Sri. C.Vikram

1 O.S. No.135 of 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT : GODAVARIKHANI

Present:Sri. C.Vikram Junior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani.

FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 8th DAY OF MAY, 2015

ORIGINAL SUIT No.135 of 2012

Between:

1.Sidha Sammaiah s/o. Late Lachaiah, age 65 years, Occ: Retired Employee, r/o. Penchikalpet, Kamanpur mandal of Karimnagar District.

2.Sidha Bheemaiah s/o. Late Lachaiah, age 60 years, Occ: Retired Employee, r/o. 8 Incline Colony, Godavarikhani of Ramagundam mandal of Karimnagar District.

3.Sidha Cilukalu s/o. Late Lachaiah, age 55 years, Occ: Cultivation,

4.Sidha Swamy s/o. Late Lachaiah, age 53 years, Occ: Cultivation, Both are r/o. Khilavanaparthy village Dharmaram mandal of Karimnagar District. …Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 AND

1.Polasani Devender Rao s/o. Tulashekhar Rao, age 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, r/o. Lingapur village of Manakondur mandal of Karimnagar District.

2.The Tahasildar, Ramagundam mandal of Karimnagar District. … Defendants No.1 and 2

Claim: Suit for declaration

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Smt. Ch.Sailaja, Advocate for plaintiff and Defendant remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G E M E N T :

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration, declaring the decree passed in O.S. No.790 of 1993 on the file of District Munisiff is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.2 and his men from mutating the land in favour of defendant No.1.

2.The brief facts of the case are that, the father of plaintiff namely, Sidha

Lachaiah has got land in Sy.No.561 to an extent of Ac.6-35 guntas, situated at

Medipalli shivaru of Ramagundam mandal of Karimnagar District out of which plaintiffs' father sold Ac.2-00 guntas of land to defendant No.1. After the death of father of plaintiffs, plaintiffs have got mutated the said land in their name and since then they are enjoying peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.

2 O.S. No.72 of 2014

Meanwhile D1 filed application before D2 to mutate land in his name as per decree in OS No.790/1993, dt.30.11.1993, on filing of objection by plaintiffs, D2 enquired into the matter and rejected it. Later D1 filed an appeal before RDO, Peddapalli which was allowed without considering plea of plaintiffs, on that plaintiff filed revision before Joint Collector and the same is pending. As a matter of fact, D1 has obtained decree in OS No.790/1993 after 2 years of death of the father of plaintiff by showing some other person as father of plaintiff and with malafide intention trying to grab the land. On 3.7.2012 when plaintiffs requested D2 to not to mutate the land in the name of D1, but D2 expressed his inability. Hence the suit.

3.Even after service of summons the defendant No.1 neither engaged counsel to defend his case nor appeared before this Court. Hence the defendant No.1 set ex-parte. Counsel for D2 has filed Memo of appearance, but failed to file WS within stipulated time, as such the right to file WS of D2 is forfeited.

4.To prove its case the plaintiff examined himself as PW1, got examined PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 Certified copy of Decreed, dt.30.11.1993, Ex.A2

Certified copy of Judgment, dt.30.11.1993 and Ex.A3 is Death certificate of Sidha

Lachaiah, dt.6.4.2015.

5.Point: 1. Whether the decree passed in OS No.790 of 1993 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff?

2. Whether perpetual injunction is granted against the D2 restraining him from mutating land in the name of D1?

The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim got examined Pws.1 and 2 on their behalf and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 Certified copy of Decreed, dt.30.11.1993, Ex.A2 Certified copy of Judgment, dt.30.11.1993 and Ex.A3 is Death certificate of Sidha Lachaiah, dt.6.4.2015. As seen from the evidence, the evidence of PW1 is coupled with the evidence of PW2. Ex.A1 Certified copy of Decreed and

Ex.A2 Certified copy of Judgment, dt.30.11.1993 reveals that the said orders are passed on 30.11.1993. Whereas the Ex.A3 is Death certificate which shows that

Sidha Lachaiah was died on 25.3.1991. If the Sidha Lachaiah was died on 25.3.1991, the Ex.A1 and A2 would not come in to existence after the death of 3 O.S. No.135 of 2012

Sidha Lachaiah. It clearly shows that the defendant No.1 with malafide intention has brought Ex.A1 and A2 in to existence to grab the land. Therefore this Court finds no reason to dis-believe the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A3.

