Sri Chapala Srinivasa Babu

APKR0600037120191O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -

CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: VIJAYAWADA

Present : Dr. CH. SRINIVASA BABU

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 13 th day of May, 2026

O.S. No.392/2019

Between:

Gonnabathula Chandrasekhar, S/o. Venkata Krishna Mohana Rao, aged about 42 years, Private Employee, R/o. D.No.46-4-115, Bethlehamnagar, Padavalarevu, Gunadala, Vijayawada. … Plaintiff

And

1. Peeka Veerabhadra Rao (died) S/o. Musalaiah (late), Aged about 75 years R/O. Block No.154.S.F-6, Jakkampudi Y.S.R. Colony, J.N.N.U.R.M. Blocks, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District.

2. Peeka Nagamani, W/o. Peeka Veerabhadra Rao (Late) R/o. D.No.77-76-11, Radhanagar, Payakapuram, Vijayawada.

3. Peeka Vijaya Kumari, D/o. Peeka. Veerabhadra Rao (Late), R/o. D.No.77-76-11, Radhanagar, Payakapuram, Vijayawada.

4. Peeka Anil Kumar, S/o. Peeka. Veerabhadra Rao (Late), R/o. D.No.77-76-11, Radhanagar, Payakapuram, Vijayawada.

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600037120192O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

5. Peeka Ganga Bhavani, D/o. Peeka. Veerabhadra Rao (Late), R/o. D.No.77-76-11, Radhanagar, Payakapuram, Vijayawada.

6. Peeka Gangadhara Rao, S/o. Peeka. Veerabhadra Rao (Late), R/o. D.No.77-76-11, Radhanagar, Payakapuram, Vijayawada (Defendants No.2 to 6 are Added as Legal Heirs of deceased 1st Defendant

vide Ι.Α.Νο.2268/2019). ... Defendants

This suit came on 07.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch. Ramaswamy, Learned Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri

Mohammad Arif, Learned Advocate for defendants No.2 to 5 and of Sri S.A.

Jilani, Learned Advocate for defendant No.6, and the 1st defendant was died and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff directing the defendants No.2 to 6 being the legal-heirs of 1st defendant to execute Sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or to his nominees by receiving balance sale consideration of

Rs.12,20,000/- within the time fixed by the Court, if the defendants No.2 to 6 failed to execute Sale deed, the Hon'ble Court may execute the same with the costs of the plaintiff, for costs and for other reliefs.

02.The averments of the Plaint, in nutshell are that, the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property who had been in possession

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600037120193O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

and enjoyment of the same and he executed an agreement of Sale in favour of the 1st defendant on 05.07.2018 for a sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-, out of which the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and agreed to pay the remaining Rs.13,00,000/- within 30 days i.e. on or before 04.08.2018 for obtaining registered sale deed in his name or in the name of his choice, in case of breach of contract, the defendant has to pay interest @ Rs.2/- per month on Rs.100/- on the advance amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, if the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract, he has to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the balance Sale consideration of Rs.13,00,000/-. The plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.80,000/- to the 1st defendant on 27.07.2018, as per the conditions, the plaintiff is ready with the remaining balance amount but the 1st defendant has not came forward to receive the balance sale consideration and failed to comply registration process intentionally and dragged on the proceedings and tried to cheat the plaintiff, though he is ready for payment of remaining balance consideration, the 1st defendant postponed the same on one pretext or the other as such the plaintiff got issued legal-notice on 22.01.2019 demanding the 1st defendant to execute registered Sale deed and also approached the 1st defendant and he informed to wait for week days and handed over the registered Sale deed along with amended deed dated 26.10.2018 but the 1st defendant failed to came forward for execution of the registered Sale deed as such the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

03.During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant was died, the defendants No.2 to 6 were added as legal representatives as per the orders in

I.A. No.2265/2019.

04.The defendants No.2 to 5 have filed Written Statement denying the contents of the plaint and further added that there is no capacity to the plaintiff

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600037120194O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

to purchase the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff has took two different pleas as such Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act applies to the plaintiff and he has to answer for his ready and willingness and that the defendants No.2 to 5 have no knowledge regarding issuance of notice and they are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and they have no knowledge about transaction between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as the deceased 1st defendant had no cordial relation with them and handed over the original documents of the plaint schedule property and other properties to the plaintiff and he took advantage of the same and filed suit with false averments with a malafide intention to knock away the property and burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case and there is no cause of action for filing the suit and that the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed and prayed the

Court to dismiss the suit.

05. The defendant No.6 has filed Written Statement denying the contents of the plaint and further added that the 1st defendant he got married

P.Durgamma in the year, 1999 and the 6th defendant was born in the year 2001, due to disputes the said Durgamma separated with the 1st defendant in the year, 2003 by handing over the 6th defendant and he took care of him and brought up him and provided education and other necessities and during his lifetime he worked as carpenter and the 1st defendant used to deposit cash in his account in Union Bank of India and the plaint schedule property is in his possession till his death. The 1st defendant borrowed amount of Rs.1,90,000/- from Perla Subramanyam for his family expenses and to pay Rs.33,000/- towards municipal corporation and utilized the balance for his house repairs by that time, the said Perla Subramanyam obtained the signatures of the deceased 1st defendant on blank pronotes and blank stamp papers towards security, thereafter the 1st defendant had discharged the amount, however the

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600037120195O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

said Perla Subramanyam failed to acknowledge the same. In the presence of

K. Joseph, the 1st defendant demanded him to return the blank signed pronotes and Non-Judicial Stamp paper, however the same were filled without returning and filed the suit with false averments. The suit in O.S. No.861/2017, which was filed against the 1st defendant on the file of Hon'ble VI Additional

District Judge Court, Vijayawada was compromised on 05.07.2018 and the

said suit was not pressed by Perla Subramanyam. The deceased 1st defendant suffered with ill-health and struggled for his livelihood and except the 6th defendant, the other defendants did not look after the welfare the deceased 1st defendant and due to love and affection, the 1st defendant executed Will dated 15.01.2019 and died on 09.06.2019 and after his death, all the defendants came to the house of the 6th defendant and took away the dead-body of the 1st defendant and performed cremation when the Will was placed before the elders and to hand over the plaint schedule property to the 6th defendant, the remaining defendants have threatened him and tore the Will stating that they are the absolute owners of the property and the deceased 1st defendant never executed the agreement of Sale and the same was brought into existence by the plaintiff in collusion with the remaining defendants and that the suit is not maintainable and there is no cause of action for filing the suit and the suit is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

06.Basing on the above pleadings as there was no elements of settlement this Court framed the following issue for the purpose of trial :- 1Whether the 1st defendant has executed agreement of

Sale in favour of the plaintiff on 05.07.2018?

2Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600037120196O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

part of contract?

3Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?

4To what relief?

07. On behalf of plaintiff, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and on his behalf, P.W.s 2 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.s 1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.

08.Heard arguments of both the sides.

09.The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the 1st defendant during his life-time being the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property had offered to sell the same for consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- out of which the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- under Ex.A.1 and the plaintiff has to pay remaining balance sale consideration within one month and as per the terms of Ex.A.1, the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, at the request of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff has paid an amount of

Rs.80,000/- and obtained endorsement on the back side of Ex.A.1, though the plaintiff expressed his readiness with the remaining balance sale consideration, the deceased 1st defendant had postponed the same on one pretext or another, as such the plaintiff got issued legal-notice under Ex.A.4 and the deceased 1st defendant having received the same under Ex.A.5 had sought time and handed over originals of Ex.A.2 and A.3, but failed to perform his part of contract. The evidence of P.W.s 1 to 4 coupled with Ex.A.1 to A.5 reveals that the deceased 1st defendant has executed agreement of sale

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600037120197O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

under Ex.A.1 and the readiness of the plaintiff is established by him. The 6th defendant has admitted the signatures of the 1st defendant on the Will, however he took the plea that Perla Subramanyam had obtained signatures of the 1st defendant on the blank signed document, where as he failed to establish the same, though the defendants have took the plea that the remaining legal-heirs of the deceased 1st defendant were not added as party to the suit, however the defendants have not took such plea in the Written

Statement as such without any pleadings, the plea of the defendants No.2 to 6 have no legs to stand, as the plaintiff is able to prove that the 1st defendant had executed Ex.A.1, the defendants No.2 to 6 being the legal-heirs of the 1st defendant are under obligation to execute Registered Sale deed in pursuance of Ex.A.1 and prayed the Court to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants No.2 to 5 had argued that the plaintiff has failed to establish execution of Ex.A.1 and that they have no knowledge about execution of Ex.A.1 as they have no cordial relation with the 1st defendant and the plaintiff taking advantage of the original documents of the plaint schedule property available with him had filed the suit to gain wrongfully and that the plaintiff failed to establish his ready and willingness and the burden, which lies upon the plaintiff is not discharged by him and the remaining legal-heirs of the deceased 1st defendant were not added as parties to the suit and that the suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. The evidence of P.W.s 1 to 4 is not corroborated with each other and their evidence will not help the case of the plaintiff as the plaint schedule property is not alienable in view of the condition of Ex.A.2, the agreement under Ex.A.1 has no value and Section 6 of Transfer of Property

Act is applicable, the property is not transferrable and the evidence of D.W.s 1 and 2 clearly reveals that all the legal-heirs of the deceased 1st defendant

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600037120198O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

were not brought on to the record, as the plaintiff who approached the Court as if the agreement of Sale was executed in his favour by the 1st defendant failed to establish the same and he failed to establish his ready and willingness, taking advantage of the innocence of the deceased 1st defendant, the suit was filed to gain wrongfully and that the suit is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed and prayed the court to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff.

11.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant No.6 has argued that the 6th defendant is the son of the 1st defendant, he performed second marriage with P. Durgamma and she left the 1st defendant and the 6th defendant was brought up by the 1st defendant and both of them have resided in the plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant has borrowed amount of

Rs.1,90,000/- from Perla Subramanyam by that time he obtained blank signed documents along with signatures of the 1st defendant on Non-Judicial Stamp paper, inspite of discharging the debt, taking advantage of the blank signed documents, Ex.A.1 was created and filed the suit. The 1st defendant has executed Will deed in favour of the 6th defendant on 15.01.2019 and bequeathed the plaint schedule property, after his death, the 6th defendant became absolute owner, however the said Will deed was torn by the defendants No.2 to 5 when he placed the same before the elders, as there is no valid agreement under Ex.A.1 and the same was brought into existence by the plaintiff in collusion with the defendants No.2 to 5 and the evidence adduced by the plaintiff will not reveal ready and willingness on the part of the plaintiff and the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 4 coupled with the evidence of D.W.s 1 and 2 reveals the collusion. As the plaint schedule property is the absolute property of the 6th defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is not maintainable and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600037120199O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

12. ISSUE No.1:

The claim of the plaintiff is that the deceased 1st defendant has executed unregistered agreement of Sale in favour of the plaintiff under

Ex.A.1 on 05.07.2018 and as per the terms of said agreement, the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay remaining balance sale consideration of

Rs.12,20,000/- but the deceased 1st defendant failed to came forward for execution of registered Sale deed. During the pendency of the suit, as the 1st defendant was died, the contesting defendants No.2 to 6 were added and they have took the plea that the same was fabricated. As the plaintiff herein has filed the suit for Specific Performance of Contract, it is for the plaintiff to establish that the transaction under Ex.A.1 is true, valid and supported with consideration and that the 1st defendant has executed the same and he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff he himself was examined as P.W.1 and on his behalf, P.W.s 2 to 4 were examined and Ex.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On perusal of the evidence of

P.W.1, he deposed before this Court about the transaction under Ex.A.1, payment of consideration to the 1st defendant on 27.07.2018. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that “I have paid an amount of Rs.80,000/- to the deceased 1 st

Defendant by way of cash and obtained endorsement on the reverse of Ex.A1”. “Prior to Ex.A1 transaction, I have verified the documents pertaining to the plaint schedule property”. “The transaction under Ex.A1 was on 05.07.2018 and I have paid an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the 1 st Defendant”.

