Kum C. Yamini

1

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore. APNE000015902019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: NELLORE

Present: Dr C.YAMINI

Principal District Judge,

NELLORE.

Wednesday, this the 2nd day of April, 2025.

APPEAL SUIT No.77/2019

Kalluri Thirupathaiah … Appellant/Plaintiff

Vs.

1. The Chairman, L.I.C of India, Central Office, Yogakshema Building, Mumbai – 400 021.

2. The Zonal Manager, L.I.C of India, South Central Zonal Office, Opp: Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Senior Divisional Manager LIC of India, Divisional Office, Nellore – 524 003.

4. The Branch Manager LIC of India, Branch Office, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District. … Respondents/Defendants.

Appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C on behalf of

Appellant/Plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree in

O.S.No.144/2010 dated 03.05.2019 of Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, in—

O.S.No.144/2010

Kalluri Thirupathaiah … Plaintiff

Vs

1. The Chairman, L.I.C of India, 2

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore. Central Office, Yogakshema Building, Mumbai – 400 021.

2. The Zonal Manager, L.I.C of India, South Central Zonal Office, Opp: Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Senior Divisional Manager LIC of India, Divisional Office, Nellore – 524 003.

4. The Branch Manager LIC of India, Branch Office, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District. … Respondents/Defendants.

This appeal coming on 18.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Tirupathaiah, Appellant/Plaintiff, appearing in-Person and of Sri D. Phani Ratnam - Advocate for the Respondents/Defendants, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Plaintiff/Appellant herein filed the suit to direct the defendants to pay the plaintiff an amount of Rs.3,37,959/- with subsequent interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization on Rs.1,38,344/- and to pay Rs.67,000/- granting lien over personal properties of the defendants with costs.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are that :

(i) The suit is filed for recovery of amount of Rs.1,38,344/- belonging to the plaintiff out of his earning as agent commission wrongfully withheld by 3

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore. the 4th defendant under the instructions of the third defendant, with 18% per annum interest from date of deduction, Rs.20,000/- towards costs that were incurred by the plaintiff in travelling to meet the defendants 1 to 4 towards damages for the mental agony and sufferings the plaintiff was subjected an amount of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.5,000/- expenses incurred by the plaintiff towards correspondence, postage etc., and Rs.1,000/- amount paid as penal fee for renewal of his agent licence for no fault of him along with future interest at 18% per annum and costs of suit till realization from the defendants.

(ii). It is further averred that the plaintiff worked as registered Agent of

L.I.C of India for the past 15 years as it’s Atmakur Branch, S.P.S.R Nellore

District and rendered best services to policy holders developing the business of L.I.C of India. Taking this as advantage, Branch manager of Atmakur of

L.I.C of India and other officials wanted him to help some policy holders who were not having Bank accounts in the year 2000. Atmakur Branch Authorities told him that they would issue Policy Holders cheques in his name due to some problems with the bankers and thus obtained some empty withdrawal slips signed by the plaintiff along with pass book to encash policy holders cheques in his name through his S.B. account. Though it is beyond the procedure, he was constrained to oblige the request of his superiors as they told that their aim was only to help the Policy Holders. On 11.05.2002, the 4th defendant sent him a letter enclosing the letter of 3rd defendant dated 28.04.2002 alleging that a total amount of Rs.1,38,344/- of Corporation amount belonging to policy holders were drawn from plaintiff’s S.B account of Andhra Bank, Atmakur and were misappropriated by the plaintiff, with a direction to deposit the said amount, failing which, they will recover the same 4

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore. from his account and the defendants with-held plaintiff’s amount of

Rs.1,38,344/- lying in their hand and likewise other agents were also demanded and some of them were replied that they will be paid after completion of investigation. He represented his innocence and that he was not guilty of any such misappropriations, made appeals and several correspondences to all defendants and Insurance Ombudsman, Hyderabad and met all the defendants to sort out the matter. Subsequently, the 4th defendant also deducted Income Tax deductions on the earnings of Plaintiff for the period 31.05.2006 to 31.03.2007 and sent a copy to plaintiff on 16.04.2007 and likewise defendants deducted yearly Income Tax from 2002 to 2006 from his commissions that he got as his percentage out of the regular periodical subscriptions of the Policy Holders introduced by the

Plaintiff. The statement of Account No.2 furnished to him under Right to

Information Act, reveals that his amount of Rs.1,38,344/- in their hands was withheld by the defendants.

(iii). It is further averred that on his various representations, appeals made to the defendants 1 and 2 for getting all the documents pertaining to the matter in dispute under Right to Information Act, the defendants 3 and 4 could not furnish the plaintiff all the necessary documents. Further, on his representations and appeals made to Defendants 1 and 2 and Insurance

Ombudsman, Hyderabad stating that he is innocent and nothing to do with those grave allegations made by 3rd defendant. Further, on intervention of superior officers of the defendants 3 and 4, plaintiff learnt through a phone call at 12.30 P.M. on 15.04.2008 from 4th defendant that the Manager (Sales), LIC of India, Divisional Office, Nellore, invited Plaintiff by letter to 5

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore. attend an enquiry which communication plaintiff could not receive as he was by then studying M.Ed Course at Tirupati. Immediately, he has sent letter

dated 15.04.2008 to The Manager (Sales) LIC of India, Divisional Office,

Nellore, informing about his inability to attend but referred letters thereunder it will clarify the falsity of allegations against him. Of late, the enquiries of defendants about the misappropriations of Rs.1,38,344/- the amounts of various members of LIC of India, revealed to them that one of their Atmakur

Branch Office Staff one by name C. Dhananjaya Naidu was alone responsible for all the above alleged misappropriations and fraud.

(iv). The defendants are not agriculturists or small farmers and they all are carrying business by investing the policy holders subscriptions in various huge projects and factories at high interest at 24% to 36%, they are not entitled to the benefits of Act 3/38, Act 7/77 and Act 2/90 and hence interest is claimed at 18% per annum.

3. The defendants 3,4, 5 filed written statement denying the material plaint averments and further contended that:

(i) In fact the plaintiff has given signed blank cheques to one particular employee C.D. Naidu, Assistant to perpetuate the fraud committed by him an amount of Rs.1,38,344/- belonging to different policy holders was wrongly credited and were withdrawn from his account of Plaintiff S.B. Account of

Andhra Bank, Atmakur, without the knowledge of plaintiff, money could not be withdrawn from his account, when the defendant with-held his commission, Plaintiff was trying to prove his innocence. Though the plaintiff 6

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore. made several appeals to release his commission, he did not attend the inquiries on 15.04.2008 and also on 3.11.2008 conducted by enquiry Officer.

(ii). It is also true that 4th defendant also deducted income tax deductions on the earning of the plaintiff for the period 31.05.2006 to 31.03.2007 from his commission that he got as his percentage out of the regular periodical subscription of the policy holders introduced by the plaintiff and sent copy to Plaintiff on 16.04.2007. This act if subsequent to misappropriation.

(iii). It is true, the Manager (Sales) LIC of India Divisional Office,

Nellore, sent a letter to the Plaintiff calling upon him to attend for enquiry on 15.04.2008 at 12.30 P.M. But, he did not attend for enquiry on the pleas that he was studying M.Ed. Course at Tirupathi. Again another chance is given to the plaintiff to attend enquiry on 3.11.2008. But Plaintiff did not attend for enquiry. This indicates that he was guilty of his deeds and so he could not face the Enquiry Officer.

(iv). It is true that the Plaintiff issued legal demand notice dated 18.09.2009 to the defendants claiming amount of Rs.1,38,344/- wrongfully deducted from his amount. The defendants have been sending reply for every correspondence made by plaintiff. Defendant did not take any decision to release the with-held commission while so the plaintiff has proceeded to the Court of law without waiting for the final decision.

(v). When the defendant withheld an amount of Rs.1,38,344/- on 31.07.2002 from the commission of the plaintiff, plaintiff should have filed the suit for recovery of the said amount within three years of withholding the amount. If really the defendants withheld the amount illegally without any 7

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore. justifiable cause, he should have come to the Court within a period of 3 years to claim the amount. Hence the Plaintiff came to the Hon’ble Court beyond the period of limitation and Plaintiff suit is barred by limitation. So

Plaintiff is not entitled to any decree against the defendant. Defendants have withhold Rs.1,38,344/- not at one time but periodically whenever Plaintiff commission is accrued ranging during different years.

(vi). Claim of Rs.20,000/- towards travelling expenses incurred by

Plaintiff for going to various offices of defendants is exclusive. Plaintiff did not file any documents to prove for his claim of Rs.20,000/- Similarly claiming of Rs.5,000/- towards expenses is caused incurred towards postage and courier in correspondence to various authorities is excessive.

