the

plaintiffs case.

The own admissions of the defendants in their written statement as

stated supra substantiates the plea of the plaintiffs as the law is

17 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

well settled that “any admissions in pleadings amounts to judicial

admission” and it binds the parties as per Order 8 Rule 5 CPC.

Thus, the above said admission of the defendants in their

written statement as well as during the course of evidence of DW1

as stated supra clearly establishes the possession of the plaintiffs

over the plaint schedule property.

24. In this context it is pertinent to mention that during pendency of the said suit an advocate commissioner was appointed at the instance of the plaintiff and filed his report after measuring the remaining extent of land in Sy.no. 149/1 with the help of surveyor.

It was mentioned by the commissioner report that an extent of

Ac. 0-22gts is available towards “Eastern” side of NH9 road and no land is available to the “Western” side of the said survey number in view of laying of new road and it was further stated in the report that an extent of Ac. 1-15gts NH-9 road was formed. To the said commissioner’s report, the plaintiff’s counsel filed his objection.

However, the said commissioner was not subjected to cross examination by any of the parties by summoning him. Basing on the said commissioner report and the admissions of PW1 that there is road widening for two times, the Trial court held that there is short fall of the suit schedule property as NH9 was widened towards 18 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

“Eastern” side for three times and the suit schedule property is situated towards “Eastern” side of NH-9 road and thereby it was held that in view of the said short fall, plaintiff is not in possession of

the entire extent of Ac. 0-14gts and on that ground dismissed the

suit.

25. It is pertinent to note that it is the contention of the defendants in their written statement is that the land of the plaintiff i.e., plaint schedule property of Ac. 0-14gts and the remaining extent of land of the defendants i.e., Ac. 0-14gts are lying towards “Eastern” side of NH-9 which is totaling Ac. 28Gts. It is not at all the

contention of the defendants in their written statement that due

to widening of NH-9 Road, there is short fall of land in the extent

of land of the plaintiffs. As rightly pointed out by the appellant’s

counsel, it is nobody’s case that due to road widening of NH-9

road, there is short fall of land in suit survey number.

26.As already discussed supra, there are material admissions on the part of the defendants in their written statement itself which amounts to judicial admission and the material admission of DW1 during the course of evidence that the plaintiff’s share in Sy.no.

149/1 (plaint schedule property) is existing on the “Eastern” side of

NH-9 road is an‘evidentiary admission’and is sufficient to establish 19 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

the possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property. No further proof is required in this regard as admitted facts need not

be proved by virtue of Sec. 58 of Indian Evidence Act – 1872.

28. It is further pertinent to note DW1 during the course of his cross examination categorically deposed as follows:

The plaintiff also occupied our land in Sy.no. 149/1

and the plaintiff is in possession of more than

Ac.0-20gts of land in Sy.no. 149/1.

The above said evidence of DW1 strengthens the case of the plaintiff as it amounts to a clear admission on the part of DW1 of the

possession of the plaintiff over the entire extent of suit schedule

property.

Though it is deposed by DW1 that the plaintiffs occupied their share of land also in suit survey number and are in possession of more than Ac.0-20gts of land, but evidently, no counter claim was made for recovery of possession on the alleged ground.

27. Further, it is to be noted that the plaintiffs herein have sought for the relief of injunction only in respect of Ac. 0-14gts of land in sy.no.

149/1 within the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint schedule and not exceeding the same and even DW1 clearly admitted in his evidence that the boundaries in the plaint schedule are true and correct.

20 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

Therefore, the above said evidence of DW1 is a clear admission of possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property which establishes the case of the plaintiff.

In this regard, even the commissioner ’ s report nowhere

discloses that there is short fall in the land of the plaintiff due to

road widening but it only reveals that only Ac. 0-22gts was lying in

Sy.no 149/1 towards “Eastern” side of NH-9 road. Therefore, it cannot be assumed (or) presumed that there is short fall in the plaintiff’s land only.

The Trial Court, without any basis came to a wrong conclusion that there is short fall of land of the plaintiffs due to road widening of NH-9 road, which is purely imaginary. As both the land of plaintiff and remaining land of the defendant in suit survey number are located towards “Eastern” side of NH-9 road merely basing upon the commissioner report which does not speak about any short fall in the land of the plaintiff, the Trial Court ought not to have arrived to a wrong conclusion on mere surmises. The evidence of DW1 as referred above clinchingly establishes the possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property.

21 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

Moreover, the commissioners report is no way helpful to disprove the case of the plaintiff in view of the own admissions of the defendants as stated supra.

28. Though, the plaintiffs further relied upon Ex.A13 which is original settlement agreement dt. 26.05.2004 and further relied upon

Ex.A11 and also relied upon the evidence of PW2 in that regard, but however, Ex.A13 is an unregistered agreement where registration is compulsory. Hence, it is an inadmissible document and need not be looked into. However, irrespective of the same in view of the own

admissions of the defendant in the written statement and in view of

the admissions of DW1 in his evidence, it is clearly established that

the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property.

29.Now it is to be seen whether the plaintiffs are able to

establish the interference on the part of the defendants with the

possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule

property. In this regard the contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendants interfered with their possession and enjoyment on 02.11.2006 and 05.11.2006 respectively with his possession over the suit schedule property. In this regard, the crucial suggestions made to PW1 is to be looked into which is extracted as follows:

22 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

It is not true to say that as there is dispute

regarding the extent the defendant stopped

construction.

Therefore, the above said crucial suggestion made to PW1 is sufficient to hold that the defendants interfered with the possession of the plaintiff by stopping the construction of compound wall by the plaintiff which is sufficient to establish the interference on the part of the defendants. Thus, the plaintiffs proved the interference on the part of the defendants with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the schedule property. The Trial Court has lost sight of the said material aspects and failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a proper perspective and failed to consider the material admissions of the defendants as stated supra and wrongly dismissed the suit which is apparently perverse and warrants interference and is liable to be set aside.

30. In the result, the appeal is hereby allowed with costs and the

Judgment and decree of the Trial court i.e., II Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in O.S.No.3620 of 2006 dated

13.10.2015 is hereby set aside granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men etc., from interfering with the 23 of 23

AS No. 500 of 2015

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of April, 2025.

II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR APPELLANT FOR RESPONDENTS

-NIL--None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR APPELLANT FOR RESPONDENTS:

-NIL- -NIL-

II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

24 of 23

AS no. 135 of 2016

25 to 23

AS No. 64 of 2020

Reopen petition vide IA no. ___ of 2025 pending call on 03.04.2025.

II ADJ

Judgment pronounced (VSJ)

In the result, the appeal is hereby allowed with costs and the

Judgment and decree of the Trial court i.e., II Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar in O.S.No.3620 of 2006

dated 13.10.2015 is hereby set

asidegrantingpermanent injunctionrestrainingthe defendants and their men etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

II ADJ

27 of 18 AS.262/2015

DECREE IN APPEAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. C.RATNA PADMAVATHI

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

DATED THE 21st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

AS No. 101 of 2019

Between:

1. Rekala Andalu W/o. R.Narsing Rao, Aged about 49yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.no. 11-7-8/11, Dr. Ambedkarnagar, Saroornagasr, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Sathuri Anasuya W/o. Krishna, Aged about 39yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/.o. Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R.District.

3. A.Indira W/o. Yadagiri, Aged about 39yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.no. 11-7-8/11, Dr. Ambedkarnagar, Saroornagar, R.R.District.

4. Sangam Annapurna W/o. Shiva Kumar, Aged about 36yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.no. 4-2-83/4, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District.

5. K. Anuradha D/o. Balraj Aged about 32yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.no. 16-11-23-5, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad.

6. R. Narsing Rao, S/o. Late Eshwaraiah, Aged about 59yrs, Occ: Police constable (Retd), R/o. Door no. 11-7-8/11, Dr. Ambedkarnagar, Saroornagar, R.R.District.

...Appellants/Defendants

And

A. Sampoorna Rani W/o. Late A.Nagender, Aged about 50yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Flat no. 31, 3rd Floor, Sunita Apartments, Tirumalanagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad (Respondent No.1 & 2 herein are not necessary parties to this appeal)

...Respondents/Plaintiff

28 of 36 AS.262 of 2015

On Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.06.2019 in OS.No. 1438

of 2012 passed by VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L. B.

Nagar

Between:

A. Sampoorna Rani W/o. Late A.Nagender, Aged about 50yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Flat no. 31, 3rd Floor, Sunita Apartments, Tirumalanagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad

...Plaintiff

And

1. Rekala Andalu W/o. R.Narsing Rao, Aged about 49yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.no. 11-7-8/11, Dr. Ambedkarnagar, Saroornagasr, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Sathuri Anasuya W/o. Krishna, Aged about 39yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/.o. Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R.District.

3. A.Indira W/o. Yadagiri, Aged about 39yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.no. 11-7-8/11, Dr. Ambedkarnagar, Saroornagar, R.R.District.

4. Sangam Annapurna W/o. Shiva Kumar, Aged about 36yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.no. 4-2-83/4, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District.

5. K. Anuradha D/o. Balraj Aged about 32yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.no. 16-11-23-5, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad.

6. R. Narsing Rao, S/o. Late Eshwaraiah, Aged about 59yrs, Occ: Police constable (Retd), R/o. Door no. 11-7-8/11, Dr. Ambedkarnagar, Saroornagar, R.R.District.

...Defendants

Claim: Appeal is filed U/O.41, R 1 R/W Sec 96 of CPC set aside the judgment and decree dt.21.06.2019 in OS.No.1438 of 2012 passed by VII Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar.

29 of 36

AS 262 of 2015

Valuation:This appeal is valued at Rs.4,46,737/- and paid the Court Fee of Rs.6,929/- U/Sec. 49 of A.P.C.F & SV Act,1956 which is sufficient.

Appeal presented on: 28.08.2019 Appeal numbered on: 28.08.2019

This appeal is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of M/s. S. Jagadish,Advocate for the appellants and M/s. Prameela, Advocate for Respondents no.1 to 6, and after having heard and stood over for consideration this Court doth order and decree as follows:

1) That the Appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed without costs.

2) That the Trial Court judgment and decree in OS.No.1438 of 2022 passed by VII

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar dt.

21.06.2019 is hereby Confirmed.

3) That there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand seal of this Court on this the 21st day of October, 2024.