13.P.W.2 who is the first attestor of Ex.A.1 has deposed that along with him, P.W.s 3 and 4 were present and that the 1st defendant has received

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR06000371201910O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

consideration under Ex.A.1 and signed on the same. P.W.2, during his cross- examination he deposed that the plaint schedule property is a patta land issued by the Municipal Corporation and Ex.A.1 was executed on Rs.100/- stamp paper. P.W.3 who is the 2nd attestor has deposed in his cross- examination that the 1st defendant has handed over the document to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has offered to execute the registered Sale deed after receiving balance sale consideration as the same was available with him and

P.W.4 has scribed the endorsement of part-payment of Rs.80,000/- dated 27.07.2018. P.W.4 in his cross-examination has deposed that the plaint schedule property is patta land issued by Vijayawada Municipal Corporation under Ex.A.2 and that at the first instance, the suit was filed against the 1st defendant and after his death, the remaining defendants were added and that he was the scribe of payment of Rs.80,000/- dated 27.07.2018 on the back side of Ex.A.1. The suggestions, which were given to P.W.s 1 to 4 that the plaintiff never purchased the property from the 1st defendant and never signed on Ex.A.1 was denied by them.

14.On perusal of the Written Statement filed by the 6th defendant, he himself has admitted that Perla Subramanyam has obtained the signatures of the deceased 1st defendant on blank signed pronotes and Non-Judicial Stamp paper and he took the plea that taking advantage of the same, Ex.A.1 was created, however the 6th defendant has not filed any document regarding his plea and the proceedings in O.S. No.861/2017 were also not filed and he has not took any steps for examining the said Perla Subramanyam on his behalf.

On perusal of the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 4 coupled with Ex.A.1 to A.3, it reveals that the 1st defendant has executed agreement of sale under Ex.A.1 and also received part-payment of Rs.80,000/- on 27.07.2018, the evidence of

P.W.4 in his cross-examination reveals ready and willingness of the plaintiff

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR06000371201911O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

for obtaining registered Sale deed from the deceased 1st defendant and the plaintiff is able to prove the execution of Ex.A.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to held in Chennadi Jalpathi Reddy Vs. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Died) through L.Rs and another in Civil Appeal Nos.7818-7819 of 2009, decided on 27.08.2019, which was relied by the plaintiff wherein the

Honuorable Apex Court was pleased to held para No.17:

17. Moreover, the High Court has wrongly observed that the plaintiff has not produced any evidence to prove that he demanded the performance of sale after the execution of the agreement of sale.

The filing of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale is governed by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, read with Article 54 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. In addition to this, Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix A of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 prescribe the format of the plaint for such a suit.

Thus, a plaint which seeks the relief of specific performance of an agreement/contract must comply with all these requirements. In the matter at hand, the plaintiff has specifically averred in his plaint that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract under the agreement of sale dated 20.04.1993. It was also specifically stated that the plaintiff had been demanding that the first defendant receive the balance consideration of Rs. 58,800/- and execute a regular registered sale deed at his cost, but the first defendant had been avoiding the specific performance of the agreement of sale. In light of this, in our considered opinion, all the formalities which are to be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff for getting a decree of specific performance have been fulfilled.

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR06000371201912O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

In view of the findings given by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as the plaintiff has specifically averred in the plaint that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and the 1st defendant has avoided to perform his part of contract and his readiness is supported with endorsement on back side of Ex.A.1

dated 27.07.2018 coupled with the admission by the 6th defendant during

cross-examination, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is able to establish all the formalities for obtaining the decree for the relief of

Specific Performance of Contract.

15.The defendants No.2 to 5 have took the plea of non-joinder of proper and necessary parties, without any pleadings and evidence was adduced and

D.W.s 1 and 2 were examined on their behalf as if all the legal-heirs were not added, however without pleadings by any of the defendants regarding non- joinder of proper and necessary parties, the evidence adduced by the defendants will not help the case of the defendants No.2 to 5. Though they have took the plea that there are other legal-heirs, there is no document placed before this Court to show the particulars of the legal-heirs of the deceased 1st defendant. Further, on perusal of evidence of D.W.1, the evidence is beyond the plea took by the defendants No.2 to 5 in their Written

Statement. D.W.1 has deposed that his father has number of wives and she do not know about their particulars. Further, she admitted that the plaint schedule property belongs to her paternal grandmother. Surprisingly, D.W.2 was examined as if she is the wife of deceased son of the 1st defendant, however she has not placed any document before this Court to that effect and she deposed that “I do not know the relief claimed in the suit. I do not know whether there is any document/family member certificate to show

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR06000371201913O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

that the Durga Rao is the son of 1 st defendant and I am his wife”.

“I do not know about the particulars of wives of the 1 st defendant and his children”. “I do not know that I have to file a petition

before this court stating that I am the legal heir of the 1 st

defendant”.

In view of the admission of D.W.2 that there is no documentary evidence placed before this Court regarding her legal-heirship, though the learned counsel for the defendants No.2 to 5 has argued that the suit is bad for non- joinder of proper and necessary parties, as discussed supra, without any pleadings, as the evidence will not have any evidentiary value, as such this

Court is of the considered opinion that that the plea took by the defendants have no legs to stand.

16.Though the 6th defendant has took the plea that the 1st defendant has executed Will deed in his favour on 15.01.2019 and the same was torn by the defendants No.2 to 5 in the presence of mediators, however except the sole testimony of 6th defendant, he has not examined any of the witness on his behalf, further he himself has admitted that he has not submitted any report to the police stating that the Will deed was torn in the presence of mediators and he would not examine Perla Subramanyam and has not filed any document pertaining to O.S. No.861/2017 on the file of Hon'ble VI Additional District

Judge Court, Vijayawada. In view of the evidence of D.W.3, though the 6th

defendant has admitted his signature of his father, he has not adduced any evidence to substantiate his plea that the signatures of his father were misused by Perla Subramanyam with the help of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is able to prove execution of Ex.A.1. The learned counsel for the defendants

No.2 to 5 has relied upon the findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR06000371201914O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

Valliammai Vs K.P. Murali and others (Civil Appeal No.5342/2023),

wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to discuss regarding the period of limitation for performing the part of contract, however as the agreement under Ex.A.1 is dated 05.07.2018 and the suit filed by the plaintiff was on 08.03.2019, it is within eight months of the agreement, the period of limitation which was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 54 of Limitation Act and will not be applicable to the facts of this case as such the citation which was relied by the learned counsel for the defendants No.2 to 5 will not help their case.

17.Further, the learned counsel for the defendants No.2 to 5 has relied upon the findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Muddam Raju Yadav Vs B.