So sufficient proof is not filed to claim that amount of Rs.5,000/- Even for claiming damages of Rs.40,000/- due to mental agony and suffering met by

Plaintiff for 7 years is excessive. The plaintiff havingcommitted fraud and misappropriation of the amount of policy holders, he can’t have any mental agony and suffering. Plaintiff is not entitled to Rs.40,000/- from the defendant.

(vii). The Plaintiff did not renew his agency within the time, so in order to get his Agency licence renewed beyond the period, he has to pay penalty of Rs.1,000/- which is paid upon which has licence is renewed. Plaintiff is not entitled to Rs.1,000/- for renewal of agency. Plaintiff is not entitled to demand charges of Rs.1,000/- for the defendant.

(viii). Plaintiff is claiming that he is innocent and main culprit is C.D.

Dhanunjaya Naidu, Assistant, Atmakur Branch. In fact, the plaintiff himself gave in writing admitting all the transactions which itself establishes that all 8

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore. the transactions took place is in collusion with of C.D. Dhanunjaya Naidu in relation of the misappropriation of the amount of policy holders. So defendants have rightly with-held the amount. Hence plaintiff is not entitled to the amount as he is guilty of misconduct and misappropriation of the policy holders.

(ix). The amount claimed by Plaintiff towards interest was not justified because the with-hold amount belongs to policy holder of L.I.C of India.

People money for people welfare is the moto of L.I.C of India. Whatever surplus income earned by L.I.C 95% will be declared as Bonus to the Policy holders and 5% of it’s will be given to Government of India as it’s share.

Hence 18% interest claimed by plaintiff is not correct. Defendants have not with-held plaintiff regular commission earning but only the part of the fraudulent amount withdrawn from his account was with-held. Hence defendants need not pay any interest as claimed by the plaintiff.

(x). There is no cause of action for the plaintiff against the defendants and the alleged cause of action mentioned in the plaint is not correct.

(xi). Plaintiff is not entitled to decree against the defendants and plaintiff suit maybe dismissed with costs.

4. D1 remained exparte.

5. D2 filed memo adopting the written statement filed by D3 and D4.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

(1) Whether the defendants have rightly with-held the amount?

(2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

9

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore. (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount?

(4) What relief?

7. On behalf of plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and got marked

Ex.A1 to A20. On behalf of defendants, D.W.1 is examined and got marked

Ex.B1.

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial court dismissed the suit without costs.

9. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree dated 03.05.2019 in

O.S.No.144/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, the Plaintiff, the

Appellant herein preferred this appeal urging several grounds.

10. Now, the points that arise for consideration are :

(1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(2) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount

as claimed by him ?

(3) To what relief ?

Points 1 and 2:

11. Since points 1 and 2 are inter-related, they are dealt together.

12. The learned Counsel for the appellant filed written arguments and main gist is reiteration of pleadings and evidence and to avoid repetition, not reiterated and further contended that the suit is within limitation by relying

Sec.17 of Limitation Act, which is inapplicable and so also relied on the decisions relating to Sec.17 of Limitation Act without any explanation how

Section 17 of Limitation Act is applicable to the Appellant.

10

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent retained the commission in the year 2002 and the suit was filed in the year 2010 and thereby the claim of the appellant is barred by limitation and considering the same, the trial court rightly dismissed the suit and that there is no necessity to interfere with the judgment of the trial court.

14. Evidence of P.W.1 is reiteration of his plaint averments and main gist is that he worked as registered agent of LIC of India for the past 24 years at

Atmakur Branch under Ex.A1-proceedings and taking advantage of this, 4th defendant and other defendants, sought his help as Andhra Bank, Atmakur

Branch was refusing to open account to villagers and persuaded himself and other five agents and they were forced to take empty withdrawal slips duly signed by them to accommodate policy holders cheques through their

Savings Bank accounts and on 11.5.2002, 4th defendant sent him a letter enclosing the letter of 3rd defendant dt.28.4.2002 under Ex.A2 alleging that a total amount of Rs.1,38,344/- of Corporation amount belonging to policy holders were drawn from his SB account, Andhra Bank, Atmakur and was misappropriated by him, with a direction to deposit the said amount, failing which, they would recover the same from his account and the defendants withheld their agency commission of an amount of Rs.1,38,344/- and kept in deposit and so also other agents commission and he represented through

Ex.A3 to Ex.A7, Ex.A9 to Ex.A11 and Ex.A13 submitting that he was not guilty of misappropriation and approached Insurance Ombudsman, 11

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore. Hyderabad, but in vain. 4th defendant also deducted income tax on his earnings of agency commission and Ex.A15 reveals the same.

15. Evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that Ex.A18-letter dated 20.05.2009 from LIC, Ex.A19-charge sheet clearly reveals that the responsibility of misappropriation was fixed on C.Dhananjaya Naidu, Sr.Asst. of L.I.C. and imposed penalty of termination from service and directed to pay the misappropriated amount.

16. Evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that the defendants collected penalty licence fee of Rs.1,015/- though there is no delay on his part in renewal and as such, he is claiming Rs.3,37,959/- i.e. Rs.1,38,344/- with interest at 18% per annum in addition to Rs.20,000/- towards travelling charges and Rs.40,000/- towards damages for deficiency of service and

Rs.5,000/- towards correspondence and postage charges and Rs.1,000/- towards legal notice charges and Rs.1,000/- towards renewal of his agent licence.

17. Evidence of P.W.2 is that he is 3rd party namely C. Dhanunjaya Naidu and he was working as Development Officer of LIC Branch office, Atmakur and Plaintiff is LIC agent at Atmakur Branch and in view of Andhra Bank refused to open account of LIC policy holders, LIC Branch authorities convened their meeting of certain agents loyal to them including plaintiff and pressurized them and made them to agree to issue policy holders amounts in their names and collected their signatures on blank withdrawal slips and 12

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore. used to deposit the cheques written in favour of those agents in their bank accounts and arrange payments to policy holders by withdrawing money through the withdrawal slips previously obtained from those agents.

18. Evidence of P.W.2 further reveals that the LIC officials having bore grudge against him, as he filed Writ Petition No.19517/1993 before Hon’ble

High Court against LIC etc., and to trouble him and waited for an opportunity and made him responsible for misappropriation of the amounts credited in the agent accounts and charge sheeted against him and on enquiry fixed responsibility on him and imposed penalty of dismissal from service and recovery of so called misappropriated amount from him and

Annexure-B of the said charge sheet contains details of 57 cheques with amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by him and from Sl.Nos.1 to 15 for a total amount of Rs.1,38,344/- and the remaining entries, cheques and amounts belongs to other agents and it is evident that Plaintiff Agency commission of Rs.1,38,344/- has been unnecessarily recovered by L.I.C

Authorities.

19. Evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 consistently reveals that they were registered agents of LIC of India for the past 25 years at Atmakur Branch and in the year 2000, there came a problem in Atmakur LIC Branch in respect of opening of savings bank accounts of policy holders and when policy holders approached LIC office seeking solution, the Branch Manager and other officials convened a meeting in which they wanted them and plaintiff and some others agents to help some policy holders, who were not having Bank accounts and LIC Atmakur Branch authority told them that 13

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore. policy holders payments amounts will be sent back in their names by way of cheques written in their names and collected their signatures on blank withdrawal slips to withdraw cash from their S.B. Accounts to be paid to respective policy holders and then amounts of some policy holders were written in their names and deposited by LIC Authorities, in their S.B.

Accounts at Andhra Bank, Atmakur and withdrawn by LIC Authorities and those transactions were not in their knowledge and LIC Branch authorities themselves operated those transactions and though it is beyond the procedure, they were pressurized to sign on blank withdrawal slips and handed over the same to the Branch authorities and subsequently, they came to know about certain scam of misappropriation of LIC amounts surfaced in LIC Atmakur Branch and for that alleged scam, erring LIC officials made the plaintiff, himself and other agents as scapegoats and they were serve with letters to repay those amounts and when they pleaded inability, they have recovered those amounts from their agency commission payable to them and they recovered Rs.1,38,344/- from the plaintiff and recovered Rs.64,616/- from P.W.3 and recovered Rs.2,09,102/- from P.W.4.

20. Evidence of D.W.1 is that he is working as A.O in Nellore Divisional office, LIC of India, and under Ex.B1, he is authorized to give evidence on behalf of 3rd respondent. The plaintiff worked as registered agent of L.I.C of

India for past 15 years as it is Branch at Atamkur, S.P.S.R Nellore. In fact, the plaintiff has given signed blank cheques to one particular employee C.D.