II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that house bearing no. 4-2-83/4, admeasuring 123sq.yds, situated at

Anumagal Nagar, Hayathnagar Mandal, under Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation, L. B. Nagar Circle, R. R. District and bounded by:

NORTH:Road

SOUTH:Land of Kadari Balaiah

EAST:Neighbours Land

WEST:Neighbours Land 30 of 36 AS.262 of 2015

Memo of Costs

For Appellants For Respondent

1. Stamp on appeal Rs. 6,926/-

2. Stamp on Vakalat Rs. 2/-Rs. 2/-

3. Process fee Rs. 30/-

4. Advocate fee Sr. Rs. FC & MC not filed Jr.

5. Publication charges Rs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Rs. 6,958/- Rs. 2/- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

31 of 36

AS 262 of 2015

It is needless to state that a Will whichisregistered(or) unregistered, it does not make any difference as the registration is not compulsory under the

Indian Registration Act and a Will either registered (or) unregistered is put proof in accordance with law i.e. in terms of Sec. 68 of the

Indian Evidence Act and Sec. 63 of the Indian succession Act.

32 of 36 AS.262 of 2015

Judgment not pronounced for want of time call on 21.11.2024.

II ADJ

1 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. C.RATNA PADMAVATHI

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

Crl. Appeal.No. 146 of 2017

Between:

1). From which Court the :III Special Judicial Magistrate Court, Hasthinapuram, R.R.District appeal is preferred 2). Number of case of that :CC No. 116 / 2016 Court 3). Number of the Appeal:Criminal Appeal No. 146 of 2017 4). i) Name of the AppellantMannam Subba Rao, S/o. Venkat Swamy, Aged about 37yrs, Occ: Realtor, R/o. H.no. 211, Maruthi Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.

Bondada Perayya Gupta, S/o. B. Peddi ii). Name of the respondent Raju, Aged about 49yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. C-16, Flat no. 102, Sriman Residency, Chitra Layout, L. B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor. 5). The sentence and law The accused was found guilty and was sentenced to undergo under which it was passed simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) year for the offence U/sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and further directed to pay/deposit 2 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017 compensationamountof RS.13,00,000/- to the complainant within one (1) month from the date of judgment and in default to pay the compensation amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six (6) months out of Rs.13,00,000/- compensation, if deposited by the accused. The total compensationamountof Rs.13,00,000/- shall be payable to the complainant U/sec.357 (3) Cr.P.C after appeal time is over.

6). Whether confirmed, In the result, the criminal appeal is hereby dismissed. However, the modified or reversed; and if sentence passed by the Trial Court modified the modification. ie.,IIISpecialMagistrate, Hasthinapuram at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in CC No.116/2016 dt.11.01.2017 is modified and quantum of sentence is reduced from one year simple imprisonment to six months simple imprisonment. The rest of the Judgment of the Trial Court regarding payment of compensation under section 357 (3) Cr.P.C is upheld (remains as it is).

7). Advocate for appellantMs. S. Vani 8). Advocate for respondent Sri. M. V. Giri Prasad

This petition coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Ms. S. Vani, Advocate for Appellant/Accused and Sri. M.V. Giri

Prasad, Advocate for Respondent/Complainant and after having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

3 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

J U D G M E N T

1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/accused U/sec.374 (3) of Cr.P.C. challenging the legality of the conviction and sentence passed by IIII Special Magistrate, Hasthinapuram at LB Nagar, Ranga

Reddy District in CC.No.116/2016 by its judgment dt.11.01.2017, where under the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence U/sec. 138

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are arrayed as arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The offence alleged against the appellant/accused is the offence

U/sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and is convicted and sentenced by the Trial court for the said offence.

4. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

That the accused and complainant are known to eachother since long time and out of said acquaintance, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- on 20.01.2012 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 21.01.2012 at the residence of complainant on executing a consolidated promissory note in the presence of witness. Further, the accused promised to repay the said amount within two years with interest @ 2% per month.

4 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

After expiry of promised two years period, when the complainant requested the accused to repay the debt of Rs. 9,00,000/-, which includes accrued interest, the postponed on one or other pretext. After repeated demands, on 08.03.2014, the accused issued posted dated cheque dt.13.10.2014 for a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of

Hyderabad, Gaddiannaram Branch in favour of complainant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and promised to honour the said cheque.

When the complainant presented the said cheque with his banker, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement “Payment Stopped by the Drawer” vide cheque return memo dt. 14.10.2014. Upon that on 25.10.2014, the complainant got issued statutory notice calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within fifteen days from the receipt of statutory notice. For which, on 07.11.2014, the accused got issued reply notice with false and concocted allegations. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file the complaint.

5. The said complaint was taken on file U/sec.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 by learned III Special Magistrate, Hasthinapuram at

LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District and numbered CC.No.116/2016.

5 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

6. The Trial Court furnished the copies of documents to the accused in compliance of sec.207 Cr.P.C. Later examined the accused u/sec.251

Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused for which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial before the Trial Court, on behalf of the complainant PW.1 to PW.3 are examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 are marked.

After closure of complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C and he denied incriminating material on record and he adduced defence evidence. On behalf of the accused DW.1 is examined

Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 are marked.

After considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence u/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide judgment dt. 11.01.2017 where under the accused was sentenced toundergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) year for the offence U/sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and further directed to pay/deposit compensation amount of RS.13,00,000/- to the complainant within one (1) month from the date of judgment and in default to pay the compensation amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for six (6) months out of Rs.13,00,000/- compensation, if deposited by the accused. The total compensation 6 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017 amount of Rs.13,00,000/- shall be payable to the complainant U/sec.357 (3) Cr.P.C after appeal time is over.

8. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred the present appeal challenging the Judgment of the Trial court on various grounds which are urged as follows:

1. That the Judgment of the Trial Court is illegal and contrary to law.

2. The Court below misconstrued the evidence on record.

3. The Court below failed to see that the complainant failed to

discharge the initial burden that Ex.P2 cheque was issued towards

discharge of legally enforceable debt.

4. The Court below erred in drawing the presumption that Ex.P2 cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt

5. The Court below failed to see the animosity in between the

appellant herein and the respondent no.1 by the date of the cheque.

6. The court below failed to see that exactly on the date of alleged

issuance of Ex.P2 cheque the Respondent/complainant tried to

outrage the modesty of the wife of the appellant regarding which a

sessions case was pending.

7 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

7. The Court below ought to have relied upon Ex.D3 statement to

stop payment of several cheques including Ex.P2 and prayed to set

aside the Judgment of the Trial Court.

9. Heard. Both counsels filed written arguments. Perused the same.

10. Now the points that arises for determination is:

i) Whether the offence under section 138

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out

against the accused?

ii) Whether the impugned judgment of the Trial

court in CC.No.116/2016 dated 11.01.2017

suffers from any legal infirmity and warrants any

interference (or) not?

11. POINTS No. (i) and (ii):-

This being the Appellate Court, the evidence on record can be re- appreciated to find out whether the judgment of the Trial Court suffers from any legal infirmity in convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

8 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

The Trial Court by its calendar and Judgment dated 11.01.2017 convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and challenging the legality of the same, the accused preferred the present appeal.

12. Now the evidence that is available on record is to be evaluated carefully to find out whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court.

As could be seen from the record, the evidence that is available on behalf of the complainant is that of PW.1 to PW.3. Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 are marked on his behalf. Whereas on behalf of the accused, defence evidence is adduced and DW.1 is examined and Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 are marked.

13. Before adverting to the evidence on record, the case of the complainant in brief is to be looked into.

The contention of the complainant is that the complainant and accused are known to each other since long time and with such acquaintance the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on 20.01.2012 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 21.01.2012 and executed a promissory note dt.21.01.2012 in that regard in the presence of witnesses and promised to repay the said amount within two years with interest but 9 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017 subsequently he failed to discharge the said debt as agreed. Then upon upon the demands of the complainant, the accused issued a post dated cheque on 08.03.2014 vide cheque no.491862 dt.13.10.2014 for

Rs.9,00,000/- drawn of SBH Bank, Gaddiannaram Branch, Hyderabad towards discharge of the said debt and when the said cheque is presented for encashment by the drawer, the same was dishonoured as the “payment was stopped by the drawer”, thereupon the complainant was constrained to issue statutory notice on 25.10.2014 for which the accused got issued a reply notice with false allegations and failed to pay the said cheque amount. Hence the complainant was constrained to file the complaint for the offence u/sec. 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

On the other hand, the accused has denied the case of the complainant in to-to by denying the borrowal of amount and execution of promissory note and also issuance of said cheque and the defence of the accused is two fold. At one breath the accused is contending that some missing cheques including the cheque in question were stolen by the complainant. At another breath contended that the Ex.P2/cheque and other cheques were in custody of the complainant in connection with the business transaction.

10 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

However the signature on the cheque in question is not denied by the accused and similarly the cheque was from the account of the accused which is sufficient to draw the presumption u/sec. 139 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 that the said cheque was issued towards discharge of any debt (or) liability. But however, the onus of

proof lies upon the complainant to prove that the cheque in question

was issued by the accused for discharge of legally enforceable debt

(or) liability as there is no presumption as to legally enforceable

debt. Hence, the evidence on behalf of the complainant is to be scrutinized meticulously.

14. As the offence alleged against the accused is u/sec. 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, it is for the complainant to establish the ingredients constituting the offence which are as follows :

i) That the cheque was issued (or) drawn on an account

maintained by the account holder towards discharge of existing

debt (or) liability ie., legally enforceable debt.

ii) The said cheque must be presented to the bank within its

period of validity for encashment.

iii) The cheque must be returned unpaid due to “insufficiency

of funds” (or) it exceeds arrangement.

11 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

iv) The statutory notice to be issued informing about the fact

of dishonor of cheque within (30) days from the date of

dishonor.

v) The drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment within (15) days after receiving the notice.

15. Now, it is to be seen whether the offence u/sec. 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 is made out against the accused (or) not.

16. In support of his case complainant himself is examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. He also examined the attestor to

Ex.P1/promissory note as PW.3 and also examined one “Y.Hari Babu” as

PW.2 on his behalf. Among the documents so marked on behalf of the complainant Ex.P1 is the promissory note and Ex.P2 is the original

cheque bearing No.491862 dt.13.10.2014 whereas Ex.P3 is cheque

return memo.

In the case on hand, the accused has denied the execution of said promissory note under Ex.P1 and also denied the borrowal of amount and thereby denied the case of the complainant in to-to. Therefore it is

for the complainant to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt

under Ex.P1/promissory note by proving the execution of Ex.P1.

12 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

17.PW.1 who is the complainant during the course of his evidence reiterated the averments in his complaint and clearly deposed about the borrowal of amount ie., Rs.7,00,000/- on 20.01.2012 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 21.01.2012 from PW.1 by the accused due to his acquaintance with PW.1 since long time. He also clearly deposed that the accused executed promissory note dt.21.01.2012 for the said amount of Rs.9,00,000/- in the presence of the witness and got marked Ex.P1 which is the promissory note - cum – receipt dt.21.01.2012 for Rs.9,00,000/-.