Raja Shanker (D) Through Lrs. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.3255/2026)

wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to held that the plaintiff who approached the Court with unclean hands is not entitled for the relief of

Specific Performance of Contract and the plaintiff has to establish his ready and willingness, however in this case, the plaintiff herein is able to establish execution of Ex.A.1 and his plea is supported with the evidence of P.W.s 2 to

4. Further the plaintiff herein has filed the original documents of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.2 and A.3 which reveals that the plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands and the defendants have failed to establish that the plaintiff has approached the Court with unclean hands as such the citation, which was relied by the learned counsel for the defendants

No.2 to 5 will not help their case.

18.Further, the learned counsel for the defendant No.6 has argued that there is a rubber stamp on the back side of Ex.A.1 and the same reveals that the stamp was obtained subsequent to the transaction under Ex.A.1, however

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR06000371201915O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

on perusal of the reverse of the stamp paper under Ex.A.1, the rubber of Sub-

Registrar Office, Nunna is clear but where as the month is not clear and the same might be “6” June, 2018, however as the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 4 reveals execution of Ex.A.1 and the plaintiff is able to prove Ex.A.1 as the defendants have not called for the stamp vendor or the Sub-Registrar, Nunna to establish that the rubber stamp on Ex.A.1 is prior to Ex.A.1, the plea, which was took by the learned counsel for the defendant No.6 has no legs to stand and the 6th defendant himself had admitted that his father has signed on Non-

Judicial Stamp paper had took another inconsistent plea. In view of the discussion supra, the plaintiff who approached the Court for the relief of specific performance of contract is able to establish the formalities for obtaining the decree for relief of Specific Performance of Contract, as such the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

19. ISSUE No.2:

In view of the findings given by this Court in issue No.1 coupled with the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 4 and on perusal of Ex.A.1 and the endorsement on the reverse of Ex.A.1 dated 27.07.2018 for Rs.80,000/-, reveals that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, as the plaintiff is able to prove that the agreement of sale under Ex.A.1 is true, valid and binding on the defendants No.2 to 6 being the legal-heirs of the deceased 1st defendant, as such this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is able to establish his ready and willingness to perform his part of contract.

Accordingly, the issue is answered.

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR06000371201916O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

20. ISSUE No.3 and 4:

In view of the findings given by this Court in issue Nos.1 and 2, as the plaintiff is able to establish his case, as such the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 05.07.2018, hence the plaintiff is directed to deposit the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.12,20,000/- within three months from the date of decree and judgment by intimating the same to the defendants No.2 to 6 and on such deposit, the defendants No.2 to 6 are directed to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within three months from the date of such deposit of balance sale consideration, failing which, the plaintiff is entitled to get execute the same through due process of law. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case both parties do bear their own costs. Accordingly, the issues are answered.

21.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.2 to 6 being the legal-heirs of the deceased 1st defendant for the Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale dated 05.07.2018 in respect of the plaint schedule property

i) directing the plaintiff to deposit the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.12,20,000/- before this Court within 3 months from the date of decree and judgment by intimating the same to the defendants No.2 to 6 in advance.

ii)the defendants No. 2 to 6 being the legal-heirs of the deceased 1st defendant are directed to execute a Registered Sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.12,20,000/- within 3 months from the date of such deposit by the plaintiff,

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR06000371201917O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

iii)failing which, the plaintiff is entitled to get execute registered Sale deed through due process of law.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) – CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff For Defendants

P.W.1: G. Chandrasekhar D.W.1: P. Vijaya Kumari

P.W.2: K. Joseph.D.W.2: P. Puppi

P.W.3: K. BabuD.W.3: P. Gangadhara Rao

P.W.4: M. Nageswara Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

For Plaintiff

Ex.A.1: Unregistered Agreement of sale dated 05.07.2018.

Ex.A.2:Registered sale deed bearing document No.2860/2008 dated 29.04.2008.

Ex.A.3:Registered rectification deed bearing document No.11696/2018 dated 26.10.2018.

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR06000371201918O.S. No.392/2019

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 13.05.2026.

Ex.A.4:Office copy of the legal notice dated 22.01.2019.

Ex.A.5:Postal acknowledgment of the 1st defendant.

For Defendants

Ex.B.1:Family Members Certificate of Peeka Musalaiah dated 20.09.2025 issued by Tahsildar, Vijayawada Rural obtained from Village/Ward

Sachivalayam.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION) – CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, VIJAYAWADA.

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.13 12:33:48 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600240620241C.C. No.639/2024

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 18.05.2026.

Calendar Case in C.C. No.639/2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior

Division) – Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada

1. Date of Offence: 24.04.2022

2. Date of report: 24.04.2022

3. Date of arrest of accused : --

4. Date of release on bail: --

5. Date of commencement of trial: 11.09.2025

6. Date of close of trial: 14.05.2026

7. Date of judgment: 18.05.2026

8. Complainant: Sub-Inspector of Police, Ajith Singh Nagar Police Station, Vijayawada City

9. Accused:1. Kusuma Ratna Kumari, W/o.Prem Kumar, aged about 46 years, R/o.D.No.43-140-18/A, Sundarayya Nagar, Ajit Singh Nagar, Vijayawada.

2. Paraganti Nirmala Kumari, W/o. P.V. Rathnam, R/o. D.No.43-115-19, New A.S. Nagar, Vijayawada.

3. Bandi Devadas, S/o. Sundara Rao, aged about 52 years, R/o.D.No. 43-150-16, K.L. Rao road, New A.S. Nagar, Vijayawada.

10. Offence:under Sections 448 r/w.34 and 427 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence: The accused No.1 to 3 are FOUND NOT GUILTY for the offence under Sections 448 r/w.34 and 427 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and they are

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.18 10:59:18 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600240620242C.C. No.639/2024

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 18.05.2026.

ACQUITTED under Section 255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of Six months under Section 437-

A of Criminal Procedure Code. As M.O.1 is video with pendrive, office is directed to keep the same with the record.