Hence concluded that plaintiffs substantiated his claim and proved their claim.

Accordingly this point is concluded in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

6.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff be and are hereby decreed, declaring the decree passed in OS No.790 of 1993 on the file of District Munsiff is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and perpetual injunction is granted restraining the Defendant No.2 and his men from mutating the land shown in Decree in the name of D1.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer (G-III), corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 8th day of May, 2015.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Godavarikhani

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF(s): FOR THE DEFENDANT(s):

PW1 – Sidha Swamy- None - PW2 – Sidha Bheemaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF(s):

Ex.A1 Certified copy of Decreed, dt.30.11.1993 Ex.A2 Certified copy of Judgment, dt.30.11.1993 Ex.A3 is Death certificate of Sidha Lachaiah, dt.6.4.2015.

FOR THE DEFENDANT(s):

- Nil -

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Godavarikhani.

1 O.S. No.135 of 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT : GODAVARIKHANI

Present:Sri. C.Vikram Junior Civil Judge, Godavarikhani.

FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 8th DAY OF MAY, 2015

ORIGINAL SUIT No.135 of 2012

Between:

1.Sidha Sammaiah s/o. Late Lachaiah, age 65 years, Occ: Retired Employee, r/o. Penchikalpet, Kamanpur mandal of Karimnagar District.

2.Sidha Bheemaiah s/o. Late Lachaiah, age 60 years, Occ: Retired Employee, r/o. 8 Incline Colony, Godavarikhani of Ramagundam mandal of Karimnagar District.

3.Sidha Cilukalu s/o. Late Lachaiah, age 55 years, Occ: Cultivation,

4.Sidha Swamy s/o. Late Lachaiah, age 53 years, Occ: Cultivation, Both are r/o. Khilavanaparthy village Dharmaram mandal of Karimnagar District. …Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 AND

1.Polasani Devender Rao s/o. Tulashekhar Rao, age 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, r/o. Lingapur village of Manakondur mandal of Karimnagar District.

2.The Tahasildar, Ramagundam mandal of Karimnagar District. … Defendants No.1 and 2

Claim: Suit for declaration

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Smt. Ch.Sailaja, Advocate for plaintiff and Defendant remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G E M E N T :

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration, declaring the decree passed in O.S. No.790 of 1993 on the file of District Munisiff is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.2 and his men from mutating the land in favour of defendant No.1.

2.The brief facts of the case are that, the father of plaintiff namely, Sidha

Lachaiah has got land in Sy.No.561 to an extent of Ac.6-35 guntas, situated at

Medipalli shivaru of Ramagundam mandal of Karimnagar District out of which plaintiffs' father sold Ac.2-00 guntas of land to defendant No.1. After the death of father of plaintiffs, plaintiffs have got mutated the said land in their name and since then they are enjoying peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.

2 O.S. No.72 of 2014

Meanwhile D1 filed application before D2 to mutate land in his name as per decree in OS No.790/1993, dt.30.11.1993, on filing of objection by plaintiffs, D2 enquired into the matter and rejected it. Later D1 filed an appeal before RDO, Peddapalli which was allowed without considering plea of plaintiffs, on that plaintiff filed revision before Joint Collector and the same is pending. As a matter of fact, D1 has obtained decree in OS No.790/1993 after 2 years of death of the father of plaintiff by showing some other person as father of plaintiff and with malafide intention trying to grab the land. On 3.7.2012 when plaintiffs requested D2 to not to mutate the land in the name of D1, but D2 expressed his inability. Hence the suit.

3.Even after service of summons the defendant No.1 neither engaged counsel to defend his case nor appeared before this Court. Hence the defendant No.1 set ex-parte. Counsel for D2 has filed Memo of appearance, but failed to file WS within stipulated time, as such the right to file WS of D2 is forfeited.

4.To prove its case the plaintiff examined himself as PW1, got examined PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 Certified copy of Decreed, dt.30.11.1993, Ex.A2

Certified copy of Judgment, dt.30.11.1993 and Ex.A3 is Death certificate of Sidha

Lachaiah, dt.6.4.2015.

5.Point: 1. Whether the decree passed in OS No.790 of 1993 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff?

2. Whether perpetual injunction is granted against the D2 restraining him from mutating land in the name of D1?

The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim got examined Pws.1 and 2 on their behalf and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 Certified copy of Decreed, dt.30.11.1993, Ex.A2 Certified copy of Judgment, dt.30.11.1993 and Ex.A3 is Death certificate of Sidha Lachaiah, dt.6.4.2015. As seen from the evidence, the evidence of PW1 is coupled with the evidence of PW2. Ex.A1 Certified copy of Decreed and

Ex.A2 Certified copy of Judgment, dt.30.11.1993 reveals that the said orders are passed on 30.11.1993. Whereas the Ex.A3 is Death certificate which shows that

Sidha Lachaiah was died on 25.3.1991. If the Sidha Lachaiah was died on 25.3.1991, the Ex.A1 and A2 would not come in to existence after the death of 3 O.S. No.135 of 2012

Sidha Lachaiah. It clearly shows that the defendant No.1 with malafide intention has brought Ex.A1 and A2 in to existence to grab the land. Therefore this Court finds no reason to dis-believe the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A3.

Hence concluded that plaintiffs substantiated his claim and proved their claim.

Accordingly this point is concluded in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

6.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff be and are hereby decreed, declaring the decree passed in OS No.790 of 1993 on the file of District Munsiff is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and perpetual injunction is granted restraining the Defendant No.2 and his men from mutating the land shown in Decree in the name of D1.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer (G-III), corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 8th day of May, 2015.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Godavarikhani

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF(s): FOR THE DEFENDANT(s):

PW1 – Sidha Swamy- None - PW2 – Sidha Bheemaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF(s):

Ex.A1 Certified copy of Decreed, dt.30.11.1993 Ex.A2 Certified copy of Judgment, dt.30.11.1993 Ex.A3 is Death certificate of Sidha Lachaiah, dt.6.4.2015.

FOR THE DEFENDANT(s):

- Nil -

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Godavarikhani.

1 CC No.251 of 2008

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. : AT : GODAVARIKHANI

Present:Sri. C.Vikram

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Godavarikhani

THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 21st DAY OF MAY, 2015

CALANDER CASE No.251 of 2008

Between:

The state through the Station House Officer, Police Station, NTPC (Cr. No.47 of 2008) …Complainant

AND

A1. Ponnam Vijay s/o. Gouraiah, 25 years, Goud, r/o. Shalapalli. A2. Ponnam Anjaiah s/o. Gouraiah, 32 years, Goud, r/o. Shalapalli. A3. Durgam Posham s/o. Ramulu, 24 years, Nethakani, r/o. Shalapalli (split up CC No.180/2015) … Accused No.1 to 3

Note: The case against accused No.3 is separated and numbered as split up CC No.180/2015.

This case is coming on 21.5.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. J.Srinivas, Advocate for Accused, having been heard both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, NTPC has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.34-A of the Excise Act.

2.The brief facts of the case are that, on reliable information, on 18.4.2008 at 13.00 hours the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, NTPC along with his men proceeded to the outskirts of Shalapalli village and found the accused persons are selling toddy without having valid license. Thus the accused No.1 to 3 contravened the provisions of U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and they are pu

3.This case was taken on file as CC. No.251 of 2008 against the accused No.1 to 3 for an offence punishable under section U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act.

4.After appearance of the accused No.1 to 3 copies of the documents were furnished to them under Sec.207 Cr.PC.

2 CC No.251 of 2008

5.Prosecution reported as Accused No.3 died, but did not file Death Certificate, as such the case against him is separated and numbered as split up CC No.180 of 2015.

The accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge framed

U/Sec.7A r/w. 8(e) of AP Proh. Act, 1995 read over and explained to the accused the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case the prosecution examined Pws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. Defence did not examine any witness on its behalf.

7.Since there is no incriminating material available against accused, the examination of accused No.1 and 2 U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8.Heard Arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. To what result ?

10.POINT A: To prove this case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 and 2, who are alleged to be mediators for recovery panchanama, have exhibited hostile attitude. They deposed that they do not know any fact in connection of this case and that no recovery was made and no panchanama was conducted in their presence by police at any point of time. During cross examination nothing elicited in favour of prosecution.

11. In the instant case except the evidence of Pw1, there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The alleged mediator, Pw1, did not support the prosecution case. Further inspite of granting several adjournments prosecution failed to adduce the evidence of Investigation Officer. Since there is no material available against the accused, it is concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act. Accordingly, the point is answered.

12. POINT B:In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Thus, accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted

U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. The bail bonds 3 CC No.251 of 2008 of the accused No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after appeal time. The property deposited, if any, shall be retained till disposal of split up CC No.180 of 2015.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer (G-III), corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21st day of May, 2015.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PW1 – Mulukuntla Shankar PW2 – Ambadi Sathish

FOR THE DEFENCE

- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 – Signature of PW1 on panchanama Ex.P2 – Signature of PW2 on panchanama

FOR THE DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani.

1 CC No.251 of 2008

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. : AT : GODAVARIKHANI

Present:Sri. C.Vikram

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Godavarikhani

THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 21st DAY OF MAY, 2015

CALANDER CASE No.251 of 2008

Between:

The state through the Station House Officer, Police Station, NTPC (Cr. No.47 of 2008) …Complainant

AND

A1. Ponnam Vijay s/o. Gouraiah, 25 years, Goud, r/o. Shalapalli. A2. Ponnam Anjaiah s/o. Gouraiah, 32 years, Goud, r/o. Shalapalli. A3. Durgam Posham s/o. Ramulu, 24 years, Nethakani, r/o. Shalapalli (split up CC No.180/2015) … Accused No.1 to 3

Note: The case against accused No.3 is separated and numbered as split up CC No.180/2015.

This case is coming on 21.5.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. J.Srinivas, Advocate for Accused, having been heard both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, NTPC has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.34-A of the Excise Act.

2.The brief facts of the case are that, on reliable information, on 18.4.2008 at 13.00 hours the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, NTPC along with his men proceeded to the outskirts of Shalapalli village and found the accused persons are selling toddy without having valid license. Thus the accused No.1 to 3 contravened the provisions of U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and they are pu

3.This case was taken on file as CC. No.251 of 2008 against the accused No.1 to 3 for an offence punishable under section U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act.

4.After appearance of the accused No.1 to 3 copies of the documents were furnished to them under Sec.207 Cr.PC.

2 CC No.251 of 2008

5.Prosecution reported as Accused No.3 died, but did not file Death Certificate, as such the case against him is separated and numbered as split up CC No.180 of 2015.

The accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge framed

U/Sec.7A r/w. 8(e) of AP Proh. Act, 1995 read over and explained to the accused the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case the prosecution examined Pws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. Defence did not examine any witness on its behalf.

7.Since there is no incriminating material available against accused, the examination of accused No.1 and 2 U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8.Heard Arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. To what result ?

10.POINT A: To prove this case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 and 2, who are alleged to be mediators for recovery panchanama, have exhibited hostile attitude. They deposed that they do not know any fact in connection of this case and that no recovery was made and no panchanama was conducted in their presence by police at any point of time. During cross examination nothing elicited in favour of prosecution.

11. In the instant case except the evidence of Pw1, there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The alleged mediator, Pw1, did not support the prosecution case. Further inspite of granting several adjournments prosecution failed to adduce the evidence of Investigation Officer. Since there is no material available against the accused, it is concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act. Accordingly, the point is answered.

12. POINT B:In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Thus, accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted

U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. The bail bonds 3 CC No.251 of 2008 of the accused No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after appeal time. The property deposited, if any, shall be retained till disposal of split up CC No.180 of 2015.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer (G-III), corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21st day of May, 2015.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PW1 – Mulukuntla Shankar PW2 – Ambadi Sathish

FOR THE DEFENCE

- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 – Signature of PW1 on panchanama Ex.P2 – Signature of PW2 on panchanama

FOR THE DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani.

COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS 

::AT :: GODAVARIKHANI

PRESENT: SMT M. ARUNA 

Judl. Magistrate of F.C Godavarikhani

Saturday on this the 23 rd day of May­2015

C.C. No. 571 of 2014

Between:­ The state through SHO Police Station Godavarikhani I-Town  Complainant AND

SUGALI RAJESHEKAR NAIK

Address - 21-2-896 MARKANDEYA COLONY GODAVARIKHNAI … Accused 

For the offence u/sec. 498­A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC

:: DOCKET ORDER ::

Both the parties are present and filed a Lok Adalath petition stating that they are compromised the matter out of the Court. Hence in view of compromise, it is closed.

Typed to my dictation by the typist directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me on this the 23 rd day of May­2015.

Judl. Magistrate of F.C Godavarikhani