During the course of cross examination of PW.1, he further categorically deposed that Ex.P1 contains the signature of the accused but the said material fact so deposed by PW.1 is no where specifically denied while cross examining PW.1. Not even a suggestion was made to

PW.1 denying (or) disputing the signature on Ex.P1/promissory note but merely suggested to PW.1 that he is in the custody of cheques and promissory notes of the accused and also the wife of the accused. It is no where suggested to PW.1 that Ex.P1/promissory note is one among the promissory note which are alleged to be retained in the custody of PW.1.

Thus, the accused failed to deny his signature on Ex.P1/promissory

note and thereby failed to deny the execution of the same.

13 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

18.Further, in order to substantiate his case, the complainant also examined the attestor to Ex.P1/promissory note as PW.3 who deposed in support of the case of the complainant.

The testimony of PW3 clearly reveals that the accused executed promissory note in favour of the complainant in his presence with a condition to repay the amount that was borrowed within two years along with interest. Except formal cross examination of PW3, the borrowal

of amount by the accused from PW.1 is no where specifically denied

(or) disputed which lends support to the case of the complainant.

Though it is suggested to PW.3 that the accused has not executed promissory note in his presence and the same is denied by PW.3 but the said suggestion is of no help to the accused as the signature of accused

on Ex.P1/promissory note is no where denied while cross examining

PW.1 as stated supra. Thus, the testimony of PW.1 and PW.3 coupled with Ex.P1/promissory note has proved the execution of

Ex.P1/promissory note and the borrowal of amount by the accused under

Ex.P1/promissory note. Hence, there is no hesitation to hold that the

complainant has duly proved the existence of legally enforceable

debt as on the date of issuance of Ex.P2/Cheque and as on the date

of filing of complaint.

14 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

19.Now it is to be seen whether Ex.P2/post dated cheque was issued towards discharge of said legally enforceable debt.

The contention of the complainant is that towards discharge of the said debt due under the said Ex.P1/promissory note, the accused issued the post dated cheque bearing No.491862 dt.13.10.2014 on 08.03.2014 on his persistent demands and the same was dishonoured when presented for encashment. The same is reiterated by PW.1 in his evidence also and in that context, the complainant even examined PW.2 by name “Y.Hari Babu”. PW.2 deposed that he accompanied with the complainant for demanding the accused for repayment of the debt on which the accused issued Ex.P2/post dated cheque for discharge of the debt due under Ex.P1/promissory note which establishes the very issuance of Ex.P2/post dated cheque by the accused towards discharge of the said debt due under Ex.P1/promissory note.

20.In this regard the defence raised by the accused while cross examining the witnesses is quite inconsistent on the face of it as at one juncture the defence of the accused is that some cheques including

Ex.P2 was stolen by the complainant. At another juncture his defence is that the cheques and promissory notes of the accused and his wife 15 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017 are in the custody of complainant ie., illegally retained by the complainant.

Admittedly the signature on Ex.P2/post dated cheque was not disputed (or) denied by the accused. Consequently the presumption under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises that it was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt.

21. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the ruling reported in 2010 (1) SCC 441 (Rangappa Vs. Shri Mohan) where the three judge bench of

Hon’ble Apex Court has held that:-

where the fact of signature on the cheque is acknowledged,

a presumption has to be drawn that the cheque pertains to

a legally enforceable debt or liability. However, the

presumption is of rebutable nature and the onus is then on

the accused to raise a probable defence.

In this regard, further relied upon the following citations:

i. AIR 2018 SC 3601 T. P. Murugan (Dead) through L.Rs and others Vs.

Bojan Wherein it was held that:

once a cheque has been signed and issued in favour of the

holder, there is statutory presumption that it is issued in

16 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability and the

presumption is rebutable one.

ii. Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar in Crl. Apl.Nos. 230 – 231 of 2019

MANU/SC/0154/2019 “ Wherein it was held

even a blank cheque leaf voluntarily signed and handed over

by the accused, which is towards some payment, attracts the

presumption under sec. 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881.

iii. Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Another (in

Crl.Appl.no. 508 of 2019) is on the same proposition of law.

In the light of above citations and in the light of the fact that the complainant has duly established the existence of legally enforceable debt under Ex.P1 and as the signature on Ex.P2 cheque was not denied the presumption under section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises that Ex.P2/post dated cheque was issued towards discharge of said legally enforceable debt (or) liability. Therefore, it is for the accused to

rebutt the presumption u/sec. 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act by

raising a probable defence.

17 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

In this regard the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the citation reported in Crl.Apl. 292 of 2021 between Sumeti Vij Vs. M/s.

Paramount Tech Fab Industries wherein it was held as:

“Likewise, under section 139 of the Act, a

presumption is raised that the holder of a

cheque received the cheque for the

discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or

other liability. To rebutt this presumption,

facts must be adduced by the accused which

on a preponderance of probability (not

beyond reasonable doubt as in the case of

criminal offences), must be proved.”

There is no dispute with regard to said preposition of law.

22.In the case on hand, as stated supra, the accused raised inconsistent pleas. At one breath the defence of the accused is that promissory notes and cheques including Ex.P2/post dated cheque of the accused and his wife were retained in the custody of the complainant and thereby his contention is that one of the said cheque was misused and the present complaint was filed.

18 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

It is pertinent to note that it is no where suggested to PW.1 during the course of cross examination the date on which the promissory notes and cheques were kept in the custody of the complainant (or) retained by the complainant except making a vague suggestion that the cheques and promissory notes are in the custody of the complainant. If at all the

cheques were illegally retained by the complainant for any reason

including Ex.P2/cheque nothing would prevent the accused to

demand the complainant to return back those retained cheques and

promissory notes by issuing a legal notice to the complainant to that

effect. So also no criminal action was initiated in that regard so as to

believe his version.

23.The other version that was raised by the accused as defence is that the cheques including Ex.P2/cheque signed cheques which were missing are stolen and the same is even mentioned in his reply notice/Ex.P7 whereunder he reserved his right to initiate appropriate legal action. But evidently no criminal action was initiated in that regard.

Thus the defence of the accused is improbable on the face of it and is not sufficient to rebutt the statutory presumption under section 139 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

19 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

Though on behalf of the accused DW.1 is examined who is the bank manager of SBH who was summoned under Ex.D2 to produce letter given by the accused for stop payment and to give evidence, but DW.1 failed to produce the letter alleged to be given by the accused to stop payment of Ex.P2/cheque and other cheques. He deposed that basing on the original letter given by the accused they have stopped the payment as per Ex.D3.

Admittedly Ex.P2/Cheque was dishonoured on the ground that “payment was stopped by the drawer” with regard to which there is no dispute at all but that alone is not sufficient to prove the probable defence of the accused ie., cheques were illegally retained by the complainant (or) the blank signed missing cheques were stolen by the complainant as alleged.

Though the accused got marked Ex.D1/CC of agreement dt.20.02.2013 but it is of no help to the accused as he failed to enter into the witness box to depose anything in that regard.

24.The further contention of the accused is that basing on the complaint of the wife of the accused on 18.03.2014, a case was registered u/sec.354 IPC vide SC.No.448/2014, against the complainant 20 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017 herein and the present case is as a counter blast of the said case, but accused failed to adduce any defence evidence in that regard for the reasons best known to him without which the plea of the accused that the present case is as a counterblast of the said case cannot be accepted.

25. Further, the statutory notice under Ex.P4 dt.25.10.2014 and the service of the same on the accused under Ex.P6 dt.30.10.2014 is not disputed and the accused even got issued a reply under Ex.P7 dt.07.11.2014. Further from the date of the cheque return memo i.e.,

Ex.P3, the statutory notice was issued in time and despite of due service of statutory notice, the accused failed to pay the dishonoured cheque amount and thereby the ingredients constituting the offence are clearly made out. The Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence at length and rightly convicted the accused by assigning proper and valid reasons. As such, the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity and is liable to be confirmed.

26.However having regarding to the totality of the facts and circumstances, this court is inclined to hold that the imprisonment so imposed by the Trial Court is to be reduced to six months as the compensation amount of Rs.13,00,000/- was also awarded by the Trial

Court.

21 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

27.In the result, the criminal appeal is hereby dismissed. However, the sentence passed by the Trial Court ie., III Special Magistrate,

Hasthinapuram at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in CC No.116/2016 dt.11.01.2017 is modified and quantum of sentence is reduced from one year simple imprisonment to six months simple imprisonment.

The rest of the Judgment of the Trial Court regarding payment of compensation under section 357 (3) Cr.P.C is upheld (remains as it is).

Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of November, 2024.

II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR APPELLANTFOR RESPONDENT

-NIL--NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR APPELLANT FOR RESPONDENT

-NIL- -NIL-

II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

22 of 21

Crl.Apl.No. 146/2017

1 of 14

O.S. No. 551 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Present : Smt. C.Ratna Padmavathi,

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Dated on this the 9 th day of April, 2025

O.S. No. 551 OF 2024

Between:

1) Karengula Vijay Kumar S/o. Karengula Yeettaiah, Aged about 65yrs, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. H.no. 5-3-397, Weaker SectionColony,SahebNagar, Vanasthaipuram, Hyderabad, TS.

2) Babburi Rathnabai, D/o. Karengula Yettaiah, Aged about 62yrs, Occ: Household, R/o. H.no. 5-3-397, Weaker SectionColony,SahebNagar, Vanasthaipuram, Hyderabad, TS.

3) Verra Yadamma D/o. Karengula Yettaiah, Aged about 60yrs, Occ: Household R/o.H.no. 5-3-397, Weaker Section Colony, Saheb Nagar, Vanasthaipuram, Hyderabad, TS

4) Karengula Raju Goud S/o. Karengula Yettaiah, Aged about 58yrs, Occ: Cultivation R/o. H.no. 5-3-397, Weaker SectionColony,SahebNagar, Vanasthaipuram, Hyderabad, TS.

5) Noothalakanti Manjula D/o. Karengula Yettaiah, Aged about 56yrs, Occ: Household, R/o. H.no. 5-3-397, Weaker 2 of 14

O.S. No. 551 of 2024

SectionColony,SahebNagar, Vanasthaipuram, Hyderabad, TS

...Plaintiffs

AND

1) All concerned

2) The Mandal Revenue Officers, Abdullapurmet Mandal, R. R. District.

...Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. MLR Associates, Sri. M.Laxman Rao, Counsel for the plaintiffs and Defendants remained exparte, matter having been heard and stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaring them as legal heirs 1.

of the deceased “Late Karengula Yettaiah S/o. Kotaiah” in respect of the plaint schedule properties.

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

That the plaintiffs no.1 and 4 are the sons and plaintiffs no.