14. Explanation for delay: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ajith Singh Nagar Police

Station has filed charge sheet in this case for the offence under Sections 448, 427 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. This case was taken on file on 27.07.2024, under

Sections 448, 427 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. On 08.10.2024, the accused were present, copies of all documents were furnished to them under Section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code. On 12.08.2025, the accused were examined under

Section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code and accusation of the offence under

Sections 448 r/w.34 and 427 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code was framed and they denied the offence and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.3 were marked and the accused were examined under Section 313 (1) (b) of Criminal Procedure Code on 27.04.2026 and they deposed no defence evidence on their behalf. On 11.05.2026, heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and on 14.05.2026, heard arguments of defence counsel and the case is posted for judgment on 18.05.2026. On 18.05.2026

Judgment pronounced (Vide separate Judgment) in open court. Hence, the delay.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) –

Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.18 10:59:18 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600240620243C.C. No.639/2024

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 18.05.2026.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -

CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: VIJAYAWADA

Present : Dr. CH. SRINIVASA BABU

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Vijayawada.

Monday, this the 18 th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.639/2024

Between:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Ajith Singh Nagar Police Station ... Complainant

And

1. Kusuma Ratna Kumari, W/o.Prem Kumar, aged about 46 years, R/o.D.No.43-140-18/A, Sundarayya Nagar, Ajit Singh Nagar, Vijayawada.

2. Paraganti Nirmala Kumari, W/o. P.V. Rathnam, R/o. D.No.43-115-19, New A.S. Nagar, Vijayawada.

3. Bandi Devadas, S/o. Sundara Rao, aged about 52 years, R/o.D.No. 43-150-16, K.L. Rao road,

New A.S. Nagar, Vijayawada. .... Accused

This case was came on 14.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri M. Venugopal, Learned Counsel for accused No.1 to 3 and the matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following :

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.18 10:59:18 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600240620244C.C. No.639/2024

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 18.05.2026.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ajith Singh Nagar Police Station,

Vijayawada filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under

Sections 448, 427 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.207/2022, as follows:

2.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the mother of P.W.1 has executed document in her favour pertaining to the house situated at D.No.43- 140-18/A, Sundarayya Nagar, Ajit Singh Nagar, Vijayawada and she got changed house-tax, electricity bill and residing in the said property, while so on 24.04.2022, at about 04.00 A.M., all the accused having came to know that the document was prepared in the name of P.W.1, have trespassed into the house of P.W.1 by break opening the main gate outside the wall with hammer brought by them, abused her in filthy language and tried to beat her, on that she submitted report. Basing on her report, P.W.4 has registered a case in

Crime No.207/2022, under Sections 448, 427 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code, issued First Information Report, send the same to all concerned, took up investigation, examined the witnesses, during the course of investigation as the role of Srikanth and Priyatham Kumar, who were shown as accused in

First Information Report was not made out as such their names were deleted and issued notice under Section 41 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code to the accused, after completion of investigation she filed charge-sheet.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 427 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.18 10:59:18 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600240620245C.C. No.639/2024

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 18.05.2026.

under Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code. The accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code and accusation under Sections 448 r/w.34 and 427 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code were read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.On behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1 were marked. The evidence of Avutapalli Srinivasa Rao and

Kusuma Grasamma were given up by the Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor on 09.04.2026. The accused have reported that they have got defence evidence on their behalf and D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D.1 and

D.2 were marked.

5.On behalf of the prosecution the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that P.W.1 has deposed before this Court that her mother executed gift deed pertaining to her house at Ajit Singh Nagar, Vijayawada on 13.08.2020, which is in dispute, while she was in possession and enjoyment of the same on 24.04.2022 at about 04.00 P.M., all the accused along with

Devadasu, Preyatam Kumar and two others have break open the gate with the hammer and trespassed into the house and tried to beat her and she videographed the incident with her cell phone, on knowing about the incident,

P.W.s 2 and 3 have came to the scene of offence. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.s 2 and 3 who rushed to the scene of offence immediately after the incident and the presence of the accused is visible in M.O.1 and the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 4 coupled with Ex.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1 establishes the case of the prosecution. Though the accused have relied upon Ex.D.1 and D.2, Ex.D.1 is Unilateral Cancellation of Settlement

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.18 10:59:18 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600240620246C.C. No.639/2024

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 18.05.2026.

deed without the knowledge of P.W.1 and the same has no evidentiary value and the gift deed executed in the name of son of 1st accused was obtained by inducing mother-in-law of the accused No.1, hence they have no value. As the prosecution is able to establish the presence of accused at the scene of offence and the same is corroborated with M.O.1, as the defence took by the accused was not established, as the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the accused are liable for punishment according to law.

6.On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for accused No.1 to 3 has argued that the accused never committed any offence and P.W.1 has admitted that there are civil suits pending between the accused and P.W.1 in O.S.

No.459/2022 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court,

Vijayawada and that her mother has executed gift cancellation deed and cancellation of rectification deed on 24.02.2022 as such as on the date of the alleged incident, P.W.1 has no right over the house, which is in dispute. The certificate which was enclosed under Section 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act is invalid as P.W.1 admitted that she has not obtained any receipt from the shop keeper and she do not know the particulars of the computer from, which the video under M.O.1 was copied, downloaded and she admitted that she has not mentioned in the report that she took videograph with her cell phone and the particulars of the cell phone was not mentioned in the certificate, as the prosecution has failed to comply the provisions of under Section 65 (B) of

Indian Evidence Act, M.O.1 has no authenticity and further on perusal of

M.O.1, the presence of accused is not found. P.W.2 and 3 are not the eye- witnesses and they have admitted the same and further they admitted that

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.18 10:59:18 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600240620247C.C. No.639/2024

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 18.05.2026.

their maternal grandmother has cancelled the gift deed executed in the name of their mother and they got knowledge about the pendency of suits in O.S.

No.459/2025 and O.S. No.88/2025. P.W.4 has admitted that M.O.1 does not reveals the presence of the accused, door number of the scene of offence.

Except the sole testimony of P.W.1, on behalf of the prosecution, none of the eye-witness was examined and P.W.4 has not seized any property at the scene of offence and Exs.D.1 and D.2 marked on behalf of the accused clearly reveals that as on the date of the alleged incident P.W.1 has no right over the property and on behalf of the prosecution, there is no document placed before this Court to show that P.W.1 has got absolute right over the property, which is in dispute. As the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and prayed the Court to extend the same in their favour.