Naidu, Assistant, to perpetuate the fraud committed by him an amount of

Rs.1,38,344/- belonging to different policy holders was wrongly credited and 14

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore. were withdrawn from his account of plaintiff S.B. account of Andhra Bank,

Atmakur. Without the knowledge of plaintiff, money could not be withdrawn from his account. Though the plaintiff made several appeals to release his commission, he did not attend the enquiries on 15.04.2008 and also on 3.11.2008 conducted by Enquiry Officer.

21. Evidence of D.W.1 further reveals that 4th defendant also deducted income tax deductions on the earning of the plaintiff for the period from 31.05.2006 to 31.03.2007 from his commission that he got as his percentage out of the regular periodical subscription of the policy holders introduced by plaintiff and sent copy to plaintiff on 16.04.2007. This act is subsequent to misappropriation. It is true the Manager (Sales) LIC of India,

Divisional Office, Nellore, sent a letter to the plaintiff calling upon him to attend for enquiry on 15.04.2008 at 12.30 P.M.. But, he did not attend for enquiry on the pleas that he was studying M.Ed course at Tirupathi. Again another chance is given to the plaintiff to attend enquiry on 3.11.2008. But the plaintiff did not attend for enquiry. This indicates that he was guilty of his deeds and so he could not face the Enquiry Officer.

22. Evidence of D.W.1 further reveals that when the defendant with-held an amount of Rs.1,38,344/- on 31.07.2002 from the commission of the plaintiff, plaintiff should have filed the suit for recovery of the said amount within three years of withholding the amount. If really the defendants withheld the amount illegally without any justifiable cause, he should have come to the Court within a period of 3 years to claim the amount. But the 15

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore. plaintiff came to Court beyond the period of limitation. So plaintiff suit is barred by limitation. So, plaintiff is not entitled to any decree against the defendant. Defendants have with-hold Rs.1,38,344/- not at a time, but periodically whenever plaintiff commission is accrued ranging during different years.

23. Evidence of D.W.1 further reveals that claim of Rs.20,000/- towards travelling expenses incurred by plaintiff for going to various offices of defendants is not correct. Plaintiff did not file any documents to prove his claim of Rs.20,000/-. Similarly claiming of Rs.5,000/- towards expenses is caused incurred towards postage and courier in correspondence to various authorities is not correct. So sufficient proof is not filed to claim that amount of Rs.5,000/-. Even for claiming damages of Rs.40,000/- due to mental agony and suffering met by plaintiff for 7 yeas is incorrect. The plaintiff having committed fraud and misappropriation of the amount of policy holders, he can’t have any mental agony and suffering. Plaintiff is not entitled to Rs.40,000/- from the defendants.

24. Evidence of D.W.1 further reveals that the plaintiff did not renew his agency within the time. So in order to get his agency licence renewed beyond the period, he has to pay penalty of Rs.1,000/- which is paid upon which licence is renewed. Plaintiff is not entitled to Rs.1,000/- for renewal of agency. Plaintiff is not entitled to demand charges of Rs.1,000/- from the defendant.

16

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore.

25. Evidence of D.W.1 further reveals that plaintiff is claiming that he is innocent and main culprit is C.D. Dhanunjaya Naidu, Assistant, Atmakur

Branchy. In fact the plaintiff himself gave in writing admits that all this transaction which itself establishes that all the transactions took place in collusion with of C.D. Dhanunjaya Naidu in relation of misappropriation of the amount of policy holders. So defendants have rightly withhold the amount. Hence plaintiff is not entitled to the amount as he is guilty of misconduct and misappropriation of the policy holders.

26. Evidence of D.W.1 further reveals that the amount claimed by the plaintiff towards interest was not justified because the with-hold amount belong to policy holder of L.I.C of India people money for people’s welfare is the moto of L.I.C of India. Whatever surplus income earned by L.I.C. 95% will be declared as Bonus to the policy holders and 5% of it will be given to

Government of India as it’s share. Hence 18% interest claimed by plaintiff is not correct. Defendants have not with-held plaintiff regular commission earning but only the part of the fraudulent amount withdrawn from his account was with-held. Hence defendants need not pay any interest as claimed by the plaintiff.

27. Evidence of D.W.1 further reveals that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff against the defendants and the alleged cause of action mentioned in the plaint is not correct. Plaintiff is not entitled to a decree against the defendants and plaintiff suit may be dismissed with costs.

17

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore.

28. D.W.1 admitted at cross in page No.3 that they have withheld

Rs.1,38,344/- from plaintiff and they were called for explanation from C.D.

Naidu in respect of the same cheques and the C.D.Naidu was terminated from service under Ex.A20. Evidence of P.W.1 , P.W.2-C.D. Naidu, P.W.3 and P.W.4 other agents is that during the year 2000, in view of Andhra Bank refused to open accounts to LIC policy holders, the LIC officials convinced

P.W.1, P.W.3, and P.W.4 and other agents and pressurized them to agree to issue policy holders amounts in their names and collected their signatures on blank withdrawal slips, used to deposit the cheques written in favour of those agents in their Bank accounts and arranged payments to policy holders by withdrawing money through the withdraw slips previously obtained from those agents. P.W.2 is employee of LIC.

29. Evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2-C.D. Naidu coupled with Ex.A19-charge sheet filed against P.W.2 employee of L.I.C and Annexure-B of Sl.No.1 to 15, reveals that P.W.2 was also charge sheeted for misappropriation of

Rs.1,38,344/- and the same amount was with-held from P.W.1. Evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2-C.D. Naidu and Ex.A20/ final orders reveals that P.W.2 was awarded with penalty of recovery of amount of Rs.5,59,113.80 (including Rs.1,38,344/-) and so also dismissal from the service for misappropriating the amounts. No criminal action was initiated against P.W.1 for misappropriating Rs.1,38,344/-.

18

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore.

30. The specific stand of the appellant/plaintiff is that the Bank Authority received blank signed withdrawal slips to distribute the amount to the policy holders whose amounts were credited into his account. Evidence of P.W.1,

P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A19 and Ex.A20 clearly reveals that L.I.C Employee i.e. P.W.2 was held responsible for misappropriation of Rs.1,38,344/- i.e.

P.W.1 amount was with-held by the LIC Agent and that amount was ordered to recover from P.W.2-C. Dhanunjaya Naidu, who is LIC employee. The LIC

Authority on one hand, imposed penalty of Rs.138,344/- on their employee for misappropriation of that amount and on the other hand, withhold the amount of P.W.1, even without initiating any action against appellant/plaintiff for misappropriation and without any proof that appellant/plaintiff misappropriated that amount. No doubt, on 11.5.2002, 4th defendant sent a letter intimating to deposit Rs.1,38,344/- otherwise, the amounts would be recovered from any payment due to him from L.I.C.

31. Ex.A8-information furnished by LIC under R.T.I Act to the appellant/plaintiff at para 15 reveals that in response to the letter of the appellant/plaintiff dt.5.3.2007, they replied that they could not take action on the letter before completion of their investigation into the misappropriation of the policy amount and this information also has been communicated to the appellant by the first appellate authority/Sr.Divisional Manager vide his letter dt.10.10.2008. The letter of the appellant dt.5.3.2007 i.e. Ex.A13 reveals that without considering his explanation an amount of Rs.1,38,344/- was illegally withheld from his commission dues and kept in stale cheque account and requesting to release the same. Thus, Ex.A13 coupled with Ex.A18 19

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore. dt.20.5.2009 reveals that the request of release of the amount of plaintiff could not take action before completion of their investigation into the misappropriation of the policy amount. Para No.7 of written statement averments reveals that the defendants have been sending his reply for every correspondence made by the plaintiff and the defendant did not take any decision to release the withheld commission, while so, the plaintiff has proceeded to the court of law without waiting for the final decision. Thus, it is clear the defendant/respondent till the date of filing of the suit in the year 2010 even did not refuse to pay the amount due to the plaintiff to start limitation and they only withheld the amount but not credited into it’s account. Under the above circumstances, it can’t be held that the suit is barred by limitation.

32. The appellant herein failed to establish that he is entitled for legal expenses, travelling expenses, renewal of licence charges etc., except his commission amount of Rs.1,38,344/- withheld by the LIC/defendant.

Accordingly, Points No.1 and 2 are settled in favour of appellant/plaintiff.

Point No.3:

33. In the result, appeal is partly allowed with costs by setting aside the

Judgment and Decree dated 3.05.2019 in O.S.144/2010 on the file of Senior

Civil Judge, Kovur, by partly decreed the suit directing the defendants to

pay an amount of Rs.1,38,344/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of withheld till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter with interest at 20

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore. 12% per annum on Rs.1,38,344/- from the date of filing of the suit till this date and thereafter at 6% interest per annum.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 2nd day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Dr. C. Yamini

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

NELLORE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-N i l-

Sd/- Dr. C. Yamini

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

NELLORE.