2, 3 and 5 are the daughters of one “Karengula Yettaiah S/o.

Kotaiah”. The said “Karengula Yettaiah” is the pattadar of the land admeasuring Ac. 4-3450gts in Sy.no. 255e of Peddamberpet,

Abdullapurmet Mandal, i.e., plaint schedule property.

3 of 14

O.S. No. 551 of 2024

The said “Karengula Yettaiah” inherited the said property from

his forefathers and his name was reflected in “Dharani” as the

pattadar of the plaint schedule property.

While so, “Karengula Yettaiah” who is the father of the plaintiffs died intestate on 20.03.2009 leaving behind the plaintiff as his legal heirs in respect of plaint schedule property. The wife of said “Karengula Yettaiah” (i.e., mother of the plaintiffs) predeceased him. Hence, the plaintiffs are sole surviving heirs of said “Karengula Yettaiah”.

After his life time they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. When they intended to sell the plaint schedule property in the month of March, 2023 to meet their urgent necessities. Then the prospective buyers insisted for declaration that they are the legal heirs of said “Karengula

Yettaiah”. Thereupon, the plaintiffs approached the MRO,

Abdullapurmet, R. R. District for issuance of legal heir certificate.

But the MRO, rejected their request for issuance of family member certificate stating that Revenue authorities are not issuing any legal heir certificates with regard to immovable properties and advised the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court. Hence the suit 4 of 14

O.S. No. 551 of 2024

to declare the plaintiffs as legal heirs of “Karengula Yettaiah S/

o. Kotaiah” in respect of plaint schedule property.

The defendant No. 2 remained exparte. Whereas, Defendant 3.

no.1 is “all concerned”. Despite of publication of notice to defendant no.1 (All concerned) in daily newspaper, none appeared raising any objection in this regard.

4.In support of the case of plaintiffs, PW1 is examined and Ex.A1 to A42 are marked.

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

Now the point for determination is :- 6.

Whether the plaintiffs can be declared as legal heirs of

Late Karengula Yettaiah S/o. Kotaiah in respect of

plaint schedule property as prayed for?

POINT :-

The plaintiffs herein are seeking for declaring their status as 7.

legal heirs of deceased “Late Karengula Yettaiah” in respect of the plaint schedule property on the ground that they are the sole surviving 5 of 14

O.S. No. 551 of 2024

legal heirs of “Late Karengula Yettaiah” as the wife of “Karengula

Yettaiah” predeceased him.

In support of the case of the plaintiffs, PW1 is examined and 8.

Ex.A1 to Ex.A42 are marked as per appendix.

As the plaintiffs herein are seeking for declaration of their status as legal heirs of “Late Karengula Yettaiah” primarily it is for the

plaintiffs to establish their relationship with the deceased

“Karengula Yettaiah”

Secondly , it is for the plaintiffs to establish that the plain

schedule properties belongs to said “Karengula Yettaiah” and he

died intestate by leaving behind the plaintiffs as his sole surviving

legal heirs in respect of the plaint schedule property.

9.Though Defendant no. 2 i.e., MRO remained exparte, and though no objectors appeared despite of publication of notice to all concerned

I.e, Defendant no.1, but still it is for the plaintiffs to establish their

claim by producing necessary oral and documentary evidence as the

suit is always to be decided on merits.

10.Now it is to be seen whether the plaintiffs established that

they are the surviving legal heirs of “Late Karengula Yettaiah”.

In support of their case, plaintiff no.1 who is authorized to represent the other plaintiffs by virtue of GPA dt. 12.12.2024 is 6 of 14

O.S. No. 551 of 2024

examined and he deposed in support of their case by reiterating the plaint averments and his entire chief examination is in consonance with the plaint averments.

As per the testimony of PW1, one “Karengula Yettaiah s/o.

Kotaiah” is the father of the plaintiffs and the plaint schedule property belongs to said “Karengula Yettaiah” and the said “Karengula Yettaiah” is no more and he died on 20.03.2009 by leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs as his wife predeceased him.

In this regard, the plaintiffs got marked the death certificate

of “Karengula Yettaiah” as Ex.A1 to testify the factum of death of

said “Karengula Yettaiah” on 20.03.2009.

11.IN order to establish their relationship with the deceased “Karengula Yettaiah”, PW1 relied upon Ex.A2 to Ex.A6 which are the original Aadhar cards of plaintiffs no. 1 to 5 and Ex.A37 / Notarized

GPA dt. 12.12.2024 under which, plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 authorized plaintiff no.1 to represent them in the legal proceedings in the main suit.

12.On perusal of Ex.A2 to Ex.A5 / original Aadhar cards of

plaintiffs no. 1 and 4 they clearly reveals that plaintiffs no.1 and 4

are the sons of “Karengula Yettaiah”. Whereas, Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and

Ex.A5 / the Aadhar cards of Plaintiffs no. 2, 3 and 5 only reveals their husbands names.

7 of 14

O.S. No. 551 of 2024

In this context, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted 13.

that as the plaintiffs no.2, 3 and 5 were married long back, the names of their spouses finds a place in their Aadhar Cards and further submitted that PW1 during the course of his evidence in clear and categorical words deposed that the plaintiffs no. 2, 3 and 5 are the daughters of “Karengula Yettaiah” and the said fact remained uncotroverted as the defendants remained exparte. PW1 being the brother of the plaintiffs no. 2, 3 and 5 is the proper person to say (or) depose about the relationship of plaintiffs no. 2, 3 and 5 with their father “Karengula

Yettaiah” as the daughters of said “Yettaiah” and filed the wedding card of plaintiff no. 5 along with a memo for consideration. But the same was not got marked on behalf of the plaintiffs.

14.However, PW1 is further relying upon Ex.A37 / notarized GPA

dt. 12.12.2024 where under the plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 authorized PW1 to

represent them in the main suit. On perusal of the contents of Ex.A37, the recitals there under clearly reveals that “Babburi Rathna Bai”,

“Veera Yadamma”, “Karengula Raju Goud”, “Noothalakanti Manjula”

are the legal heirs of “Karengula Yettaiah” and PW1 by name

“Karengula Vijay Kumar” is their brother and legal heirs of

“Karengula Yettaiah” being the daughters and sons of “Karengula

Yettaiah” 8 of 14

O.S. No. 551 of 2024

Thus, the documentary evidence on record i.e., Ex.A2 to Ex.A6 more particulary Ex.A2, Ex.A5, Ex.A37 coupled with oral evidence of PW1 which remained uncontroverted clearly established that the plaintiffs

no.1 and 4 are no other than sons and plaintiffs no. 2, 3 and 5 are

daughters of said “Karengula Yettaiah”.

15.Therefore, the said uncontroverted oral and documentary

evidence on record establishes relationship of the plaintiffs no. 1 to

5 with “Karengula Yettaiah” as children i.e., sons and daughters.

16.The plaintiffs further relied upon Ex.A1 which is the death certificate of Karengula Yettaiah to testify the factum of death of said

Karengula Yettaiah and as per his chief affidavit, their mother is no more and she predeceased their father. Therefore, there is no hesitation to

hold that the plaintiffs have established their relationship with said

“Karengula Yettaiah” as his sons and daughters and the surviving

legal heirs of the Yettaiah.

17. Now it is to be see whether the plaint schedule property belongs to the said “Karengula Yettaiah” (or) not.

Admittedly, no registered document was filed to show that the plaint schedule property belongs to “Karengula Yettaiah”. However, plaintiffs clearly pleaded in the plaint that their father “Karengula

Yettaiah” inherited the plaint schedule property from his forefathers

9 of 14

O.S. No. 551 of 2024

and his name reflected in the revenue records and they relied upon the entries in the revenue records i.e., pahanies Sesla Pahani and Dharani.

At this juncture, plaintiffs are mainly relying upon Ex.A36/ True 18.

copy of Sesla pahani for the year 1955 (its translation also filed along with a memo dt. 28.03.2025). On perusal of the same, the name of “Karengula Yettaiah” finds a place therein as pattadar and possessor of the land in Sy.no. 255. Whereas, the other pahanies that are relied upon by PW1 i.e., Ex.A8 to Ex.A35 for the relevant years reveals the name of “Karengula Yettaiah” as one of the pattadar and possessor of the land in

Sy.no. 255 and the total extent covered in said survey number is Ac. 19- 18gts but the suit schedule property is of an extent of Ac. 4-3450gts in

Sy.no. 255e.

In this context, the online copies of Dharani portal i.e., Ex.A39 19.

and Ex.A42 are relevant. Ex.A39 is marked subject to its admissibility .

In this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the citation i.e., orders in CRP no. 3716 of 2018 [P.Pramod Kumar Vs. P.

Savithabai K. Savithabai on 13.062018] wherein by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court it is clarified that “a party who is

not in possession of device from which the document is produced

that party cannot be required to produce the certificate u/sec. 65B

of Evidence Act and the requirement of the certificate being

10 of 14

O.S. No. 551 of 2024

procedural can be relaxed by the court where ever interest of justice

therein requires”.

In the light of the above citation, in the case on hand also, Ex.A39

and Ex.A42 being downloaded from Dharani Portal the online copies

of Dharani can be considered and the requirement of filing

certificate u/sec. 65B can be relaxed.

20.On perusal of Ex.A39 and Ex.A42, i.e., the online copy of

Dharani, the name of “Karengula Yettaiah” finds a place as pattadar in respect of the plaint schedule property of an extent of Ac. 4-3450gts vide Khata No. 197 in Sy.no. 255e and the same lends support to the oral evidence of PW1. Therefore, the voluminous documentary evidence relied upon by PW1 more particularly, Ex.A36 /Sesla Pahani, Ex.A39 /

Downloaded copy from Dharani Portal in respect of land in Sy. no.

255/E (subject to its admissibility) and Ex.A42 / Online Dharani copy

coupled with the true copies of pahanies i.e., Ex.A8 to Ex.A35 clearly

establishes that said “Karengula Yettaiah” was the pattadar and

possessor of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs counsel also filed true translation copies of Ex.A9, Ex.A33, Ex.A34, Ex.A40, Ex.A42 for clarity purpose.

PW1 further relied upon Ex.A38 / Encumbrance Certificate for 21.

the last 30 years i.e., from 01.05.1995 to 07.01.2025 which shows that 11 of 14

O.S. No. 551 of 2024

the transactions are ‘Nil” during the said period. Therefore, the

uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence on record establish

that the plaint schedule property belongs to “Karengula Yettaiah”

who is no other than father of plaintiffs no.1 to 5 and he died

intestate on 20.03.2009 by leaving behind the plaintiffs who are no

other than his sons and daughters. The fact that the wife of

“Karengula Yettaiah” predeceased him even remained undisputed as

defendant no.2 remained exparte and no objections raised by any

objectors despite of publication of notice. In those circumstances,

the plaintiffs being sole surviving heirs who are nearer in degree to

the deceased “Karengula Yettaiah” can be declared as legal heirs of

said “Karengula Yettaiah” in respect of plaint schedule property.