7.Now the point for determination is -

“Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused

No.1 to 3 for the offence Under Sections 448 r/w.34 and 427 r/w.34 of

Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

8.POINT:-

The case of the prosecution is that on 24.04.2022 at about 04.00 P.M. at

D.No.43-140-18/A, Sundarayya Nagar, Ajit Singh Nagar, Vijayawada all the accused have trespassed into the house of P.W.1 and have committed mischief by causing damage to the main gate of P.W.1 with hammer and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 448 r/w.34 and 427

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.18 10:59:18 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600240620248C.C. No.639/2024

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 18.05.2026.

r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, where as the case of the defence is total denial of the prosecution case.

9.So as to prove the offence alleged against the accused, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.s 1 to 4 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1 were marked. P.W.1 has testified that her mother has executed gift deed on 13.08.2020 pertaining to the house property with ground and first floor situated at Ajit Singh Nagar, Vijayawada and her mother resided in the ground floor and she resided in the first floor for some period and her brother Prem Kumar was passed away on 12.05.2021 who is the husband of 1st accused and she is paying property tax and electricity consumption offence and residing in the said property since the year 2021, prior to the death of her elder brother, the 1st accused used to reside in the first floor of the house, thereafter she resided elsewhere by locking first floor, while so on 24.04.2022 at about 04.00 P.M., while she was in the house, all the accused along with Devadasu, Preyatam

Kumar and sons of accused No.2 have came infront of the locked gate and raised cries and demanded her to open the gate, the accused have break- open the gate with the help of hammer and trespassed into the house and tried to beat her and she took videograph and submitted the same to the police.

10.On perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.1, she deposed that she filed the suit against the accused and others for grant of permanent injunction in O.S. No.459/2022 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Court, Vijayawada and she admitted that her mother has executed gift cancellation deed and cancellation of rectification deed, which was executed

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.18 10:59:18 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR0600240620249C.C. No.639/2024

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 18.05.2026.

in her name. The prosecution has relied upon M.O.1 pertaining to the alleged incident and the learned defence counsel has questioned the validity of certificate under Section 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act. On perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.1, she deposed that she had transferred the video from cell phone to pendrive in a shop, which was known to her at Ajit Singh

Nagar and she do not know the particulars of the computer and it was not mentioned the date of download and she do not know the particulars of the phone number and the same was not in the certificate. Though P.W.1 has deposed that she has downloaded and copied the video in pendrive, on perusal of the certificate under Section 65B (2) (c) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which was marked on behalf of the prosecution, it does not reveals that she had downloaded the video from the cell phone and copied into the pendrive and particulars of cell phone and computer are not mentioned. The evidence of P.W.1 and the contents of certificate are not co-relating with each other. Further, P.W.4 who is the investigating officer has admitted that “It is true in the video, which is in M.O.1 does not reveals the presence of accused and door number of the scene of offence”. On perusal of the video in the pendrive under M.O.1 by this Court, it does not reveals the presence of the accused and also the door number of the scene of offence.

11.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, she is the only eye-witness as per the case of the prosecution. She deposed that along with the accused,

Devadas and Preyatam Kumar and two sons of accused No.2 have came to the scene of offence, where as the evidence of P.W.4 is that as the presence of P. Srikanth and Bandi Pretam Kumar was not made out, their names were deleted. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.s 2 and 3, they deposed that they

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.18 10:59:18 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR06002406202410C.C. No.639/2024

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 18.05.2026.

have received phone-call from their mother about the incident on that they went to the scene of offence. P.W.s 2 and 3 have admitted their maternal grandmother had cancelled the gift deed executed in the name of her mother pertaining to house property, which is in dispute as on the date of alleged incident. As P.W.2 is not the eye-witness, her evidence will not help the case of the prosecution and P.W.2 has deposed an inconsistent version that all the accused were quarreling with her mother and her mother took videograph pertaining to the incident. Where as the presence of P.W.2 at the time of alleged incident was not deposed by P.W.1. Further, P.W.1 never deposed that the accused quarreled with her when by that time P.W.2 came to the scene of offence. Though the mother of P.W.1 is cited as witness who was said to have been executed gift deed in favour of P.W.1 and cancelled the same, she was not examined by the prosecution and was given up for the reasons best known to the prosecution. P.W.4 who is the investigating officer has admitted that she has not examined the inmates of Joseph nilayam and P.W.1 has not submitted any document to show that she is the owner of the house bearing

D.No.43-140-18/A, Sundarayya Nagar, Ajit Singh Nagar, Vijayawada and she has not verified about the cancellation of gift deed by K. Gresamma and she do not know about the pendency of the suits and she has not seized any property at the scene of offence.

12.The case of the prosecution is that the accused have break-open the door with a hammer, however the investigating officer has not seized any property at the scene of offence. If really the investigating officer might have proceeded to the scene of offence, certainly she might have seized any property at the scene of offence. Further, as per the case of the prosecution,

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.18 10:59:18 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR06002406202411C.C. No.639/2024

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 18.05.2026.

the accused were said to have been trespassed into the house of P.W.1, hence it is for the prosecution to establish that P.W.1 is the absolute owner of the scene of offence and the prosecution has to secure authenticated document to show that P.W.1 had right over the said property, however the investigating officer has not seized any such document, further on perusal of the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution, there is no document placed

before this Court to that effect that P.W.1 has got absolute right over the

property which is in dispute. Further, as discussed supra, the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have categorically admitted that the gift deed executed by the mother of the P.W.1 in her favour was cancelled, though the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has argued that unilateral cancellation of gift deed under Ex.D.1 is not recognized under law, however as the prosecution has alleged that the accused have committed house trespass, it is for the prosecution to establish that P.W.1 has got absolute right over the house property, which is in dispute. During cross-examination of

D.W.1 nothing was elicited by the prosecution, to establish its case, further as the prosecution has to establish its the alleged offence, it is for the prosecution to prove the same. Further, the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 3 reveals that there are civil disputes between P.W.1 and the accused pertaining to the property, which is in dispute, as discussed supra, except the sole testimony of P.W.1, there is no authenticated evidence placed before this Court by the prosecution to establish the alleged incident and her testimony is crediable and the investigating officer has not seized any property at the scene of offence though the prosecution has alleged that the accused have committed mischief, which reveals latches on the part of the investigation done by P.W.4.