//True copy//

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

NELLORE.

21

AS No. 77/2019 Dt.2.04.2025

PDJ Court, Nellore.

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 1 »

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: NELLORE

Present:Dr.C.Yamini

Principal District Judge

Nellore *** Monday, this the 17th day of March, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.164/2018

Jangala Sulochana … Plaintiff

Vs.

Kathulapalli Venkata Narayana Reddy … Defendant

This Suit is coming on 11.03.2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri V. Sankara Narayana - Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri P.

Umamaheswar - Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing both sides and that the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. Plaintiff herein filed this suit for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document No.4101/1997 obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff on 01.07.1997 and registered at the Office of Sub-Registrar, Nellore on 02.07.1997 misrepresenting it as registered mortgage deed and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the Plaint schedule property.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are that:

The plaintiff and her husband have got acquaintance with the defendant since 1993 as they have some money dealings. With such acquaintance, the

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 2 » husband of the plaintiff borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the defendant on 23.06.1997 by mortgaging the plaint schedule property and registered the mortgage and showed the draft mortgage deed and requested to come to the Registrar Office by 12.00 P.M. on 02.07.1997 for registering the document.

(i). Accordingly, the plaintiff and her husband came to the Registrar Office on 02.07.1997 by which time the document was already prepared by the defendant and presented for registration and paid Rs.47,000/- to the husband of the plaintiff by deducting registration expenses. When the plaintiff and her husband demanded to return the original document for which, the defendant told to the plaintiff and her husband that he will keep the document with him without making any further transactions thereof and promised to return the same whenever the husband of the plaintiff discharged their debt with interest at 18% per annum. The plaintiff and her husband believed that the document was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant is a registered mortgage deed and did not hand over the link document to the plaintiff.

(ii). The husband of the plaintiff get ready to redeem the mortgage property since 2005 and for which the defendant postponed the same for all these years. Since two years the plaintiff’s husband seriously demanding to settle their amount. But since six months onwards, the defendant is evading to give replies to the husband of the plaintiff. On 2.11.2017, the plaintiff’s husband along with three other mediators came to the defendant and seriously demanded about the issue and on that, defendant told to the plaintiff the said document was not registered mortgage and it is outright registered sale deed, there is no need

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 3 » for the plaintiff or her husband to make any further demands and refused to receive the amounts and further stated that plaintiff has no right over the Plaint schedule property. Then, for the first time, the plaintiff and her husband came to know the fraud played by the defendant against them and with dishonest intention obtained registered sale deed by describing it as registered mortgage deed and on that, enquired in the Registrar’s Office and found that by fraud and mis- representation, the defendant obtained registered sale deed instead of registered mortgage sale deed. Then the plaintiff obtained certified copy of the document from the Registrar’s Office through her husband and got issued legal notice to cancel the sale deed. But, the plaintiff never intend to deliver the vacant possession of the Plaint schedule property to the defendant at any point of time and the recitals mentioned in the alleged registered sale deed obtained by the defendant was fraudulently and they are not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement denying the material plaint averments and further contended that the plaintiff being the absolute owner of the Plaint schedule property agreed to sell the same for Rs.15,000/- and defendant purchased the Plaint schedule property for Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 1.07.1997 and on receiving sale consideration, plaintiff executed registered sale deed bearing document No.4101/97 of Sub-Registrar’s Office,

Nellore and delivered possession of the said property to the defendant. Thus the defendant became absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he was

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 4 » in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption from anybody.

(i). Subsequently the defendant divided the Plaint Schedule property into eight (8) house plots and sold it to different persons under different registered sale deeds and sold plot No.3 to Yarava Venkata Narayana Reddy under registered Sale deed bearing document No.780/2003 dt.30.01.2003 and plot No.5 to one Talla Venkateswara Reddy under registered sale deed bearing document No.786/2003 dt.30.01.2003, plot No.8 to one Beeram Venkateswara

Reddy under registered sale deed document No.784/2003 dt.30.01.2003 and plot

No.2 to one Bogala Rama Krishna Reddy vide registered sale deed bearing document No.782/2003, plot No.4 to one Yarava Chalapathi Reddy vide registered sale deed bearing document No.787/03 dt.30.01.2003 and plot No.6 to one Talla Krishna Kishore Reddy vide registered document bearing No.783/2003 and plot No.7 to one Beeram Srinivasulu Reddy vide registered document bearing No.785/03 dt.30.01.2003 and plot No.1-A to others. Thus, the defendant sold Plaint schedule property by way of house plots to different persons and delivered possession of the said properties to them and the persons who purchased the said properties are in possession and enjoyment of the same.

(ii). The plaintiff has no right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff and her husband with dishonest intention and ulterior motive to harass the defendant and to knock away the Plaint Schedule

Property in view of the abnormal hike of the site value in and around of the area because of the establishment of Krishnapatnam Port, the filing of the suit after 21 years, seeking cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 5 »

No.4101/1997 dt.01.07.1997 executed in favour of the plaintiff, is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The relief prayed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation without impleading the proper and necessary parties, who legally purchased the property, some of the purchasers constructed the shop rooms and doing business therein. The plaintiff did not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed the truth and claimed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4. Basing on the above averments, the following issues were settled for trial:

1) Whether the defendant played fraud on the plaintiff and obtained sale deed instead of mortgage deed ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document No.4101/97 registered at S.R.O Office, Nellore ?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction ?

4) To what relief ?

5. On behalf of plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. On behalf of defendant, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B7. The evidence of D.W.2 is eschewed.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the written arguments submitted by the

Counsel for plaintiff.

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 6 »

Issues Nos.1 and 2:

7. Since issues Nos.1 and 2 are inter-related, they are dealt together.

8. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff filed written arguments and main gist apart from the plaint is that the plaintiff has borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the defendant and on the pretext of registered mortgage deed, the defendant obtained registered sale deed by misrepresentation and by playing fraud and paid Rs.47,000/- after deducting registration charges and plaintiff even did not give link documents stands in the name of plaintiff and since 2005, plaintiff is demanding to cancel the mortgage deed by stating that they are ready with the money and for which the defendant postponed the same and since two years onwards, the plaintiff’s husband seriously demanded to settle their amounts, but since 6 months prior to the filing of the suit, defendant is evading to give even reply and at last, on 2.11.2017 the plaintiff’s husband along with 3 other mediators came to the defendant and seriously demanded to settle about the issue as early as possible and for the first time on that day, defendant stated that they obtained sale deed but not mortgage deed and plaintiff has no right over the same and on that, they obtained certified copy of sale deed and came to know about the fraud played by the defendant and on behalf of plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.1 and the General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff is valid and categorically deposed that to their knowledge plaintiff executed mortgage deed and they came to know that defendant got obtained registered sale deed under

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 7 » misrepresentation by playing fraud and nothing was elicited from the cross- examination of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and in view of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the burden shifts on the defendant to prove his defence and original link document was marked as Ex.A2 and that itself is sufficient to support the averment of the plaintiff that it is a mortgage transaction and purchasers under

Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 are not at all bonafide purchasers and D.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that in spite of issuance of legal notice, defendant did not issue reply and no denial of contents of plaint averments mentioned in his chief- examination that as per provision of Order VIII Rule 3 to 5 of Code of Civil

Procedure, the defendant admits the contents of the plaint and if really the intention of the defendant is to purchase the property, he might have obtained original link documents and he purchased the landed property and the lay outs are not approved lay outs and all the sale transactions took place on the same day and he does not know the impleadment petition to implead the purchasers is dismissed by the Court and he has not filed any document to show that purchasers are in the possession of the plaint schedule property. The defendant did not file any document to prove his case and since the plaint schedule property is vacant site, the title is only with the title holder and one of the attestor

K. Krishna Reddy is no more and defendant never stated that D.W.3 was present on the date of execution of Ex.A1 and by examining P.W.1 to P.W.3 and from the admissions of D.W.1 and D.W.3, plaintiff established his case. When comes to the Limitation aspect, it is specific case of the plaintiff that since the date of issuing legal notice, they are demanding the defendant to execute redemption

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 8 » deed. Hence Article 59 of Limitation Act comes into operation i.e. within three years from the date of knowledge of the plaintiff, the suit can be filed and thereby, the suit is not barred by limitation.

9. To substantiate his contention, he relied on the decisions:

(1) M. Venkata Ramana Hebbar (D) by L.Rs Vs. M. Raja Gopal Hebbar & Ors.

(2) S.R. Srinivasa and Ors. Vs. S. Padmavathamma.