Consequently, the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit relief.

In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiffs declaring 22.

the plaintiffs no.1 to 5 as legal heirs of deceased Karengula Yettaiah S/o.

Kotaiah in respect of plaint schedule property. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs..

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on this the 9 th day of April, 2025.

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

12 of 14

O.S. No. 551 of 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS :

PW.1 : Karengula Vijay Kumar Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1Meeseva copy of DC of K. Yettaiah

Ex.A2Original Aadhar card of PW1.

Ex.A3Original Aadhar card of Plaintiff no.2.

Ex.A4Original Aadhar card of Plaintiff no.3.

Ex.A5Original Aadhar card of Plaintiff no.4.

Ex.A6Original Aadhar card of Plaintiff no.5.

Ex.A7True Copy of the Pahani for the year 1955-58

Ex.A8Copy of the Pahani for the year 1960-61 (issued under RTI Act)

Ex.A9Copy of the Pahani for the year 1962-63 (issued under RTI Act)

Ex.A10Copy of the Pahani for the year 1963-64 (issued under RTI Act)

Ex.A11True Copy of the Pahani for the year 1971-72.

Ex.A12True Copy of the Pahani for the year 1974-75.

Ex.A13True Copy of the Pahani for the year 1975-76

Ex.A14True Copy of the Pahani for the year 1976-77

Ex.A15Copy of the Pahani for the year 1983-84 (issued under RTI Act)

Ex.A16True Copy of the Pahani for the year 1985-86.

13 of 14

O.S. No. 551 of 2024

Ex.A17True Copy of the Pahani for the year 1986-87.

Ex.A18True Copy of the Pahani for the year 1989-90.

Ex.A19True Copy of the Pahani for the year 1990-91

Ex.A20True Copy of the Pahani for the year 1991-92

Ex.A21True Copy of the Pahani for the year 1993-94

Ex.A22True Copy of the Pahani for the year 1995-96.

Ex.A23True Copy of the Pahani for the year 1997-98.

Ex.A24True Copy of the Pahani for the year 1998-99.

Ex.A25True Copy of the Pahani for the year 1999-2000.

Ex.A26True Copy of the Pahani for the year 2000-2001

Ex.A27True Copy of the Pahani for the 2002-03.

Ex.A28True Copy of the Pahani for the year 2003-04.

Ex.A29True Copy of the Pahani for the year 2004-05.

Ex.A30True Copy of the Pahani for the year 2005-06.

Ex.A31True Copy of the Pahani for the year 2006-07.

Ex.A32True Copy of the Pahani for the year 2009-10

Ex.A33True Copy of the Pahani for the year 2010-11

Ex.A34True Copy of the Pahani for the year 2011-12.

Ex.A35True Copy of the Pahani for the year 2013-14.

Ex.A36True copy of the Sesla Pahani for the year 1955.

Ex.A37Notarized GPA, dt. 12.12.24.

14 of 14

O.S. No. 551 of 2024

Ex.A38Encumbrance Certificate from 01.05.1995 to 07.01.2025 (vide application no. 391913)

Ex.A39Downloaded copy from Dharani Portal in respect of land in Sy. no. 255/E (subject to its admissibility)

Ex.A40Online copy of Pahani for the year 2019-2020.

Ex.A41Online copy of Pahani for the year 2020-2021.

Ex.A42Online Dharani copy.

FOR DEFENDANTS : Nil

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT : AT L.B NAGAR

PRESENT :C. Ratna Padmavathi II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated on this the 5 th day of September, 2024

O.S. No. 868 OF 2023

Between:

1) Kota Bala Krishna Rao S/o. K. Venkata Ramaiah Aged 73 years, Occ: Business R/o. H. No. 7-1- 187, Bairamalguda, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

2) Vuduthala Haritha W/o.V. Krishna Rao Aged 51 years, Occ: House wife R/o. H No. 8-7-19, Venture -1, Hasthinapuram Central, Ranga Reddy Dist.

3) Kota Kiran Kumar S/o. Kota Bala Krishna Rao Aged 48 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H. No. 7-1-187, Bairamalguda, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Presently R/o. 9586 Stoneglen DR, Colorado Springs, CO, USA

4) Kota Raghavendar Rao S/o. Kota Bala Krishna Rao Aged 45 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H. No. 7-1-187, Bairamalguda, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Presently R/o. 1040 Ballington DR, Cumming Georgia, USA. (Plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 are represented by their GPA Holder/Father i.e. Plaintiff No. 1 herein)

...Plaintiffs

AND

1) V. Krishna Rao S/o. Aged 55 years, Occ: Govt. Employee R/o. H No. 8-7-19, Venture -1, Hasthinapuram Central, Ranga Reddy Dist

2) All concerned ...Defendants

Claim:The Suit for declaring as legal heirs of late Kota Usha Rani.

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for declaring the plaintiffs as legal heirs of deceased Kota Usha Rani in respect of suit schedule 1 to 10 properties with costs.

Valuation:The suit is valued at Rs.2,80,350/- and half of the suit schedule properties (10) and total Court Fee of Rs.1,59,160/- paid under Section 24(b) of A.P Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act, 1956 which is sufficient.

Cause of action: Arose on 18.01.2022 when Late Kota Usha Rani died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs and on 10.08.2023 when the approached the concerned revenue officials for issuance of legal heircertificate and they with an advise to approach competent civil court and the cause of action is still subsisting.

Plaint presented on: 01.12.2023 Plaint Numbered on: 04.12.2023

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A. Janga Reddy, Counsel for the plaintiffs and Defendants remained exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record, having heard the arguments; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following decree as follows:

1. That the suit of the plaintiffs be and the same is hereby decreed.

2. That the plaintiffs no.1 to 4 are declared as legal heirs of deceased Kota Usha Rani W/o. Bala Krishna Rao in respect of plaint 1 to 10 schedule properties.

3. That there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court on this the 5th day of September, 2024

II Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

MEMO OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFFSFOR DEFENDANTS

Rs.Rs. Stamp on Plaint1,59,160-00

Stamp on Vakalat2-00Exparte

Stamp on Process60-00

Advocate FeeFC & MC not filed

Commissioner Fee-

Total Rs.1,59,222-00 Exparte

II Addl. District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District.

Suit Schedule Property

SCHEDULE 1 PROPERTY

All that the residential house bearing H No. 3-5-125 admeasuring 240 Sq.Yds in Survey No. 49/1, Bahadurguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District, and bounded by:

North : Road South : Neighbors house East : Road West : H. No. 3-5-125/1

SCHEDULE 2 PROPERTY

All that the residential house No. 7-2-34 (Old No. 7-2-19/13) admeasuring 200 Sq.Yds in Survey No. 57 and 58, Bairamalguda, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through Registered sale deed vide document No. 6511/2012, dated 07-06-2012 bounded by

North : Neighbors house No. 7-2-35 South : Neighbors house No. 7-2-18/110/A East : Plot No. 42 of H No. 7-2-19/19 & 7-2-53 West : 30'ft wide Road

SCHEDULE 3 PROPERTY

All that the open land vide plot No.s 208 & 209, admeasuring 300 Sq. Yds in Survey No. 40 and 41, situated at Bandlaguda, Uppal Mandal, L.B.Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, and bounded by:

North : Part of Plot No. 208 and 209 South : Land of P. Venkaiah East : 30' Ft wide Road West : Part of Plot No. 209

SCHEDULE 4 PROPERTY

All that the residential house bearing H.no. 7-1-187, admeasuring 141 Sq.yds and appurtenant land of H.no. H No. 7-1-186 admeasuring 53sq.yds and Appurtenant land of H.no. 7-1-184 admeasuring 18 Sq. Yds in all admeasuring 212 Sq. along with plinth area of 1050sft, RCC ground floor and 120SFT of First Floor RCC roof, situated at Bairamalguda old village (Gramakantam), Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, bounded by :

North : Η No. 7-1-186 South : Neighbors property

East : Road West : H No. 7-1-183 and H No. 7-1-184

SCHEDULE 5 PROPERTY

All that the open land vide Plot no. 12, admeasuring 304 Sq. Yds in Survey No. 36 and 32 part, situated at Bairamalguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, bounded by

North : 40' ft wide road South : Open land in Survey No. 37 East : Plot No. 11 West: Plot No. 13

SCHEDULE 6 PROPERTY

All that the open land vide plot No. 2 admeasuring 181 Sq. Yds and plot no. 3 admeasuring 173sq.yds (Main Plot nos. 1, 2, 3 and Open plot), total land admeasuring 354sq.yds or 295.97sq.mtrs in Sy.no. 250 and 251/B, situated at Injapur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, bounded by

North: Sub-Plot of Plot No. 1 (Main Plot No. 1, 2, 3 and open plot South: Sub-Plot of Plot No. 4 (Main Plot No. 1, 2, 3 and open plot East : Neighbors plot West : 25' ft wide road

SCHEDULE 7 PROPERTY

All that the open land vide plot No. 9 (Main plot no. 128 part) admeasuring 228 Sq.Yds or 190.63sq.mtrs in Survey No. 250 and 251/B, situated at Injapur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, bounded by

North : Sub-Plot of Plot No. 10 (Main Plot No. 128 part)

South : 30' ft wide road

East : 25' ft wide road

West : Sub-Plot of Plot No. 8 (Main Plot No. 128 part)

SCHEDULE 8 PROPERTY

All that the open land vide plot No.s 26 and 27, admeasuring 400 SqYds in Survey No. 614 1 & 615/E, situated at Sri Sai Heaven-1 Heaven-II, Nandigama Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District bounded by

North : Plot No. 25 South : Plot No. 28 East : 33' ft wide road West : Plot No. 21 and 22

SCHEDULE 9 PROPERTY

All that open land vide plot No. 43, admeasuring 267 Sq. Yds in Survey No. 26, 191, 194, 195 and 198, situated at Gangotri Emerald Heights, -I, Subanpur Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, bounded by

North : Plot No. 52 South : 40' ft wide road East : Plot No. 44 West : Plot No. 42

SCHEDULE 10 PROPERTY

All that the open land vide plot No. 52, admeasuring 267 Sq. Yds in Survey No. 26, 191, 194, 195 & 198, situated at Gangotri Emerald Heights- I. Subanpur Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, bounded by

North : 40' ft wide road South : Plot No. 43 East : Plot No. 51 West : Plot No. 53

II Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

OS no. 551 of 2024

09.04.2025

Judgment pronounced (VSJ) In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiffs declaring the plaintiffs no.1 to 5 as legal heirs of deceased Karengula Yettaiah S/o. Kotaiah in respect of plaint schedule property. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.

II ADJ

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR

Present : Smt. C.Ratna Padmavathi,

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge

FAC III Addl. District & Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar

Dated this the 17th day of October, 2024

A.O.P. NO. 526 of 2021

Between:

M/s. SR Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Door no. 6-8-680/8/1/403, Sri Venkatramana Apartments, Thakur Mansion Lane, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

Represented by its Authorized Representative, Ms. G. Krishna Veni, Director, D/o. G. Venkaiah, Aged about 41yrs, Occ: Business. --Petitioner

A N D

1. M/s. Empower Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd., Door No. 985, Plot no. 270/E/A, Road No. 10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500 033.

Represented by its Authorized Representative, Pavan Kumar Panati, Director.

2. The Chairman, Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Ranga Reddy Region, DIC, 4th Floor, Spoorthy Bhavan, Collectorate, Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad – 500 004.

..... Respondents.

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. S. K. S. Kiran, Advocate for the petitoner and of M/s. D. L.

Kiranprakash, Advocate for Respondent no.1, right to file counter for

Respondent no.2 is forfeited and the matter having been heard and stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for setting aside the impugned Arbitral Award

dated 29.08.2020 in Arb. Case No. 385/MSEFC/2019 and to award costs of

the petition.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status in the arbitration case.

3.The petitioner herein is the petitioner in Arb. Case No.

385/MSEFC/2019 where under final award was passed on 29.08.2020 and

Arbitral Tribunal only awarded Rs. 1,32,562/- though the claim made by the petitioner is for Rs.32,22,770/-.

4.The brief facts of the case as set forth by the petitioner in the said arbitration case are as follows:

The petitioner/claimant is a supplier of goods and services. Whereas, respondent i.e., respondent no.1 is a buyer as per Micro, Small and Medium

Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (inshort MSMED Act).

The Respondent No.1 is a Developer of 2MW Solar Power plant at

Vinjamoor village, Nalgonda district and the petitioner is a contractor to

Respondent no.1 to supply the equipment, material and services towards setting up of solar plant. As per the contract price clause of letter of contract the respondent has to pay to the petitioner 10% over and above, his supply cost, construction cost and service cost. As per the contract payment terms clause of the letter of contract. The respondent has to pay against proforma invoices and for services on prorate basis.

The petitioner has supplied the material and rendered services worth

Rs. 1,65,22,771/- for which the respondent No.1 has paid an amount of

Rs.1,33,00,000/- and refused to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 32,33,770/- and in that regard a dispute has arisen between the parties and subsequently the petitioner referred the dispute to MSEFC (Micro and Small

Enterprises Facilitation counsel) u//sec. 18(1) of the MSEFC Act 2006 and

MSMEFC conducted conciliation, but it failed. Thereupon, MSEFC commenced the arbitration proceedings on 26.10.2019 and passed the final award dt. 29.08.2020 for meager amount of Rs. 1,32,562/- though the claim is for 32,33,770/-.

5.Being aggrieved by the said award the petitioner preferred the present petition u/sec. 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on various grounds which are urged as follows:s :-

1. That the impugned Award is non speaking award and is

cryptic and against the principles of natural justice and

violative of fundamental policy of Indian law.

2. The Arbitral Tribunal did not consider the seven invoices

submitted by the petitioner and did not give reasons as to

why they are not considered .

3. The arbitral Tribunal only placed reliance on the vague

statement of Respondent no.1 and though the respondent

failed to submit the ledger account to disprove the

invoices filed by the petitioner, but the Arbitral Tribunal

purposefully excluded the invoices submitted by the

petitioner and violated the fundamental policy of Indian

Law and passed the award and while excluding the seven

invoices did not provide an opportunity to the petitioner

to present its case and thereby violated the principles of

natural justice and prayed for setting aside the impugned

award dt. 29.08.2020.

6.The respondent no.1 herein is the respondent in Arb. Case No.

385/MSESC/2019. Whereas, respondent no. 2 is the chairman of Micro

Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (Arbitrator ).

7.The respondent no.1 filed counter and contended that it is a

Engineering Procurement Contract (EPC contract) and they were entrusted with the contract i.e., Commercial Solar Energy System Installation Contract by M/s. ENER SOL INFRA Pvt. Ltd., for purpose of erection and installation of a 33KV Plant Electricals at Solar Plant and the petitioner is a Sub

Contractor who agreed to undertake the work of testing and commissioning part of the main contract and after negotiations the

Respondent i.e., M/s. Empower Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd., agreed to entrust the said work to the petitioner. Later, the petitioner failed to use the required equipment as per the work order which resulted in incomplete installation and they supplied inferior quality goods which are not up to the standard and the said incomplete and inferior supply of equipment did not enable the commissioning of the solar plant.

During the course of supply, the petitioner raised invoices but on verification found that the invoices raised were double billed and the double invoices were brought to the notice of the respondent. During the course of re-conciliation of accounts, due to the sub-standard material, the equipment got damaged and the solar plant could not be commissioned.

8.But the petitioner submitted some of the bills which are not related to the project. On account of the default committed by the petitioner, the

Respondent has no other option to attend the commission of the plant due to which the respondent had to suffer loss i.e., an amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- towards differential value of GST and 20 panels were damaged worth

Rs.1,80,862/- and other losses including the incidental expenses of Rs.

21,88,530/- for completing the job which is to be compensated by the petitioner..

The respondent further contended that the award is reasoned award by considering the totality of circumstances and the documents, prayed for dismissal of the OP.

9.Heard both sides. Both sides filed written arguments.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in his written arguments mentioned in a tabular form by mentioning the assailed portion of the award and the reasons for assailing with particular portion of the award and argued that the award is not based on evidence and it shows the bias towards the respondent and the award is devoid of proper reasons for arriving to the conclusions which is contrary to the public policy of India and the award is non speaking order and lacks judicial approach and exceeded its jurisdiction and the award was not even signed by even a single member of the Tribunal and reiterated the grounds urged in the main AOP.

Whereas the learned counsel for respondent no.1 in his written arguments reiterated the contentions urged in the counter and further argued that as per Sec. 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act an application is to be made within three months from the date of award but in case on hand, the application is to be filed on or before 28.11.2020 but it was filed on 14.09.2021 and thereby it was not filed in time and is barred by limitation.

The respondent further reiterated that on account of latches on the part of the petitioner i.e., supply of sub-standard quality of material, the respondent suffered loss to a tune of Rs. 21,88,530/- and after considering the evidence on record, the arbitrator allowed the claim of the petitioner to an extent of Rs.1,32,562/- only and there are no grounds to set aside the said award and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

10. Now the point that arises for determination is:-

“Whether impugned Arbitral Award dated 29.08.2020

in Arbitration case No.385/MSEFC/2019 warrants any

interference and is liable to be set aside (or) not?”

11. POINT :-

The petitioner herein is the claimant in arbitration case

No.385/MSEFC/2019 who made the claim for Rs.32,22,770/- on the ground that the respondent failed to pay the remaining invoices amount which was due towards the work order given by the respondent for supply of equipment, material and services for setting up of the solar power plant for M/s. ENERSOL InfraPrivate Ltd.,

Thereupon, a final arbitration award was passed by the respondent

No.2 herein on 29.08.2020 whereunder, the claim of the claimant was allowed only to an extent of Rs.1,32,562/- though the claim was made for

Rs.32,22,770/-.

Being aggrieved by the said Award, the Petitioner in the said arbitration case, who is the petitioner herein preferred the present petition under Sec.34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the said Award. The Respondents 1 who is the respondent in the said arbitration case filed counter opposing the petition.

12.At this juncture, it is relevant to state that Arbitration is one of the modes of alternative dispute resolution where the parties to the “lis” can settle the dispute before an Arbitrator appointed by the parties to the dispute (or) by the court at the request of the parties and the Award passed by the Arbitrator becomes final and binding on the parties. Hence, an aggrieved party can only take recourse under Sec.34(2) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the arbitral Award on the grounds as laid down therein.

At this juncture, it is relevant to extract Section 34(2) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if

—

(a) the party making the application furnishes proof that—

(i) a party was under some incapacity, or

(ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law

to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any

indication thereon, under the law for the time being in

force; or

(iii) the party making the application was not given

proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of

the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to

present his case; or

(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not

contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the

submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on

matters beyond the scope of the submission to

arbitration:

Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to

arbitration can be separated from those not so

submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which

contains decisions on matters not submitted to

arbitration may be set aside; or

(v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the

arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the

agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in

conflict with a provision of this Part from which the

parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was

not in accordance with this Part; or

b) the Court finds that—(

(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of

settlement by arbitration under the law for the time

being in force, or

(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.

Explanation. — Without prejudice to the generality of

sub-clause (ii) it is hereby declared, for the avoidance of

any doubt, that an award is in conflict with the public

policy of India if the making of the award was induced

or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of

section 75 or section 81.

Now the present petition is to be decided in terms of Section 34(2) of

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 . Hence, it is to be seen whether the grounds urged by the petitioner herein falls under any of the clauses under Sec.34(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

13.Before perusing the grounds urged by the petitioner in the present

AOP, the plea of limitation as raised by the respondents counsel during the course of arguments is to be looked into.

The learned counsel for respondent No.1 mainly submitted in his written arguments as well as in his oral arguments that as per sec 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an application for setting aside the award is to be made within three months from the date of the award but here in the case on hand, the date of award is 29.08.2020 but the present AOP was filed on 14.09.2021, though the stipulated period of 90 days will be over by 28.11.2020. He further submitted that even as per orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo-motto writ petition

No.03/2020 the period of limitation stands excluded from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 in view of Covid – 19 and in those circumstances the present

AOP ought to have been filed on (or) before 14.06.2021 but as it was filed on 14.09.2021 which is barred by limitation and on this ground the AOP is liable for dismissal.

In this context the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated about the exclusion of limitation by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo-motto writ petition No.03/2020 and by subsequent orders of the Hon’ble Apex

Court ordered extension of limitation from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. I find force in the said submission of petitioner counsel.

In view of the subsequent orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra, the limitation for filing present AOP stands extended in view of

Covid – 19 and the AOP is deemed to be filed within time.

In this regard the respondent counsel relied upon the citation reported in Civil Appeal No.6810 of 2022 (Bhimashankar Sahakari

Sakkare Vs. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd (WIL)) but theabove citation has no direct application to the case on hand.

14.The main grounds urged by the petitioner is that the seven invoices filed by the petitioner were not considered by the Arbitral tribunal and purposefully excluded the same and the order is devoid of reasons and did not provide an opportunity to the petitioner to present his case which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and also amounts to violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law. Therefore, the grounds urged by the petitioner is that there is violation of principles of natural justice and the award passed by the arbitrator is in conflict with public policy of India. Which falls under clauses 34 (2) (a) (iii) & 34 (2) (b) (ii) of

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

15.It is not out of place to mention that the proceedings under Section 34 (2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are summary in nature and the scope of enquiry is to be restricted only to any of the grounds as enumerated therein for setting aside the award. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to establish the said ground and the same can be decided on the basis of the Arbitral record that is available on record.

16.Now the Arbitral award is to be looked into to find out whether the grounds urged by the petitioners is sustainable under law (or) not.

At this juncture, relied upon the ruling reported in (2019) 15 SCC 131 (Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. vs. National Highway

Authority of India) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had authoritatively held as follows :-

“That reappreciation of evidence, which is what an

appellate court is permitted to do, cannot be

permitted under the ground of patent illegality

appearing on the face of the award.”

In view of the settled legal position, the Arbitral Award in question cannot be interfered on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal has arrived at an erroneous conclusion on the evidence placed before the Arbitral

Tribunal.

17.Further, as could be seen from Page 6 of the arbitral Award, the

Arbitral tribunal assigned reasons for not considering the invoices in

Sl.No.16 to 22. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the arbitral order is devoid of reasons for excluding the seven invoices is not acceptable.

Further, the reappreciation of evidence by this Court is not permissible in the light of the legal position as referred above. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the arbitral award is devoid of reasons is not legally sustainable.

18.Therefore, the only point that is left to be resolved is that whether the Award of the Arbitral tribunal is opposed to public policy of India and it is in violation of principles of natural justice as contended by the petitioner.

At this juncture, relied upon the ruling reported (2015) 3 SCC 49 (Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority)wherein the expression public policy of India as contained under Sec. 34 (2)(b)(ii) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was a given a wide interpretation and held that:

“Award could be set aside if it is contrary to

(a) fundamental policy of Indian Law;

(b) the interest of India; (or)

(c) Justice; (or)

(d) if it is patently illegal and the illegality must go to the

root of the matter and the illegality of trivial nature cannot

be held as against public policy.”

It was further held that :-

“Award can also be set aside if it is so unfair and

unreasonable that shocks the conscience of the Court.”

Even the explanation of proviso to Sec.34(2) of Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 makes it clear that an award is said to be in conflict

with the public policy of India if the making of the award was induced

or effected by fraud (or) corruption (or) was in violation of Sec.75 (or)

Sec.81.

In the case on hand, the Award in question does not fall under any of the above said categories.

Further on perusal of the Arbitral award, there is nothing on record to suggest that there is patent illegality, which goes to the root of the matter.

Thus, the petitioner herein except making oral assertion that the

Award in question is opposed to public policy of India but failed to establish the said plea and there is nothing on record to hold that the

Award in question is unfair and shocks the conscience of the Court.

Therefore, the ground urged by the petitioner herein under Sec.34(2)(b)(ii) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not made out.

19.The second ground that is urged by the petitioner in the present petition is with regard to seeking interference of the court with the findings arrived by the Arbitrator basing upon the evidence placed before the Arbitrator by excluding the seven invoices relied upon by the petitioner and no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to present its case while excluding seven invoices, as such, there is violation of principles of natural justice

As could be seen from the award both the parties are given the opportunity to submit their written statement in respect of their contentions. Further as stated supra, in page No.6 of the award the

Arbitral Tribunal has mentioned the reasons for not considering the seven invoices. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there is violation

of principles of natural justice does not hold any substance and is not

sustainable.

20.Further, It is needless to state that a Court does not sit in appeal over the Award of an Arbitral Tribunal and by reassessing (or) re-appreciating the evidence as held in catena of decisions. Therefore, an Arbitral Award can be challenged only under the grounds mentioned in Sec.34(2) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (relied on 2012 (1) SCC 594 (P.R.Shah,

Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. vs. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd.)). Hence, the court cannot interfere with the arbitral Award on the ground that the

Tribunal erred in evaluating the evidence placed by the parties.

At this juncture relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble APEX court in Mega Enterprises and others Vs Halidarms and Snacks Pvt. Ltd., wherein it was held that:

“The court cannot interfere with the arbitral Award

merely on the ground that it does not concur with the

inference drawn by Arbitral Tribunal from the evidence

led by the parties.”

At this juncture, petitioners counsel relied upon the ruling reported in (2019) 15 SCC 131 (Ssangyongi Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. vs.

National Highway Authority of India) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had authoritatively held as follows :-

“That reappreciation of evidence, which is what an

appellate court is permitted to do, cannot be

permitted under the ground of patent illegality

appearing on the face of the award.”

It was further held --

“that under no circumstances can any court interfere

with an arbitral award on the ground that justice has

not been done in the opinion of the court and that

would be an entry into the merits of the dispute which

is contrary to the ethos of section 34 of 1996 Act”.

On the same preposition of law petitioners counsel relied upon the citation reported in Civil Appeal No.837 – 838 of 2022 (Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd., through its senior manager Vs. M/s. Shree Ganesh

Petroleum Rajgurunagar through its proprietor Mr. Laxman Dagdu Thite).

In view of the above, the arbitral award dt.29.08.2020 cannot be interfered.

21.In those circumstances, the Award passed by the Arbitrator dated 29.08.2020 is neither arbitrary (nor) capricious and needs no interference.

22.The petitioner’s counsel further relied upon the following citations.

1) ARBA No.58/2018 (Jayaram Panda Vs. Project Director, M/s.

National Highway Authority of India and others)

2) CMA (MD) No.1734/2013 (The Union of India, Ministry of Shipping

Road, Transport and National Highways New Delhi, through its project

Director Vs. J.Auuamar & others)

3) CMA No.909/2009 ( C SRIMANNARAYANA Vs. HINDUSTAN

PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED SECBAD AND ANOTHER)

4) Appeal (civil) 7419 2001 of 518 (Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.,

Vs. SAW Pipes Ltd.,)

The above referred citations are not applicable to the case on hand as facts and circumstances of the present case are different

23.In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed and the impugned

Award of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 29.08.2020 needs no interference. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of October, 2024.

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge

FAC III Addl. District & Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED – NIL

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge

FAC III Addl. District & Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar.

1 of 14 Crl.Apl. 76 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. C.RATNA PADMAVATHI

II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

DATED, THE 7th DAY OF APRIL, 2025

Crl. Appeal.No. 76 of 2020

1). From which Court the appeal: XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, is preferredCyberabad at Hayathnagar.

2). Number of case of that : CC No.729/2018

Court 3). Number of the Appeal: Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2020 4). i) Name of the Appellant1. Arun Kumar S/o. Raghunath Mishra, Aged about 27yrs, Occ: Student, R/o. Near SBI Bank, Done, Kurnool District AP state N/o. Sakrimon Village, Chandapur Post, Near Police Station Muzaffarpur district, Bihar State.

2. Durga Charan Mishra, S/o. Kailash Chandra Mishra, Aged about 37yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Indranagar Colony, Kothapet, Done Mandal, Kurnool District n/o. Burunti Village, Khalikote Mandal, Gamjam District, Odisha State.

ii). Name of the respondentThe State of Telangana through SHO, PS Abdullapurmet 5). The sentence and law underThe accused no.1 and 2 were which it was passedsentenced to undergo Rigorous 2 of 14 Crl.Apl. 76 of 2020 imprisonment for a period of one (1) Year each and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence punishable u/sec. 419 IPC and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month.

In the result, the criminal appeal is 6). Whether confirmed, allowed and the judgment of XXIV modified or reversed; and if MetropolitanMagistrate, modified the modification. Cyberabad at Hayathnagar in CC No.729/2018 dated 30.01.2020 is herebysetasideand appellants/accused no.1 and 2 are acquitted in terms of sec 248(1) Cr.PC for the offence under section 419 IPC and the fine amountpaidbythe appellants/accused no.1 and 2 if any shall be refunded to them and their bail bonds shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time 7). Advocate for appellantM/s. P. Indra Reddy 8). Advocate for respondentAddl. Public Prosecutor

This appeal is coming on 07.03.2025 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of M/s.P. Indra Reddy, Advocate for Appellants/Accused no.1 and 2 and Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and after having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/accused against the conviction and sentence passed by XXIV Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar in CC no. 729 of 2018, dt:

3 of 14 Crl.Apl. 76 of 2020 30.01.2020, whereunder the appellants/accused no.1 and 2 were convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 419 IPC .

2.For the sake of convenience and for better understanding of facts, the parties of this appeal will hereinafter be referred as arrayed in the case before the Trial Court.

3.The offence alleged against the accused is the offence u/sec. 419 of IPC.

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

That on 01.05.2018 at 10:15 AM while taking signatures in

Nominal rolls at Avanthi’s Scientific Technology & Research Academy,

Gunthapally Village, invigilator “MD Imran” verified ID card and Hall ticket with reference to the candidate writing the examination and found mismatching that Accused no.1 impersonated Accused no. 2 of

St. Mary’s College, III B.Tech, I Sem (Supplementary-R09) student bearing Roll No. 10BH1A0216 of JNTUH April/May-2018 supplementary examinations and the Principal of Avanthi’s Scientific Technology &

Research Academy, Anand Nagar lodged a complaint with PS

Abdullapurmet.

Upon the complaint/report lodged by the Principal of Avanthi’s

Scientific Technology & Research Academy, a case was registered in

Cr.no. 127 of 2018 u/sec. 419, 109 of IPC and Sec. 8 of AP Public 4 of 14 Crl.Apl. 76 of 2020

Examinations Prevention of Malpractice Act – 1997 by the Inspector of

Police, PS Abdullapurmet and entrusted investigation to SI of Police, PS

Abdullapurmet.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW1. Later he visited the scene of offence and there examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses and caused enquiries. On 01.05.2018, the SI of Police, effected the arrest of A1 and

A2 and after completion of investigation, SI of Police, PS

Abdullapurmet filed charge sheet against Accused no.1 and 2.

4.On appearance of accused, the copies of the documents on which the prosecution intends to rely upon are furnished in compliance of u/sec. 207 Cr.P.C by the Trial Court. Later the accused no.1 and 2 were examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C and the charges for the offence under Sec.

419, 109 IPC and Sec. 8 of AP Public Examinations Prevention of

Malpractice Act – 1997 was read over and explained to the accused no.1 and 2 in vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried

5.During the course of trial before the Trial Court, PW.1 to PW.4 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were marked. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused no.1 and 2 were examined 5 of 14 Crl.Apl. 76 of 2020

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. for which the accused no.1 and 2 denied their culpability and reported no defence evidence.

6. After considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court convicted the accused no.1 and 2 by its judgment Dt. 30.01.2020 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (1) year for the offence punishable u/sec.419 IPC and and to pay fine of Rs.

1,000/-. In default of payment of fine the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Whereas, acquitted accused no.1 and 2 for the offence under Sec. 8 of AP Public Examinations Prevention of

Malpractice Act – 1997.

7.Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused preferred the present appeal on various grounds which are urged as follows:

I. That the judgment of the Trial court is contrary to law.

II. The learned Magistrate mechanically accepted the prosecution case.

III. The learned magistrate failed to see that PW1 to PW3 who are

alleged to be eye witnesses did not support the prosecution

case.

6 of 14 Crl.Apl. 76 of 2020

IV. The learned magistrate failed to see that the documents that

are filed on behalf of the prosecution are only attested copies

and not the original documents.

V. The learned magistrate failed to observe that no independent

witnesses are examined to corroborate the evidence of PW1

to PW3 and prayed for setting aside the conviction and

sentence of the Trial Court.

8. Heard both sides.

9.Now the points that arises for determination is:

i) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused for the alleged offence U/Sec.419 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

ii) Whether the impugned judgment of the Trial

Court dated 30.01.2020 in CC.No.729 of 2018 suffers

from any illegality and warrants any interference

(or) not?

10. POINT No i and ii :-

This being an Appellate Court, the evidence that is available on record can be re-appreciated to find out whether the conviction and 7 of 14 Crl.Apl. 76 of 2020 sentence passed by the Trial Court is in accordance with law (or) suffers from any legal infirmity which warrants any interference.

11. The appellants herein are accused no.1 and 2 in CC no. 729 of 2018 and they are convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court for the offence u/sec.419 IPC by its judgment dt. 30.01.2020 and assailing the correctness of the same, the accused preferred the present appeal.

12.It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused no.1 who is the friend of Accused no. 2 accepted to write the examination of Accused no.2 i.e., B.Tech exams. Accordingly on 01.05.2018, Accused no.1 entered into examination center to write exam of Accused no.2 by impersonating Accused no.2 and Accused no.2 is waiting outside the examination center and in that course, the invigilator/ observer in the examination center noticed that Accused no.1 is writing the examination instead of Accused no.2 by impersonating Accused no.2 as the same came into light while taking photograph and ID proof and thereby the accused no.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable u/sec. 419 and 109 of IPC and Sec. 8 of AP Public

Examinations Prevention of Malpractice Act – 1997

13. Evidently, the learned Magistrate acquitted Accused no.1

and 2 for the offence Sec. 8 of AP Public Examinations Prevention

8 of 14 Crl.Apl. 76 of 2020

of Malpractice Act – 1997 which is not challenged by the

prosecution byt way of any cross appeal. The learned Magistrate convicted Accused no.1 and 2 for the offences u/sec. 419 of IPC.

Therefore, it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all

reasonable doubt so as to bring home the guilt of the accused

persons for the offence u/sec. 419 IPC.

14. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW4 are examined, among them PW1 is principal of Avanthi’s Scientific Technology &

Research Academy, whereas, PW2 is the invigilator/observer in the examination centre, PW3 is the observer in the examination centre and

PW4 is the investigating officer.

In support of the prosecution case, Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 are marked,

Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW1, Ex.P2 is the FIR, Ex.P3 is intimation letter dt. 01.05.2018, Ex.P4 is Attested OMR sheet of A2, Ex.P5 is

Particulars of Malpractice of case, Ex.P6 is Letter addressed to Principal

ASRA, Gunthapally by Accused no.1, Ex.P7 is original Hall ticket, Ex.P8 is Attested copies of photographs of Accused no.1, Ex.P9 is Letter addressed to Principal of ASRA Gumnthapally by Examination observer,

Ex.P10 is Student signature form, Ex.P11 is Letter dt. 01.05.2018 addressed to Principal ASRA, Gunthapally by invigilator /Asst.

9 of 14 Crl.Apl. 76 of 2020

Professor, Ex.P12 is letter dt. 01.05.2018 addressed to Principal, ASRA,

Gunthapally by examination duty reliever M. Rajasekhar

Among the prosecution witnesses so examined, PW2 and PW3 are the crucial witnesses as PW2 is one of the invigilator for the examination centre i.e., Avanthi’s Scientific Technology & Research

Academy, and whereas, PW3 is the observer in the examination centre.

PW1 is the defacto complainant who lodged Ex.P1 report and has set criminal law into motion.

PW1 is no other than principal of Avanthi’s Scientific Technology & Research Academy, at Gunthapalli. He categorically deposed that on 01.05.2018 while conducting examination i.e., B.Tech 3 semister at their college, then while checking the students, the invigilator identified one student has appeared on behalf of another student Arun Kumar (A1) is writing the examination on behalf of Durga Charan Mishra (A2) on verificatiuon of the Hall Ticket found that there is misrepresentation and LW2 and LW3 brought the said student along with them on which he lodged Ex.P1 report. He further deposesd that the original Hall

Ticket of the student is handed over to the police. Thus, PW1 corroborated the contents in Ex.P1 report.

15. Whereas, PW2 who is the invigilator and a crucial witness in this case categorically deposed that he knows Accused no.1 and 2 on 10 of 14 Crl.Apl. 76 of 2020 the date of examination and prior to that he does not know them personally. He further deposed that on 01.05.2018, when they started conducting examination, B.Tech, First Semister in their college at about 10:20AM while checking the Hall Ticket of the student, found that the

Photo affixed on the Hall Ticket is mis matching with the student appeared in the examination center then he informed the same to LW3.

He also identified the original Hall ticket which is marked as Ex.P7.

Thus, as per the testimony of PW2, the hall tickt of the student mis matched with the student who appeared in the examination center and thereby there is impersonation.

16. Whereas, the testimony of PW3 who is theobserver reveals that on 01.05.2018 the invigilator (PW2) noticed that the photo on the hall ticket is not matching with the student. Then he observed the student and the hall ticket and confirmed that they does not belong to one and the same person and handed over the student to the principal and chief invigilator for further action.

It is pertinent to note that none of the said prosecution witnesses identified the accused in the court hall.

It is further pertinent to note that though PW2 is an eye

witness being the invigilator in the examination centre, all his

evidence is quite vague as he nowhere specifically deposed against

11 of 14 Crl.Apl. 76 of 2020 accused no.1 and 2. As the offence alleged against the accused persons is “cheating by personation”, the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence on record is vital in bringing home the guilt of the accused persons. But however, the testimony of PW2 and PW3 are

quite vague as they have not deposed as to who exactly appeared

for the examination in place of the other student. As per the prosecution case it is Accused no.1 appeared to write the examination in place of Accused no. 2 by impersonating Accused no.2. But the

testimony of PW2 and PW3 does not reveal that Accused no.1

impersonated Accused no. 2 as their testimony only reveals that

photo affixed on the hall ticket is mismatched with the student

appeared. As such, their evidence is not specific as to who exactly appeared by impersonating the other student which is fatal to prosecution case.

It is further pertinent to mention that except Ex.P7 hall ticket the

other documents relied upon by the prosecution are only the

attested copies of the documents and the original documents are

not got marked by the prosecution in support of the prosecution

case. The evidence of Investigating officer i.e., PW4 though reveals

that the originals are forwarded to the examination branch of JNTU

12 of 14 Crl.Apl. 76 of 2020

but none of them are cited as witnesses so as to depose in that

regard which is also fatal to prosecution case.

It is very pertinent to note that though Ex.p10 is the student signature form (or) attendance sheet, but no signature finds a place across the name of Accused no.2 and the same is even admitted by

PW4 during the course of his cross examination.

17. The prosecution even failed to file the original photograph of student who appeared in the examination center in place of Accused no.2.

It is further pertinent to mention that Ex.P3 to Ex.P12 are marked through invesgtigating officer only which includes the letter said to be addressed to the additional controller of JNTU i.e., Ex.P3 and letter addressed to the principal by the examination observer i.e., Ex.P9 and the letter addressed to the principal by the invigilator i.e., Ex.P11 and the letter addressed by the examination duty reliever i.e., Ex.p12 are only marked through Investigating officer. PW1 to PW3 nowhere

deposed in their evidence with regard to those letters under Ex.P3,

Ex.P9 and Ex.P11. PW1 to PW3 only identified original hall ticket in the name of Accused no.2 which is marked as Ex.P7.

PW2 even not deposed about the OMR sheet of Accused no.2 i.e.,

Ex.P4 though it is vital document in establishing the case of the 13 of 14 Crl.Apl. 76 of 2020 prosecution. Mere identification of the hall ticket of Accused no.2 by

PW1 to PW3 is not sufficient to connect Accused no.1 with the

alleged offence. As stated supra Ex.P10 attendance sheet does not contain the signature of the student i.e., either Accused no.1 or

Accused no.2 so as to establish that it is accused no.1 who appeared for the examination by impersonating Accused no.2.

18. As stated supra, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is of no help as it is quite vague and does not specify as to who exactly appeared for the examination in the place of the other student. Moreover, except Ex.P7, the prosecution failed to get the original documents marked in support of their case. In those circumstances, there is no hesitation to hold

that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused

persons i.e., Accused no.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt so as

to connect them with the offence u/sec. 419 of IPC.

Even in the absence of the sufficient evidence and in the absence of the original documentary evidence, the Trial Court erroneously held that the accused no.1 and 2 are to be convicted for the offence u/sec.

419 IPC.

19. For the foregoing reasons there is no hesitation to hold that, the judgment of the Trial Court is not in accordance with law and suffer 14 of 14 Crl.Apl. 76 of 2020 from illegality and certainly warrants interference and is liable to be set aside.

20. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the judgment of

XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar in CC

No.729/2018 dated 30.01.2020 is hereby set aside and appellants/accused no.1 and 2 are acquitted in terms of sec 248(1)

Cr.PC for the offence under section 419 IPC and the fine amount paid by the appellants/accused no.1 and 2 if any shall be refunded to them and their bail bonds shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court on this the 07 th day of April, 2025.

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERFOR RESPONDENT

-NIL--NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT

-NIL- -NIL-

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L. B. NAGAR

15 of 14 Crl.Apl. 76 of 2020

Crl.Apl. 76/2020

07.04.2025

Judgment pronounced (VSJ)

In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the judgment of XXIV

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar in CC No.729/2018

dated 30.01.2020 is hereby set aside

and appellants/accused no.1 and 2 are acquitted in terms of sec 248(1)

Cr.PC for the offence under section 419 IPC and the fine amount paid by the appellants/accused no.1 and 2 if any shall be refunded to them and their bail bonds shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

II ADJ