As discussed supra, M.O.1 does not reveals the presence of the accused and

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.18 10:59:18 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR06002406202412C.C. No.639/2024

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 18.05.2026.

the scene of offence, which was admitted by P.W.4. As the prosecution has alleged the offence against the accused, it is for the prosecution to establish its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, however as discussed supra, the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborative and trust worthy, and the prosecution has not placed any cogent and corroborative piece of evidence before this Court to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are FOUND NOT GUILTY for the offence under Sections 448 r/w.34 and 427 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and they are ACQUITTED under Section 255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of Six months under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. As M.O.1 is video with pendrive, office is directed to keep the same with the record.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pro-

nounced by me in the open Court, this 18th day of May, 2026.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :

P.W.1Ch. Baby Rani

P.W.2P. Vineetha

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.18 10:59:18 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR06002406202413C.C. No.639/2024

PCJ (J.D.) CUM JFCM

VIJAYAWADA. Dated 18.05.2026.

P.W.3G. Tejaswini

P.W.4A. Durga Devi

FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1Kusuma Ratna Kumari

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1Report of P.W.1

Ex.P.2First Information Report

Ex.P.3Rough-sketch

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D.1Registration extract of Registered Settlement deed bearing document

No.1550/2022, dated 24.02.2022

Ex.D.2Registration extract of Registered Gift deed bearing document

No.5036/2022, dated 27.04.2022

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

M.O.1Pendrive along with certificate under Section 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

– Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

Digitally Signed by

SRINIVASA

SRINIVASA BABU CHAPALA

BABU

Date: 2026.05.18 10:59:18 +0530

CHAPALAReason: DSC Testing Location: PJCJ Court Vijayawada

APKR060000272023 1 R.C-Cum-IV AJCJ CUM IV AJFCM, VJA

O.S.No.25/2023,Dt.25.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER -CUM- IV ADDITIONAL

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS: VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: Dr. CH.SRINIVASA BABU,

Rent Controller-Cum-IV Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division)-Cum- IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Vijayawada

Friday, this the 25th day of April, 2025

O.S. No.25 OF 2023

Between: Dandamudi Purnachandra Rao, S/o. Sri Ramulu, aged about 65 years, R/o.D.No.3-123, Kolavennu Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District. … Plaintiff

And

Nimmagadda Satyanarayana S/o. Reddaiah, aged 51 years, R/o.D.No.1-182,Kolavennu Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District. … Defendant

This suit came on 24.04.2024 before me for consideration in the presence of Sri S. Satyananda Rao, learned Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant was set exparte on 26.09.2024 and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T \\

01.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff for grant of preliminary decree against the defendant directing him to pay suit amount of Rs.14,78,048/- within time stipulated for redemption and to pass final decree for payment of debt in terms of Order XXXIV Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code and for personal decree against the defendant, for costs and for other reliefs.

APKR060000272023 2 R.C-Cum-IV AJCJ CUM IV AJFCM, VJA

O.S.No.25/2023,Dt.25.04.2025

02.The brief averments of the plaint in nutshell are that the defendant has obtained loan of Rs.13,36,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and for construction of house and out of which an amount of Rs.6,26,000/- was received on different occasions and the remaining amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was received by way of cheque drawn on Union Bank of India, Kankipadu

Branch, dated 07.05.2022 and executed registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to the plaint schedule property bearing document

No.3568/2022 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @12% per annum. Inspite of repeated demands the defendant failed to pay the debt. There is a first secured loan of Rs.6,00,000/- which was obtained by the defendant from Union Bank of India, Punadipadu Branch for

Rs.6,00,000/- by executing the deposit of title deeds pertaining to the plaint schedule property. As the plaintiff came to know that the defendant was indebted to several creditors who filed insolvency petition vide legal notice

dated 22.09.2022, as such the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

03.The defendant was set exparte on 26.09.2024.

04.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as

P.W.1 and on his behalf P.W.2 was examined and Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked.

05. Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

06. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree based on

the mortgage deed, dated 09.05.2022 for recovery of suit amount

with interest as prayed for?

APKR060000272023 3 R.C-Cum-IV AJCJ CUM IV AJFCM, VJA

O.S.No.25/2023,Dt.25.04.2025

07. POINT:

On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 he has deposed before this Court about the mortgage debt under Ex.A.1 and that the defendant has failed to pay the debt due inspite of demands made by him. P.W.2 who is the attestor of Ex.A.1 has deposed before this Court that the defendant has executed mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff and borrowed the amount of

Rs.13,36,000/- and that he is the attesting and identifying witness. As the debt due under Ex.A.1 was based on the mortgage deed it has to be verified by this court whether the ingredients under Section 59 of Transfer of property

Act coupled with Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act are complied with. Under

Section 59 of Transfer of Property Act the mortgage deed is compulsorily attestable document so also under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act mortgage deed has to be proved by examining at least one of the attesting witness.

Section 59 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 : "Mortgage when to be by

assurance"

Where the principal money secured is one hundred rupees or upwards, a mortgage other than a mortgage by deposit of title deeds, can be effected only by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses.

Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act: Proof of execution of document

required by law to be attested : If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence:

APKR060000272023 4 R.C-Cum-IV AJCJ CUM IV AJFCM, VJA

O.S.No.25/2023,Dt.25.04.2025

Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.

As P.W.2 who is the attesting and identifying witness has deposed before this court that the defendant has executed Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff and the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2 remains unchallenged, as the plaintiff is able to prove the execution of mortgage deed under Ex.A.1, hence the defendant is liable to pay the suit debt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

08. In the result, preliminary decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff with costs and against the mortgaged property and the defendant for recovery of

Rs.14,78,048/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization upon the principal amount of Rs.13,26,000 /- and a personal decree is also passed against the defendant, in case if the decree amount is not satisfied on sale of the mortgaged property. Time for redemption is Four months, in default of payment of aforesaid amount, the plaintiff may apply for final decree as per law.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court, this the 25th day of April, 2025.

RENT CONTROLLER-CUM-

IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE( JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VIJAYAWADA.

APKR060000272023 5 R.C-Cum-IV AJCJ CUM IV AJFCM, VJA

O.S.No.25/2023,Dt.25.04.2025

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff For Defendant:

P.W.1: Dandamudi Puprnachandra Rao -None-

P.W.2: Anne Sri Krishna Rao

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex. A1: Registered Mortgage deed bearing document No.3568/2022,

dated 09.05.2022.