10. The learned Counsel for the defendant contended that the sale relates to the year 1997 and suit filed in the year 2018 and admittedly, plaintiff and her husband are literates and they can read and write Telugu and the sale deed is in

Telugu and moreover even admitting the allegation of the plaintiff that they executed mortgage deed, they have to file the suit within 12 years and they did not take any steps to redeem the property within the stipulated period and as such, the suit is barred by limitation. Moreover, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. subsequent purchasers from the defendant and moreover the plaint schedule is not vacant site and shops were constructed and moreover plaintiff failed to establish the misrepresentation or fraud played by the defendant to cancel the sale deed and under the above circumstances, suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

11. Evidence of P.W.1 coupled with sale deed dated 8.09.1993 and Ex.A1- certified copy of registered sale deed dt.2.07.1997 and Ex.A5-office copy of

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 9 » original General Power of Attorney reveals that P.W.1 is husband of plaintiff and himself and his wife got acquaintance with the defendant since 1993 as there are some money dealings with the defendant, with such acquaintance, he borrowed

Rs.50,000/- from the defendant and defendant asked for mortgage and on that, plaintiff and himself agreed to mortgage the plaint schedule property stands in the name of the plaintiff on 1.07.1997 and defendant got prepared a draft registered mortgage deed for Rs.15,000/- on white paper and showed the draft and asked them to come to Registrar Office by 12.00 P.M. on 2.07.1997 and on that day, defendant paid Rs.47,000/- to him by deducting the registration expenses and got registered the sale deed instead of mortgage deed by misrepresentation and fraud and by believing that documents as mortgage deed, the plaintiff executed the sale deed and they did not hand over the Ex.A2-link documents and since 2005, they are demanding to execute registered redemption deed in favour of plaintiff by stating that they are prepared with money, but he postponed the same and six months prior from the date of filing of suit, the defendant is evading to give reply and at last on 2.11.2017, he along with 3 mediators came to the defendant and seriously demanded about the issue as early as possible and for the first time, they came to know that they got executed sale deed instead of mortgage deed and then they came to know about the fraud and got obtained certified copy of registered sale deed and issued legal notice and written statement averments are all false. Ex.A5 is office copy of original General Power of Attorney, Ex.A3 is office copy of legal notice, Ex.A4 is postal acknowledgment.

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 10 »

12. Evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 consistently reveals that 2 days prior to the document obtained by the defendant, the husband of the plaintiff and defendant came to the Registrar office to sign as attestors on the ground that the plaintiff obtained loan of Rs.50,000/- from the defendant, for which the plaintiff executed mortgage deed and accordingly on 2.07.1997, they obtained the document from the plaintiff stating it as mortgage deed and himself, both P.W.2 and P.W.3 along with plaintiff and her husband went to Registrar Office to sign as attestors for the mortgage deed and on 2.07.1997 at 12.00 P.M., when they reached to Registrar

Office, the defendant informed to the plaintiff and her husband that already they prepared mortgage deed and already attestors available with him and their signatures are not necessary and hence, they did not sign the documents and there is no possibility for them to verify the documents and they came to know through the husband of the plaintiff that the documents obtained by the defendant is not mortgage deed and it is a sale deed and that the defendant got obtained the signatures of the plaintiff on the document, as if it is a mortgage deed and the defendant deceived the plaintiff and her husband and got obtained sale deed instead of mortgage deed.

13. Evidence of D.W.1 is reiteration of written statement averments and main gist is that the plaintiff being absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, offered to sell the plaint schedule property for a sum of Rs.15,000/- and he agreed for the same and purchased the plaint schedule property on 1.07.1997 and on receiving sale consideration, the plaintiff executed registered Sale deed

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 11 » bearing document No.4101/1997 of S.R.O, Nellore and delivered possession of the said property to him and the husband of plaintiff was also present and signed as one of the attestors to the said sale deed and thus, he became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same and subsequently, he divided the plaint schedule property into eight (8) plots and sold plot Nos.3, 5, 8, 2, 4, 6 and 7 in favour of different persons and original copies of Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 registered sale deeds relating to the year 2003 and the persons, who purchased the said properties are in possession and enjoyment over the same and the present suit is filed with ulterior motive to harass the defendant, in view of hike of site value because of establishment of

Krishnapatnam Port etc., and filed the suit after 21 years and relief claimed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and some of the above persons, who purchased the above plots, constructed shop rooms and doing business therein.

14. Evidence of D.W.2 is eschewed.

15. Evidence of D.W.3 is that he knows the plaintiff and her husband and defendant and plaintiff being the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, offered to sell the plaint schedule property for a sum of Rs.15,000/- as the defendant agreed to purchase the same, he purchased the plaint schedule property on 1.07.1997 under registered sale deed document bearing

No.4101/1997 of S.R.O., Nellore on receiving sale consideration and delivered possession of the said property to the defendant. Husband of plaintiff, himself

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 12 » and document Writer Vukka Srinivasulu were present, at that time Vukka

Srinivasulu Reddy prepared/scribe of registered sale deed. One Krishna Reddy and husband of plaintiff were present at the time of registration and K. Krishna

Reddy is no more and the defendant subsequently converted the said property into house plots and sold the same to different persons and they constructed the shops and they are in possession of the plaint schedule property.

16. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and D.W.3, it is clear that they are neither attestors to Ex.A1 nor scribe. One of the attestors is P.W.1, who is husband of plaintiff and other attestor is no more.

17. In the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for plaintiff in “M. Venkata

Ramana Hebbar (D) L.Rs Vs. N. Raja Gopal Hebbar and others”, wherein our

Hon’ble Supreme Court at para No.4 held as follows:

4. “Thus, if a plea which was relevant for the purpose of maintaining a suit had not been specifically traversed, the Court was entitled to draw an inference that the same had been admitted. A fact admitted in terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act need not be proved.”

18. Here in this suit, the defendant specifically denied the plaint averments from para Nos.1 to 6 in written statement. Hence, the facts of the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff in “M. Venkata Ramana Hebbar (D)

L.Rs Vs. N. Raja Gopal Hebbar and others” is different from the facts of the present case.

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 13 »

19. In the other decision relied on by the learned Counsel for Plaintiff reported in “S.R. Srinivasa and Ors Vs. S. Padmavathamma”, wherein, our Hon’ble

Supreme Court at para No.42 held as follows:

42. “It was also necessary for High Court to exercise care and caution to ensure that the propounder of the Will has removed all legitimate suspicion. We have earlier noticed that in this case Indiramma was living with the mother Puttathayamma at the time of her death. She was the sole beneficiary under the Will dated 18.06.1974. Her sisters, the original plaintiff and defendant No.4 that is, Lalithamma and Kamalamma had been excluded from the inheritance. There is no convincing reason as to why they were excluded from the inheritance. The Will merely mentions that these two ladies are well settled in their lives whereas Indiramma was not marked. The Will does not specify which of the properties has been bequeathed to Indiramma, although Puttathayamma has been allotted certain specific property. Puttathayamma’s son had died on 27.10.73 and the Will is stated to have been made on 18.06.1974. The Will is signed by Indiramma, even though she is the sole beneficiary under the Will. She was present in the Office of the sub- Registrar at the time when the Will was registered. There is also a question as to why the Will was presented for registration on two different occasions. It appears that on the date when the Will was executed Indiramma also obtained a power of attorney from her mother which would demonstrate her anxiety to come into possession of the property immediately. Neither the scribe (DW2) nor DW1 were able to give any satisfactory explanation as to why the Will was not registered on the first occasion. In such circumstances it was the duty of the High Court to carefully examine the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court together with the relevant documents on t5he record to ensure that there is a proper explanation given by defendant No.1 of the aforesaid suspicious circumstances. This Court in Iyengar case (supra) had clearly held that cases ion which the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, it may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. In such circumstances, it is part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 14 » doubts in the matter. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes initial onus heavier. Such suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the Will bears signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time when the Will was made.”

20. The above decision relates to the suspicious circumstances of execution of

Will but herein this suit, the plaintiff is admitting her signature on the registered document. But, the stand of the plaintiff is that by misrepresenting the plaintiff, and by playing fraud on plaintiff, defendant got executed registered sale deed instead of registered mortgage deed. The stand taken by the plaintiff is that under

Article 59 of Limitation Act, the suit is within limitation, since she came to know about the fraud in the year 2017 and suit was filed in the year 2018.

21. The next aspect to be considered herein is whether the plaintiff has established that the defendant by playing fraud and misrepresentation obtained registered Sale deed instead of registered Mortgage deed.

22. P.W.1 is General Power of Attorney Holder to the plaintiff i.e. husband of the plaintiff. Even plaint averments reveals that the plaintiff is personally having knowledge about the suit transaction and he is one of the attestors to Ex.A1 and so also, under Section 120 of Indian Evidence Act, P.W.1 can depose evidence on behalf of his wife/plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to establish how Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 are relevant to establish her case.

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 15 »

23. Evidence of P.W.1 is that by misrepresenting the sale deed as mortgage deed, defendant got executed original of Ex.A1/sale deed in his favour, by the plaintiff. Thus, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish that the defendant obtained sale deed by representing it as mortgage deed. In order to establish the same, Plaintiff examined P.W.1, one of the attestor to Ex.A1/sale deed and marked Ex.A2/original title deed of the Plaintiff. Ex.A1-sale deed is in

Telugu language. Plaintiff signed that document in Telugu. Husband of plaintiff i.e. P.W.1 is one of the attestors to Ex.A1, who signed in English. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that he visited the suit schedule property in the year 2007 and thereafter in the year 2017, and that himself and his wife know Telugu language and they can read and write Telugu. Thus, it is clear that both the plaintiff and her husband are literates and they can read and write Telugu.

Ex.A1 document is in Telugu. Solely basing on possession of Ex.A2-original sale deed with the possession of Plaintiff, she is not entitled to the Decree. Though the stand of the plaintiff is that they mortgaged the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff filed the present suit after completion of 20 years for cancellation. Till today the plaintiff did not take any steps to redeem the plaint schedule property by paying amount borrowed by her with interest even as contended by her.

Even the stand of the Plaintiff is not that in between 2007 to 2017, she paid any amount towards even part of the mortgage amount. Even no evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to that effect. Though Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 reveals that in

January, 2003, defendant sold 7 plots out of 8 plots to different persons, by laying plots, no steps were taken against the subsequent purchasers. In spite of written

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 16 » statement averments that the defendant sold 7 plots out of 8 plots to different persons in the year 2003 and some of them constructed shops over the same, 7 purchasers were not added as parties to the suit. Even Ex.A3-legal notice was issued on the defendant after 20 years. For more than 20 years, Plaintiff kept quiet even without paying single pie to the defendant though plaintiff’s stand is that she executed mortgage deed.

24. Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff failed to establish with preponderance of probability that the defendant played fraud on the plaintiff and obtained sale deed instead of mortgage deed and that plaintiff further failed to establish that she is entitled to the relief of cancellation of registered sale deed document bearing No..4101/1997 after completion of 20 years as stated by her.

Accordingly, Issue Nos.1 and 2 are settled against the plaintiff.

Issue No.3:

25. The stand of the plaintiff is that since the Plaint schedule property is vacant site, possession follows title. The plaintiff failed to establish that she is having title over the suit schedule property as on today. Moreover, the stand of the defendant is that the subsequent purchasers constructed shops. Plaintiff failed to file any document to establish that she is in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and thereby, she is not entitled for permanent injunction as prayed by her.

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 17 »

Issue No.4:

To what relief ?

26. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my direct dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 17 th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- Dr.C. Yamini

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

NELLORE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1:Jangala Venkata Subbaiah

P.W.2 : S. Srinivasa Rao.

P.W.3:Muppaneni Ramesh.

For Defendant:-

D.W.1 : Kathulapalli Venkata Narayana Reddy

D.W.2 : Eschewed.

D.W.3 : Ummaleti Sudarshanam.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Certified copy of registered sale deed obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff on 1.7.1997 registered on 02.07.1997 under document bearing No.4101/1997.

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 18 »

Ex.A2:Original registered sale deed dated of Plaintiff’s vendor Thalamanchi Subba Reddy dated 08.09.1993 of S.R.O., Nellore to show that the plaintiff never intended to sell her property to the defendant.

Ex.A3:Office copy of legal notice dated 30.11.2017 issued to the defendant along with postal registration receipt.

Ex.A4 :Postal acknowledgment showing the proof of service of the legal notice to P.W.1.

Ex.A5:Original General Power of Attorney executed by plaintiff in favour of husband of plaintiff before Notary Public on 21.11.2017.

Ex.A6:Original proceedings of Executive Engineer, APSRTC, Tirupati

dated 09.03.2004 sent to P.W.1 Tirupathi address.

Ex.A7: Original Income Tax assessments belong to P.W.1 for the assessment year 2006-2007 i.e. acknowledgment 30308 issued by Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (2) of Tirupati dated 22.12.2006.

Ex.A8: Original bank continuation pass book issued by State Bank of India, Tirupati Branch with P.W.1 photo of seal of the Bank.

For Defendant:

Ex.B1:Registration extract registered sale deed bearing No.783/2003

dated 30.01.2003 executed in favour of Talla Krishna Kishore

Reddy.

Ex.B2 : Registration extract registered sale deed bearing No.787/2003

dated 30.01.2003 executed in favour of Yarava Chalapathi Reddy.

Ex.B3:Registration extract registered sale deed bearing No.784/2003

dated 30.01.2003 executed in favour of Beeram Venkateswara

Reddy.

Ex.B4:Registration extract registered sale deed bearing No.782/2003

dated 30.01.2003 executed in favour of Bogala Ramakrishna

Reddy.

PDJ, NLR O.S.No.164/2018

APNE000009782018 Dated 17.03.2025

« 19 »

Ex.B5 : Registration extract registered sale deed bearing No.786/2003

dated 30.01.2003 executed in favour of Talla Venkateswara

Reddy.

Ex.B6 : Registration extract registered sale deed bearing No.785/2003

dated 30.01.2003 executed in favour of Beeram Srinivasulu Reddy.

Ex.B7 : Registration extract registered sale deed bearing No.780/2003

dated 30.01.2003 executed in favour of Yarava Venkata Narayana

Reddy.

Sd/- Dr.C. Yamini

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

NELLORE

//True copy//

PDJ, Nellore. Crl.Appeal No.132/2024 1

APNE000025822024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE: NELLORE

(COURT OF SESSION : NELLORE DIVISION : NELLORE) Present: Dr C.YAMINI

Principal Sessions Judge,

Nellore *** Wednesday, this the 12th day of March, 2025.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.132/2024

Against the Judgment dated 5.11.2024 in C.C.No.866/2023 of II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

Shaik Riyaz S/o. Basheer, Aged 34 years, Scooter Mechanic, Islampet, near Mosque, Venkateswarapuram,

Nellore. ... Appellant

Vs.

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Represented by it’s Station House Officer, Nawabpet Police Station, Nellore, through their Public Prosecutor … Respondent

In C.C.No.866/2023 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Nellore.

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Represented by it’s Station House Officer,

PDJ, Nellore. Crl.Appeal No.132/2024 2 Nawabpet Police Station, Nellore, through their Public Prosecutor … Complainant

Vs.

Shaik Riyaz S/o. Basheer, Aged 34 years, Scooter Mechanic, Islampet, near Mosque, Venkateswarapuram,

Nellore. ... Accused

This appeal is coming on 04.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. A. Venkateswarlu - Advocate for the appellant/accused and of Learned Incharge-Public prosecutor for respondent/complainant and upon hearing, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Sub-Inspector of Police, Nawabpet Police Station, Nellore Town filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 379 or 411 IPC in Cr.No.93/2023 of Nawabpet Police Station.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution as per charge sheet is that on 17.3.2023, at about 20.45 hrs P.W.1 parked his motor cycle bearing

No.AP 26-AW-1804 near P.S.R bus stand and went to Hyderabad on duty as Ambulance driver and returned to Nellore at about 10.00 hrs on 18.03.2023 and found that his motor cycle was disappeared. P.W.1 searched for his motor cycle in surrounding areas but not traced. Then, he made enquiries and searched in all places and confirmed that unknown

PDJ, Nellore. Crl.Appeal No.132/2024 3 offenders committed theft of his red colour Hero Glamour motor cycle worth Rs.70,000/-. On that, P.W.1 came to Police Station on 28.03.2023 at 10.00 hrs and reported the crime.

(i). Based on the report, P.W.3 registered the crime and investigated the crime by examining the witnesses, after issuing 41-A

Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and by seizing M.O.1/Motor cycle from the possession of the accused and filed charge sheet.

3. II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore has taken cognizance for the offence under section 379 or 411 I.P.C and furnished copies of documents to the accused by following the procedure under section 207 Cr.P.C after appearance of the accused.

4. Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, and on hearing both sides, framed charge under Section 379 I.PC or 411 IPC and read over the said charge and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove it’s case, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and M.O.1.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C from the incriminating material found against the accused from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and he denied the same.

7. None of the witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked on his behalf.

PDJ, Nellore. Crl.Appeal No.132/2024 4

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial court acquitted the accused under Section 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 411 I.P.C and convicted the accused under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C for the offence under section 379 I.P.C and sentenced him to suffer Simple imprisonment for one year by setting off the remand period under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

9. Aggrieved by the said calendar and judgment dated 5.11.2024 in

C.C.No.866/23 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nellore, accused preferred this appeal urging several grounds.

10. Now the point that arise for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 379 I.P.C beyond reasonable doubt as convicted by the trial court and if so, sentence of imprisonment requires any interference?”

11. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is mechanic shed owner and there is no direct evidence to show that accused committed theft and he being scooter mechanic, the scooter may be placed by any thief in his shop and there is delay of three days in registering the crime and there are two bus stations at Nellore and there is no clarity from which bus stand, M.O.1 was committed theft. Accused is not habituated offender and prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and claimed to acquit the appellant by giving benefit of doubt to him.

PDJ, Nellore. Crl.Appeal No.132/2024 5

12. The Learned In-charge Public Prosecutor contended that evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 establishes the guilt of the accused and the trial court while considering all the above aspects rightly convicted the appellant.

13. Evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P1 report reveals that his Motor

Cycle bearing No.AP-26-AW-1804 was parked at APSRTC bus stand on 17.3.2023 and went to Hyderabad on duty and after his work, he returned to the parking place on the next day and found that his motor cycle was committed theft by unknown offender and his motor cycle stands in the name of N.Venkateswarlu and he purchased the bike from him and registration is yet to be done and bike is in his possession and after three days, police recovered his bike and Ex.P1 which is first in point of time clearly reveals that he searched for his bike and Ex.P3/printed FIR column No.8 clearly reveals that after the complainant returned from

Hyderabad, he found about missing of motor cycle and he searched for the motor cycle, but in vain and then, he came to police station to give report. Thus, oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P1 report clearly reveals that P.W.1 purchased the motor cycle from N. Venkateswarlu and it is yet to be registered and it is in his possession and he found that on 18.3.2023 after he returned from Hyderabad, he found that his bike was committed theft by some unknown person.

14. Evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P1 report and Ex.P3/ printed

FIR column No.8 clearly reveals that the three days delay in reporting the crime is that the time taken for the complainant to return from Hyderabad

PDJ, Nellore. Crl.Appeal No.132/2024 6 and searching for the same. Thus, prosecution properly explained the delay of three (3) days in reporting the crime to the police.

15. Oral evidence of P.W.3/Investigating Officer coupled with

Ex.P3/printed F.I.R reveals that on receiving Ex.P1 report from P.W.1,

P.W.3 registered the crime on 20.3.2023 as Cr.No.93/2023 for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C Ex.P3/FIR and he taken up investigation and examined the witnesses and observed scene of offence and got prepared Ex.P4-rough sketch of scene of offence.

16. Evidence of P.W.3/Investigating Officer coupled with evidence of

P.W.2/mediator and Ex.P2-seizure mahazar reveals that on 23.3.2023 at about 10.45 A.M., on receiving credible information, P.W.3 along with

P.W.2 and others proceeded to old check post, Nellore and while police were checking the vehicle, they noticed one person coming on Glamor motor cycle from the side of Venkateswarapuram and he tried to take ‘U’ turn on seeing the police and immediately the S.I. of Police caught hold of him and enquired him in their presence and on that, he disclosed his name as accused and he is bike mechanic and confessed that he committed theft of the motor cycle near Atmakur bus stand prior to four days and he is going to sell the motor bike for illegal gain and the bike is bearing No.AP-26-AW-1804/M.O.1 and police seized the same under

Ex.P2/seizure-cum-confession mahazar. Though admission before police is inadmissible under section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, seizure of M.O.1 from the possession of accused in furtherance of such confession is admissible under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

PDJ, Nellore. Crl.Appeal No.132/2024 7

17. Except suggesting to P.W.2 that P.W.2 is deposing false evidence and accused is no way connected to this case, even it was not suggested to P.W.1 that the said M.O.1 was given to him by anybody for repair as contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant. So also, except questioning the P.W.1 that he has not seen the accused till date nothing was elicited or even suggested in the cross of P.W.1 in respect of ownership of M.O.1 and it’s committing theft and thereby evidence of

P.W.1 that M.O.1 was in the name of M. Venkateswarlu and he purchased the same and so far, no registration was done on his name and it is in his possession till 17.3.2023 and it’s committing theft in between 17.3.2023 to 18.3.2023 remained unchallenged. So also, recovery of possession of M.O.1 from accused is also unchallenged.

Though evidence of P.W.3 reveals that P.W.1 reported the crime on 23.3.2023, the fact remains from Ex.P3/Printed F.I.R that the crime was reported on 20.03.2023.

18. Illustration (a) to Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act states as follows:

The Court may presume:

“That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.”

19. Thus, though the prosecution established that P.W.1 purchased

M.O.1-Bike and it was committed theft and the same was recovered from appellant, soon after it’s theft, appellant/accused failed to account for the same and under the above circumstances, there is no illegality in the

PDJ, Nellore. Crl.Appeal No.132/2024 8 Judgment of the trial Court to call for interference in respect of convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under Sec.379 I.P.C.

20. So far as sentencing the appellant/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year is concerned, as per the available record, there are no previous convictions to the accused and when he was questioned about quantum of sentence before trial court, appellant represented that his wife is pregnant and entire family depending on his income and there are no earning member to look after his family and prays to view the sentence leniently. Even trial Court judgment reveals that there is no previous criminal history placed before the trial court. Considering the above totality of circumstances, imposing fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), in default, simple imprisonment for fifteen (15) days, instead of sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year, meets the ends of justice.

21. In the result, appeal is partly allowed by partly setting aside the judgment and calendar dated 05.11.2024 in C.C.No.866/2023 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore, by confirming the conviction of appellant/accused for the offence under section 379 IPC and by modifying the sentence of imprisonment of simple imprisonment for one year into fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), in default, simple imprisonment for fifteen (15) days. The bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled.

Typed to my direct dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12 th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- Dr.C. Yamini

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

NELLORE.

PDJ, Nellore. Crl.Appeal No.132/2024 9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

Documents Marked

----NIL----

Sd/- Dr.C. Yamini

Principal Sessions Judge,

NELLORE.

//True copy//

Principal Sessions Judge,

NELLORE.

Copy to:

The Learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore, along with L.C. Record.

PDS,NELLORES.C.No.256/2023

DATED:06.12.2024

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE: NELLORE

(COURT OF SESSION: NELLORE DIVISION: NELLORE) Present: Dr.C.YAMINI,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Nellore. *** Friday, this the 06th day of December, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No. 256/2023

(P.R.C.No.8/2023 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore, connected to Cr.No.282/2022 of Balaji Nagar Police Station)

Name of the Complainant:State: represented by the Inspector of Police, Balajinagar Police Station, Nellore.

Name of the Accused:1. Murugesh Venkaiah @ Venki S/o.Venki S/o.Rajendra Aged 32 years R/o.D.No.27.8.537, 3rd Bit, NTR Nagar Nellore City.

2. Arava Murugan S/o.Rajendra Aged 34 years R/o.D.No.27-8-537 3rd Bit NTR Nagar Nellore City Nature of Offence: Under Section 364, 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. With an intention to commit murder.

Plea of the Accused:NOT GUILTY

Finding of the Judge: NOT GUILTY

Sentence of Order:In the result accused is acquitted U/s.232 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.302 IPC, the unmarked worthless property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds if any stands cancelled. Ajay Prem Kumar Lam Prosecution conducted by:Public Prosecutor, Nellore. Name of the DefenceP.Vijaya Kumara Reddy counsel:Advocate for the Accused

PDS,NELLORES.C.No.256/2023

DATED:06.12.2024

2 This case coming on 06.12.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ajay Prem Kumar Lam - Public Prosecutor for the

Complainant, and of P.Vijaya Kumara Reddy - Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides, this court is having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:—

J U D G M E N T

1.1.Inspector of police Balaji Nagar Police Station filed charge sheet against both the accused U/s.364 and 302 r/w.34 IPC in Crime No.282/22 of Balaji Nagar, Police station.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution as per charge sheet is that:

Due to ill-health, deceased Suresh stopped his works and took a shop near

Autostand to install Tea shop and decided to open shop on 10.09.2022. On 08.09.2022 night, the deceased offered Alcohol party to his friends on the eve of opening Teastall. Both the accused also attended to the said party along with

Pw’s – 8, 9 and other on 08.09.2022 at about 1.30 AM midnight, the deceased returned to his house after completion of the said party. After some time, A-1 and

A-2 came to the house of deceased and picked up quarrel with the deceased on the ground that he repeatedly called them as “Aramvada” and high handedly taken away the deceased on a bike, even though Pw-6 asked them where they took. On Suspicion Pw-1, 6 and 5 chased the bike and they took the deceased to the house of accused and picked up quarrel on the ground that why he called them as “Aramvada”, humiliated them, abused the deceased in filthy language and A-1 took wood seat (Chekapeeta) by uttering as ‘ippudu ninu vestamu’ and bet on the head of the deceased forcibly, immediately A-2 picked up a stick and bet on the head of the deceased. Then on seeing the same, they raised cries and tried to rescue the deceased from the clutches of the accused. Due to the injuries

PDS,NELLORES.C.No.256/2023

DATED:06.12.2024

3 caused by accused, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries on his head. On seeing the same, accused escaped. The incident took place on 09.09.2022 at about 02.00AM. Subsequently, they shifted the deceased to the Government

Hospital Nellore for treatment in 108 Ambulance in an unconscious stage. The

Doctors provided first aid to the deceased and adviced to shift him to another hospital for better treatment. On that they admitted him in Medicover Hospital,

Nellore since the deceased is unable to respond and taking treatment and died.

Basing on Ex.P6, report from Pw-6 crime in this case is registered and investigation officer, investigated the crime by examining the witnesses etc., and by arresting accused and by conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased and by observing scene of offence and by sending dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation.

3.V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore before whom chargesheet was filed has taken cognizance for the offence U/s.364, 302 r/w.34IPC and furnished copies to the accused and committed the same to the

sessions Division, Nellore by following procedure laid down U/s.209 CPC.

4.The Sessions Judge, Nellore after numbering the same, issued summons to accused for disposal according to law.

5.After appearance of accused and on hearing both sides, framed charge under Section 302 IPC and read over the said charge and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case prosecution examined Pw’s 1to 9 and got marked Ex.1 to Ex.P10.

PDS,NELLORES.C.No.256/2023

DATED:06.12.2024

4

7.Since there is no incriminating material found against the accused from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination was dispensed with.

8.None of the witnesses were examined on behalf of accused and no documents were marked on his behalf.

9.Now the point that arise for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to

prove the guilt of both the accused for the

charged offence U/s.302 IPC beyond

reasonable doubt?

Point:-

10. Evidence of PW-1 is that she is resident of NTR Nagar, Nellore City deceased/Suresh is her son , PW-6 is her Daughter in law, she know Shakeera,

PW-2 is her daughter, PW-7 is sister of Pw-6 and she know all remaining witnesses. Two years three months back, her son Suresh was hit by unknown persons and murdered him, Pw-6 informed her that her son was in unconscious state in Simhapuri Hospital, Nellore on that she went to Simhapuri Hospital and found injuries on the body of her deceased son in unconscious state. On that day evening, her son Suresh died, she was not examined by the police and she was not present during inquest.

11.Evidence of PW-2 is that she is resident of Kondapuram, Nellore

City. Deceased/Suresh is her brother. Pw-6 is wife of Suresh, Pw-1 is her mother, Pw-7 is sister of Pw-6. She know all the remaining witnesses and her deceased brother died two years back. She came to know about the incident at about 6.00AM that her brother admitted in Simhapuri Hospital. On that day itself he died while treating at Simhapuri Hospital. She observed injury on the back

PDS,NELLORES.C.No.256/2023

DATED:06.12.2024

5 side of the head of Suresh and she was not present during Inquest and she was not examined by the police.

12.Evidence of PW-3 is that she is resident of NTR Nagar, Nellore City.

She do not know deceased Suresh, PW’s 1 to 3, Pw6 and 7. She do not know anything about this case and she was not examined by the police.

13.Evidence of PW-4 is that he is resident of NTR Nagar, Nellore City and working in Venkatarama Steel house. He do not know deceased Suresh,

PW’s 1 to 3, Pw - 6 and 7. He do not know how deceased Suresh died and he was not examined by the police.

14.Evidence of PW-5 is that he is resident of NTR Nagar, Nellore City doing Coolie work. He do not know deceased Suresh, PW’s 1 to 4, Pw-6 and 7.

He do not know whether deceased Suresh died or not and he was not examined by the police.

15.Evidence of Pw-6 is that she is resident of Utukuru and earlier resident of NTR Nagar, Nellore City as on the date of incident. Deceased Suresh is her husband, PW-1 is her Mother-In-Law, PW-2 is her Sister-In-Law, PW-7 is her Sister, She do not know accused. 2 1/2 years back her husband was murdered by un-identified persons on 09.09.2023. By the time of incident, she was at her sister’s house and after knowing about the incident, she went to

Simhapuri Hospital and observed injuries on the head of her husband. By the time she reached there, her husband died and she was not present during inquest. Ex.P6 contains her signature and she do not know it’s contents and police obtained signature for handing over dead body of the deceased and she was not examined by the police.

PDS,NELLORES.C.No.256/2023

DATED:06.12.2024

6

16.Evidence of Pw-7 is that she is resident of Utukuru Village and working as Ayya. Deceased Suresh is her sister’s husband. PW-6 is her sister.

Pw-1 is Mother-In-Law of PW-6. Pw-2 is daughter of PW-1. He do not know accused. Deceased Suresh was murdered by unknown persons. After she came to know the incident, she went to the hospital and saw the dead body of the deceased with injuries and she was not examined by the police.

17.Evidence of PW-8 is that he is resident of NTR Nagar, Nellore and painter. He do not know deceased and do not know any of the accused and he do not know anything about the case.

18.Evidence of PW-9 is that he is resident of Nellore and bike mechanic and he do not know deceased Suresh and do not know accuses, deceased and other witnesses. He do not know anything about this case and he was not examined by the police.

19.Thus from the above, it is clear that none of the witnesses examined by the police, including PW-1/Mother, PW-2/Sister, PW-6/Wife and Pw-7/Sister-

In-Law of deceased and PW’s- 3 to 5, 8 and 9 independent witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. Prosecution failed to establish that on 09.09.2022 at about 2.00AM both the accused went to the house of the deceased and picket up quarrel with the deceased on the ground that he called them as “Aramvada” and humiliated them and abused the deceased in filthy language and A-1 bet the deceased on his head forcibly with wood stick/Cheeka

Peeta by uttering as 'ippudu ninu vesestamu' and A-2 bet on the head of the deceased and deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the hands of both the accused. Under the above circumstances, benefit of doubt is given to the

PDS,NELLORES.C.No.256/2023

DATED:06.12.2024

7 accused since prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the charged offence U/s.302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

20.In the result both the accused are acquitted U/s.232 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/s.302 IPC, the unmarked worthless property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over, the bail bonds if any shall cancel.

Typed on my direct dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 06th day of December, 2024

Sd/-Dr.C.YAMINI

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FORDEFENCE

PW-1 :T.Munirathnamma ---NONE--- PW-2 :G.Aswini PW-3 :R.Sujatha PW-4 :M.Dilip PW-5 :Md.Shakeera PW-6 :T.Santhi PW-7 : B.Lakshmi PW-8 : Md.Basha Pw-9: P.Srihari

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-1 Ex.P-2:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-2 Ex.P-3:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-3 Ex.P-4:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-4 Ex.P-5:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-5 Ex.P-6:Report of PW-6 Ex.P-7:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-6 Ex.P-8: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-7 Ex.P-9:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-8 Ex.P-10:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-9

FOR DEFENCE : - NIL -

Sd/-Dr.C.YAMINI

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

Nellore.

PDJ,NLRA.S.No.45/2019

DATED: 30.12.2024

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: NELLORE

Present: Dr.C.YAMINI

Principal District Judge

S.P.S.R.Nellore District *** Monday, this the 30th day of December, 2024

A.S.No.45/2019

Rayapudi Ashok

S/o.Devadanam

AGed about 65 years

Rly.Feeders Road

Nellore...Petitioner

Vs.

1.Rayapudi Supriya

D/o.Devadanam

Aged about 60 years

Rly Feeders Road

Nellore

2.Rayapudi Lajapathi Ray

S/o.Devadanam

Aged about 55 years

Rly.Feeders Road

Nellore... Respondents

This Appeal is filed U/O.41 Rule-1 of CPC on behalf of the Appellant praying this court to allow the appeal with costs throughout by setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.108/2015 Dated 18.02.2019 on the file of III Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Nellore and for costs.

Appeal presented on : 18.04.2019 The suit is valued in lower court is at Rs.10,000/- and on that court fee of Rs.786/- is paid U/s.26 (C) of APCF Act. The value of the appeal is the same as in Lower Court and Court Fee of Rs.786/- is paid U/s.49 of APCF ACt and the appeal is filed within time.

This Petition is coming before me on 12.12.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Murali Kumar - Advocate for the petitioner and Sri SK.An-

PDJ,NLRA.S.No.45/2019

DATED: 30.12.2024

2 war Basha - Advocate for Respondents and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

Both parties called absent. Costs not paid. Appellant called absent. No repre- sentation. Hence, Appeal is dismissed for default without costs.

Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of December, 2024.

Sd/-Dr.C.YAMINI

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

NELLORE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

Sd/-Dr.C.YAMINI

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

NELLORE