Ex.A2: Encumbrance Certificate, dated 02.11.2022.

For Defendant:

-Nil-

RENT CONTROLLER-CUM-

IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE( JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VIJAYAWADA.

O.S.No.1372/2023 1 R.C. CUM IV ACJ CUM IV AJFCM,VJA.

Dt.28.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER -CUM- IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: Dr.CH. SRINIVASA BABU,

Rent Controller-Cum-IV Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division)-Cum- IV Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,Vijayawada.

Monday, this the 28th day of April, 2025

OS No. 1372/2023

Between:

Canara Bank, Governorpet Branch, Represented by it’s Manager, Kolluri Mahesh, S/o.Krishan,

R/o.Vijayawada ...Plaintiff

And

M/s.Reshvik Enterprises, Rep by its Proprietor, Sangepu Suresh, S/o.Subba Rao, aged about 33 years, R/o. D.No.6-58, Gottumukkala Village, Krishna District … Defendant

This suit came on 25.04.2025 for consideration in the presence of Sri D T Vyas, learned Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent and remained exparte on 09.01.2025, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following: // J U D G M E N T \\

01.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs.15,25,628.89/- for costs and for other reliefs.

02. The brief averments of the plaint in nutshell are that the plaintiff bank is a National bank constituted under the banking companies(Acquisition and Transfer of Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at 112, J.C. Road, Bangalore – 560002, branches all over India and one of the Branch Office at Governorpet, Vijayawada. The defendant approached the plaintiff and submitted application for MSME Services Loan for commencement of Ice Cream parlour business on 28.03.2022 and the plaintiff Bank had sanctioned loan of Rs.16,50,000/- and that on 28.03.2022, the defendant had executed agreement cum Hypothecation deed and agreed to repay the loan amount. The plaintiff had opened an account for the loan of the defendant. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay the amount due of Rs.15,25,628.89/- as per the statement of account, as such the

O.S.No.1372/2023 2 R.C. CUM IV ACJ CUM IV AJFCM,VJA.

Dt.28.04.2025 plaintiff got issued legal notice on 26.04.2023, but the same was not received by the defendant, as such the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

03.The defendant was set exparte on 09.01.2025.

04.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A.1 to A.8 were marked.

05. Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

06. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim as prayer for ?

07. POINT :

P.W.1, who is the Manager of the plaintiff has deposed before this Court that the defendant has submitted application under Ex.A.1, for sanction of term loan and the loan was sanctioned and the amount was deposited in the account and he had executed Exs.A.3 and A.4 as the defendant failed to pay the amount due as per the loan account as such the plaintiff got issued legal notice under Ex.A.5 and the defendant failed to receive the same, hence the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. The evidence of P.W.1, coupled with EXs.A.1 to A.4 reveals that the defendant had submitted application for sanction of loan and obtained MSME service loan and Ex.A.8 reveals that the defendant failed to pay the loan amount. On persual of Exs.A.1 to A.4 coupled with Ex.A.8 reveals that the defendant was fell in due to the plaintiff bank and the evidence of P.W.1 remains unchallenged, as the plaintiff is able to prove the suit claim, as such the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount. Accordingly, the point is answered.

08. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.15,25,628.89/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization upon the amount due of Rs.15,25,628.89/-. Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28th day of April, 2025. (Sd/- Dr Ch Srinivasa babu)

RENT CONTROLLER -CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VIJAYAWADA.

O.S.No.1372/2023 3 R.C. CUM IV ACJ CUM IV AJFCM,VJA.

Dt.28.04.2025 // APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff: For Defendant: PW1 : Shadab Farhat - None - Documents Marked For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 - Loan application dated 10.03.2022

Ex.A2 – Sanction letter

Ex.A3 – Agreement Cum Deed of Hypothecation dated 28.03.2022

Ex.A4 – Letter of undertaking dated 28.03.2022

Ex.A5 – Office copy of the legal notice dated 26.04.2023

Ex.A6 – Returned registered cover

Ex.A7 – Returned registered cover

Ex.A8 – Statement of account

For Defendant: --NIL--

R.C -Cum-IV ACJ(J.D)- Cum-IV AJFCM, VJA

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) -CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: DR CH SRINIVASA BABU

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) -Cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vijayawada Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.1881 of 2019.

Between:

Kalapala Ravamma, W/o. Yesupadam, Aged about 60 years, R/o. D.No.4-8, Sivalayam Street, Uppuluru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

...Plaintiff

And

1. Lam Ranga Rao, S/o. Late China Kotadu, Aged about 80 years, R/o. Sivalayam Street, Uppuluru Village,Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

2. Lam Yashoshuva, S/o. Ranga Rao, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Sivalayam Street, Uppuluru Village,Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

3. Lam Gajendra Rao, S/o. Ranga Rao, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Sivalayam Street, Uppuluru Village,Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

4. Lam Rani @ Ranimma, W/. Yahoshuva, Aged about 50 years,R/o. Sivalayam Street, Uppuluru Village,Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

5. Nimmakuri Koteswari, W/o. Babu Rao, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Sivalayam Street, Uppuluru Village,Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

6. Lam Moshe, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged about 65 years,R/o. Sivalayam Street, Uppuluru Village,Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

7. Lam Mariyamma, W/o. Moshe, Aged about 65 years,R/o. Sivalayam Street, Uppuluru Village,Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

8. Lam Prabhakara Rao, S/o. Moshe, Aged about 37 years,R/o. Sivalayam Street, Uppuluru Village,Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

9. Lam Subhashini, W/o. Prabhakara Rao, Aged about 33 years, R/o. Sivalayam Street, Uppuluru Village,Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.

..Defendants

This Original Suit coming on this day before me for carrying out amendment in the presence of Sri Morla Anka Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and and having perused the material, this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff and against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and followers etc., from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2.Plaintiff is called absent, no representation even at 4.15 P.M.,

Inspite of conditional order dated 13.05.2026, failed to carry out the amendment and failed to file neat copy of the plaint, hence, suit is dismissed for default without costs.

Pronounced by me in open court on this is the 15th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-Dr.Ch.Srinivasa Babu

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-Cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada Appendix of Evidence -NIL-

Sd/-Dr.Ch.Srinivasa Babu

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-Cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada