Smt.Chiranji Ashalatha

02/11/2023 1 S.C.No. 204/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT MAHABUBNAGAR

(Dated on this the 02nd day of November, 2023)

PRESENT: SMT. CH.Ashalatha

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

SESSIONS CASE No.204 OF 2018

(P.R.C. No.05/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jadcherla in Crime No.369/2017 of P.S. Jadcherla)

COMPLAINANT:Ramavatar More S/o. K.L.More, aged: 50years, Occ:Cycle spare parts wholesale business, r/o. H.No. 15-4-96, Old Bus Depot, Gouliguda, Hyderabad City.

ACCUSED:

1. Santhosh Subanji S/o. Rukhmaji Subandi, aged: 30 years, Occ:Driver, R/o. H.No. 4-5-936/7, Sultan Bazar, Opposite Canara Bank, Baddi Chowk, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. Dinesh Mane @ Jittu S/o. Subhash Mane, aged:22years, Occ: Student R/o. H.no. 4-7-132/28, Near Hanuman Temple, Attapur Village, Rangareddy District.

3. Irlevad Ganesh S/o. Bhanudas, aged: 21 years, Occ:Cooker R/o. H.No. 4-5-936/7, Krupam Bagh, Sultan Bazaar, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

4. Ambadas Subanji S/o. Rukhmaji Subanji, aged: 22years, Occ:Coolie, R/o. H.No. 4-5-936/7, Sultan Bazar, Opposite Canara Bank, Baddi Chowk, Nampally, Hyderabad.

5. Venkatesh Biladar S/o. Shivaji Biladar, aged: 28years, Occ: Owner Cum driver of crime vehicle Toyota Quallis Vehicle bearing no. TS12EE6736, R/o. H.No. 18-7-526/1, Uppuguda, SRTSRT, Hyderabad.

For the offence : Under Sec.395 IPC & Sec. 25 Indian Arms Act 02/11/2023 2 S.C.No. 204/2018

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER: In the result, the accused persons are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 395 IPC & Sec.25 IA Act and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stand cancelled and sureties will be discharged after expiry of appeal time. MO1 i.e., Four mobile phones, MO3 i.e., Toyata Qualis Vehicle No. TS12EE 6736 and MO4 Motor Bike Vehicle No. AP09 BN1613 deposited vide CPR.No.04/2023 shall be confiscated after expiry of appeal time. MO2 i.e., two knifes shall be made destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Further, interim custody of MO5 i.e., Swift Car Vehicle No. AP09 CV 9338 deposited vide CPR.No.04/2023 given to PW1/ Ramnath Mor in pursuance of orders passed in Crl.MP.No.3022/2017 dated 19.12.2017 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited vide CPR No. 04/2023 i.e., cash of Rs.3,84,000/- given to PW1/Ramnath Mor as per the orders passed in

Crl.MP.No.3023/2017 dated: 19.12.2017 shall be made absolute after

expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by:Additional Public Prosecutor. Accused is defended by:Sri A.Srinivas Chary, Advocate.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

Additional Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri A.Srinivas Chary,

Advocate for accused having perused the evidence adduced and exhibits marked and other material papers on record having heard both sides and stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T:

1.Inspector of Police, PS Jadcherla filed charge sheet against the accused persons in Cr.No.369/2017 for the offences punishable U/s 395

IPC & Sec 25 Indian Arms Act.

02/11/2023 3 S.C.No. 204/2018

2. On 06.11.2017 at 0930 hours Lw1/Ramavatar Mor lodged a report as follows: He does business of cycle spare parts. He used to supply material from his shop at Hyderabad in surrounding towns and collect amounts on 5th or 6th in every month. On 06.11.2017 at 0830 hours he along with his car driver Surya Kanth started in Maruthi Swift Dezire car bearing no.AP 09 U 9338 and collected amount of Rs.3,84,000/- in Jadcherla,

Thimmajipet, Wanaparthy, Gadwal, Ieeja, Shantinagar and Kurnool and they were coming back to Hyderabad. When they were near IB guest house in out skirts of Jadcherla at about 2030 hours they stopped their vehicle for attending nature call. Meantime, five persons came in Toyota qualis vehicle bearing no.TS 12 EE 6736. Two persons out of those five persons threatened him with knives and enquired about amount. Two persons restrained his car driver from coming out of car. One person remained in their car. They took cash from bag kept back to the seat and fled away with his car also. His car value is Rs.5,00,000/-. Therefore, he requested to take necessary action in this regard.

(ii)Basing on above report given by Lw1/Ramavatar Mor,

Lw13/IO registered a case in Cr.No.369/2017 for the offences punishable

U/s 395 IPC & Sec 25 Indian Arms Act and took up the investigation. After completion of investigation, Lw13/IO filed charge sheet against the accused persons herein.

3.The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jadcherla took cognizance for the offences punishable u/s 395 r/w 149 IPC & Sec.25 Indian Arms Act against the accused persons herein in P.R.C.No.05/2018. After furnishing copies to the accused persons, this case is committed to the Hon’ble Court 02/11/2023 4 S.C.No. 204/2018 of Sessions and thereafter, this case is made over to this court to proceed further.

4.On appearance, the accused persons were examined and charge for the offences punishable u/s 395 IPC & Sec.25 Indian Arms Act were framed, read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined Pws1 to 9 and marked Exs P1 to 26 and MOs1to5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined by explaining the incriminating circumstances appear against them in prosecution evidence, for which they denied the same and further reported no evidence in their support. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

Written arguments were filed on behalf of prosecution.

5. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt

of the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s 395

IPC & Sec.25 Indian Arms Act beyond all reasonable

doubt”?

6.P O I N T:-

(i)As per the prosecution on 06.11.2017 while coming back to

Hyderabad in car, at 2030 hours the accused no.1to5 robbed

Pw1/Ramavatar Mor by threatening him with knives and fled away with cash of Rs.3,84,000/- and MO5 i.e. Maruthi Swift Dezire car bearing no.AP 09 U 9338, thereby the accused persons committed the offences punishable u/s 395 IPC & Sec 25 Indian Arms Act.

02/11/2023 5 S.C.No. 204/2018

(ii)As per the prosecution on 06.11.2017 at 2130 hours Pw9/IO received a report i.e. ExP1 from Pw1/Ramavatar Mor and basing on it a case is registered in Cr.No.369/2017 for the offences punishable U/s 395

IPC & Sec. 25 Indian Arms Act, accordingly issued FIR i.e. ExP18.

Whereas the endorsement in ExP1 says that ExP1 was received by the concerned police at 0930 hours on that specific day.

(iii)As per the prosecution Pw9/IO visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of Pw5/S.Yakub and Lw8/K.Krishna and prepared

CDF i.e. Ex.P19 by conducting panchanama. Pw5 identified his signature in ExP19. However, he stated that on 06.11.2017 at 11.00pm the concerned police called him near ASR Garden Function Hall and obtained his signature on written papers stating that some unknown persons took away car by beating car owner and except that he does not know anything in this case. The prosecution failed to get examine another panch witness i.e.

Lw8/K.Krishna.

(iv)Pw1/Ramavatar Mor stated that he does business of cycle spare parts, that on 06.11.2017 he along with his driver Lw2/Suryakanth Amber

Setti started in a car i.e. MO5 and collected amounts from Pws2to4 and

Lws5 and 6/B.Venkatesh and Shaik Mohammed Pws2to4 supported Pw1 with regard to collection of amounts on that specific date of incident.

Pw9/IO admitted that he had not collected any bills or receipts from

Pws1to4. As per Pw1 he received seized MO5 and cash towards interim custody. However, for the best reasons known to the prosecution the alleged seized cash is not produced before this court during trial.

(v)Pw1 stated that after collection of amount, while he along with

Lw2/Suryakanth Amber Setti were going back to Hyderabad, at about 2030 02/11/2023 6 S.C.No. 204/2018 hours they stopped their car near guest house in order to take rest, meanwhile five persons came in MO3 i.e. Toyota Qualis Vehicle, two persons came to him and threatened with a knife, they also threatened his driver and fled away with his car i.e. MO5 and collection amount. As per the prosecution Lw2/ Suryakanth Amber Setti is eye witness to the incident. It seems he is the right person to say about the alleged incident and corroborate version of Pw1. But the prosecution failed to get examine

Lw2/ Suryakanth Amber Setti.

(vi)As per the prosecution Pw9/IO passed information about the descriptive particulars of the offenders to alert other police stations.

Pw7/A.Saidulu stated that on specific date at 0030 hours while he was on duty of vehicle check, he received a telephonic information from the concerned SHO that five persons are escaping in a qualis vehicle and a car, accordingly he stopped Qualis vehicle No.TS 12 EE 6736 and found five persons speaking in Hindi and on suspicion he informed the same to the concerned police.

(vii)(a) As per Pw9/IO on information given by Pw7 with regard to apprehension of accused persons, he rushed there and enquired the accused persons, secured the presence of Pws6and8/B.Pandu Rangaiah and

G.Ramesh, during enquiry and in the presence of Pws6and8 the accused persons confessed their guilt of the alleged offence and as well another offence committed in Karnataka state, further in pursuance of their confession he seized MOs1to5 and cash of Rs.3,84,000/- by recording confession cum seizure panchanamas and seizure report under Exs.P20 to 25.

02/11/2023 7 S.C.No. 204/2018

(vii)(b) Pw6 and 8 identified their signatures on panchanamas and seizure report. Pw6 worked as VRO at Jadcherla in the year 2017. Pw6 stated that he does not know the accused persons. Further, Pw8 can identify the accused no.1 and 3 only. As per Pw9/IO Pw7 apprehended the accused persons in front of PS Midjil. Whereas Pw6 stated that the concerned police called him to poultry form in Gangapur road. Pw8 also stated that while he was coming from Gangapur, the concerned police stopped him near Sneha Company.

(vii)(c) Pw6 specifically stated that the police shown him MOs1to5 and they also informed that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was stolen and asked him to sign on papers. Pw6 categorically stated that he did not see the accused persons at the time of signing those panchanamas. Pw8 also stated that the concerned police read over the contents of panchanama and shown five persons, one car, three lakhs cash and four mobile phones and further asked him to sign, accordingly he signed in five panchanamas and two seizure panchanamas. Pws6and8 did not say that the accused persons herein confessed their guilt in their presence and at their instance MOs1to5 were seized. Thus, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to establish that

MOs1to5 were seized in pursuance of confession made by the accused persons.

(viii)During cross examination Pw9/IO stated that soon after the alleged incident the accused persons were apprehended and that on the next date of seizure of material objects he informed the same to Pw1. Whereas

Pw1 stated that after one month of lodging report police informed him about recovery of his Swift Dezire vehicle and cash of Rs.3,84,000/-. He specifically stated that after thirty days of lodging report, the concerned 02/11/2023 8 S.C.No. 204/2018 police informed him about recovery of stolen property and then he went to police station and saw accused persons there. As per the prosecution Pw1 identified all the accused persons during test identification proceedings.

ExP26 is test identification proceedings. During cross examination it is elicited from Pw9/IO that the scene of offence is near to the highway and there is a service road near to the scene of offence, further there were no lights near the scene of offence. As per Pw1 one accused person was sitting in vehicle and he did not come to him. When there were no lights near the scene of offence how could Pw1 identified the person sitting in vehicle.

Further, during cross examination it is elicited from Pw1 that when he went to police station they shown all the accused persons to him and further the police took him to jail for test identification parade much prior to recovery of stolen property i.e. on 10.11.2017. In view of all the above, it is opined that non examination of Learned Magistrate who conducted test identification proceedings is fatal to the case of prosecution.

(ix) Further, Pw1 also admitted that there is over bridge just opposite to the guest house where they stopped their vehicle and there is a service road besides to the guest house, further the said service road was busy at the time of the incident. It seems Pw9/IO did not examine any other witnesses except Lw2/ Suryakanth Amber Setti. Further, admittedly, the accused no.1 was driver of Pw1 for some time. Pw1 stated that the accused no.1 requested him to enhance salary but he refused as he was unable to pay more. Pw2 who is dealer of Pw1 also identified accused no.1.

(x) As above, the prosecution failed to prove seizure of MOs1to5 in pursuance of confession of the accused persons. Cash alleged to have been seized by Pw9/IO is also not produced before this court. Further, the 02/11/2023 9 S.C.No. 204/2018 prosecution failed to get examine Lw2/ Suryakanth Amber Setti. There is no cogent evidence to establish that the accused persons robbed Pw1 by threatening him with knives. In the absence of cogent and reliable evidence, it is opined that the essential ingredients for the alleged offences punishable u/s 395 IPC and section 25 Indian Arms Act against the accused persons are not made out. Therefore, it is considerably opined that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt for the charged offences.

7. In the result, the accused persons are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 395 IPC & Sec.25 IA Act and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stand cancelled and sureties will be discharged after expiry of appeal time. MO1 i.e., Four mobile phones, MO3 i.e., Toyata Qualis Vehicle No. TS12EE 6736 and

MO4 Motor Bike Vehicle No. AP09 BN1613 deposited vide

CPR.No.04/2023 shall be confiscated after expiry of appeal time. MO2 i.e., two knifes shall be made destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Further, interim custody of MO5 i.e., Swift Car Vehicle No. AP09 CV 9338 deposited vide CPR.No.04/2023 given to PW1/ Ramnath Mor in pursuance of orders passed in Crl.MP.No.3022/2017 dated 19.12.2017 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited vide CPR No. 04/2023 i.e., cash of Rs.3,84,000/- given to

PW1/Ramnath Mor as per the orders passed in Crl.MP.No.3023/2017

dated: 19.12.2017 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 02ndday of November, 2023.

Sd/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MAHABUBNAGAR.

02/11/2023 10 S.C.No. 204/2018

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: Pw.1: Ramnath Mor Pw.2: S.Narsimulu Pw.3: Mohd. Mansoor Khan Pw.4: Shaik Fareed Pw.5: S.Yakub Pw.6: B.Pandu Rangaiah Pw.7: A.Saidulu Pw.8: G.Ramesh Pw.9: G.Balraj

FOR DEFENCE: - NONE – :EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Complaint of Pw1 Ex.P.2: Signature on CDF of PW5 Ex.P.3 to 10: Signature on confession Cum panchanama of PW6 Ex.P.11 to 17: Signatures on panchanamas of PW8 Ex.P.18 : FIR Ex.P.19 : CDF Ex.P.20 to 24 : Confession cum seizure panchanamas Ex.P.25 : Seizure report Ex.P.26 : TIP (Test identification parade)

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

1. Four mobile phones

2. Two knifes

3. Toyata Qualis vehicle No. TS12EE6736

4. Motor Bike Vehicle No. AP09BN1613

5. Swift Car Vehicle No.AP09CV9338

Sd/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MAHABUBNAGAR.

30/10/2023 1 OS. No.180/2012

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MAHABUBNAGAR

(Dated on this the 30th day of October, 2023)

PRESENT: SMT. CH.ASHALATHA

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

O.S.No.180 OF 2012

Between: Puram Ramesh S/o. P. Narayana, aged: 59years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 3-10-12, Gandhinagar, Mahabubnagar town and district, presently residing at Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

…...Plaintiff

And

Smt. Kousalya W/o. Krishnaiah, aged: 45years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Pothulamadugu village, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar district.

…..Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Sugunakar Goud, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri V.Veera Brahma

Chary, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court has delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T:

This is a suit filed against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,13,493/- with interest and costs.

2. The plaintiff’s case in brief is as follows: On 31.03.2007 he agreed to purchase the defendant’s land i.e. Ac.0-37guntas in Sy.no.121 situated at Pothulamadugu (v), Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar @

Rs.5,80,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the defendant entered into an agreement of sale in respect of her land. Further, on the same day he paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the defendant towards a part of sale consideration and also agreed to pay balance sale consideration on or

before 10.10.2007. As per the agreement prior to payment of balance

sale consideration the defendant shall get measure the land and fix boundary stones. In spite of his repeated requests the defendant 30/10/2023 2 OS. No.180/2012 evaded to get survey land on one pretext or the other. He was ready to pay balance sale consideration but the defendant did not perform her part of agreement. In order to take advantage of hike in land price, the defendant evaded execution of registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant did not even return the amount received from him. On 28.06.2012 he got issue a legal notice to the defendant demanding her to return the amount with interest. Even after receiving the said notice the defendant did not pay the due amount. Finally, on 10.07.2012 he demanded the defendant to pay the suit amount, but she did not repay the due amount. Hence, this suit.

3. The defendant specifically denied execution of agreement of sale and further receiving any amount from the plaintiff. She filed written statement with her case as follows: She has no personal acquaintance with the plaintiff. Insertion of her name by striking out name of

Krishnaiah S/o Krishnaiah and last five lines in the alleged document clearly indicate that it is materially altered. In the said agreement there is no mention of refund of amount with interest. The plaintiff in collusion with land brokers of Pothulamadugu village, forged and created the said document. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any amount from her.

She never offered to sell her land to anybody. Her family is depending on cultivation of her land. She has no necessity to sell her land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s claim is time barred. She never received any notice from the plaintiff. Therefore, she prays to dismiss this suit.

4. Basing on above pleadings and material on record, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff’s claim is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the suit document is materially altered?

3. Whether the agreement for sale dated 31.03.2007 is true, correct and binding on the defendant?

30/10/2023 3 OS. No.180/2012

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount as prayed for?

5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for ?

5. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as

Pw1, got marked Ex.A1 to 3 and further examined Pw2. The defendant examined herself as Dw1 and further examined Dw2.

6. I have heard both sides and perused material on record.

7. Issue no.2 and 3: Issue no.2and3 are inter connected, therefore in order to avoid repetition of discussion these two issues are discussed together.

(i)The plaintiff’s case is that on 31.03.2007 the defendant entered in to an agreement with him by executing ExA1. Whereas the defendant specifically denied execution of agreement under ExA1. Her specific case is that insertion of her name in ExA1 clearly indicates that it is materially altered.

(ii) During cross examination the plaintiff as Pw1 admitted that the name of vendee initially mentioned in ExA1 as Krishnaiah and it is struck out and corrected as Kousalya who is the defendant herein. In specific Pw1 admitted that the defendant’s husband name was corrected in descriptive particulars of Ex.A1. Pw1 further admitted that the defendant’s initial i.e. S is absent in her signature near the correction. It is pertinent to say here that on perusal of ExA1 it appears that the alleged signature of the defendant in ExA1 and the signature near correction in ExA1 are different. Further, the plaintiff did not plead about the said correction made in Ex.A1.

(iii)As per the plaintiff Pw2 signed as a witness in ExA1. Pw2 in his chief affidavit stated that the defendant and her husband were present at the time of preparing agreement, that by the time plaintiff 30/10/2023 4 OS. No.180/2012 asked scribe to write the defendant’s name as vendor he already wrote defendant’s husband name and then scribe corrected and wrote the defendant’s name. In contrary, during cross examination Pw2 stated that the defendant’s husband Krishnaiah was present at the time of agreement and that the defendant was not present at the time of Ex.A1.

Later, Pw2 also narrated that the defendant’s husband pursued the matter, that Sanjeev Reddy prepared Ex.A1 and the defendant’s husband and Pw1 signed in it and further when they noticed that pass book is in the name of defendant she was called there and the amount was given to her, however the same is not mentioned in Ex.A1. He also admitted that there is a correction in ExA1. In contrary to the contents of his affidavit, Pw2 also stated that when the defendant came the said correction was made. Thus, there is material contradiction with regard to presence of the defendant at the time of transaction.

(iv)Further, it is pertinent to say here that in ExA1 T.Venkat

Reddy s/o Sanjeeva Reddy signed as a witness. Whereas in chief affidavit of Pw2 his father’s name is mentioned as Sandhi Reddy. Date of ExA1 is 31.03.2007. Whereas Pw2 stated that he does real estate business and that on 10.10.2007 when he was on road at Bhoothpur

Pw1 came and enquired him for purchasing of land. In such circumstances, it is opined that the evidence of Pw2 can not be relied upon.

(v)Further, as per Pw1 second signature in last portion of first page in Ex.A1 belongs to the defendant’s husband. During cross examination when ExA1 is confronted to Dw1 she identified her husband signature in ExA1, but specifically denied that it bears her signature. As per the plaintiff Sanjeeva Reddy is scribe of ExA1. Initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove the transaction under ExA1. It is evident that there is correction in ExA1. In spite of defendant’s specific plea of material alteration, the plaintiff did not choose to get examine scribe of ExA1. Furthermore, during cross examination Dw1 was 30/10/2023 5 OS. No.180/2012 suggested by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that on 31.03.2007

Pw1 entered into an agreement under Ex.A1 in the presence of her husband and she stated that she does not know the same. She further stated that she does not know about the transaction nor received any amount from the plaintiff. Dw1 specifically stated that her husband looked after the transaction under Ex.A1. However, she also stated that she did not sign in Ex.A1.

(vi)As per ExA1 C.Venkat reddy is another witness to the transaction. Descriptive particulars of the witness are not mentioned in

Ex.A1. During cross examination it is elicited from Dw2 that his surname is Challa and that there are five people with the same name of Challa

Venkat Reddy in their village. He did not sign in Ex.A1. Further, he stated that he does not know the details of C.Venkat Reddy referred in

Ex.A1.

(vii) It is elicited from Pw1 that he did not obtain any pass book or title deed of the defendant at the time of entering agreement under

Ex.A1. Really if the plaintiff came to know that the property stood in the name of the defendant during transaction under ExA1, he would have been prudent and got copy of pass book or title deed of the defendant.

In view of all the above facts and circumstances and in the absence of reliable evidence to prove the transaction under ExA1, it is held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the transaction under ExA1 is true. Further, there is no cogent evidence that specific correction was made at the time of transaction. Accordingly, issue no.2and3 are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.

8.Issue no.1: (i)The defendant’s specific plea is that the plaintiff’s claim is barred by limitation. The date of transaction under ExA1 is 31.03.2007. The plaintiff contends that he was always ready to perform his part of contract but the defendant failed to comply the condition of getting survey. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that time 30/10/2023 6 OS. No.180/2012 is not the essence of the contract and that the plaintiff was ready to perform his part of contract but the defendant evaded to perform her part of contract.

(ii)As per the plaintiff he got issue notice dated 28.06.2012 under ExA2 demanding the defendant to return due amount, but even after receiving ExA2 she did not repay the due amount. He produced acknowledgment card i.e. ExA3. It is pertinent to say here that the plaintiff failed to produce any postal receipt that ExA2 was sent.

Further, during cross examination Pw1 stated that he does not know whether the defendant received Ex.A2.

(iii)Further, on perusal of ExA1 it appears that there is a specific condition between the parties that the vendee must get measure the land and fix boundary stones and further on receiving balance sale consideration, register the property prior to 10.10.2007. In view of the said stipulation, the plaintiff ought to have claimed within three years from the date of 10.10.2007. In view of the said specific date of stipulation, it is opined that the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the time is not the essence of contract is untenable. It seems the plaintiff brought ExA2 in order to claim the suit amount. In view of all the above, it is held that the plaintiff’s claim is barred by limitation. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.

9. Issue no.4: As per the plaintiff he paid Rs.50,000/- to the defendant at the time of entering in to transaction under ExA1. The defendant contends that there is no clause of refund in ExA1. Vendee can not at the same time affirm the contract by retaining benefits and rescind contract by repudiating burden. However, there is no reliable evidence that the plaintiff paid Rs.50,000/- to the defendant at the time of entering transaction under ExA1. In view of the answers given to issue no.1to3, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim amount 30/10/2023 7 OS. No.180/2012 as sought for. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.

In view of the answer given to issue no.1to4 and in view of facts and circumstances, it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief as sought for. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.

11. In the result, this suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of October, 2023.

Sd/-

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Plaintiff: PW1.Puram Ramesh PW2.T.Venkat Reddy

Defendants: DW1.Smt. Kousalya DW2.C.Venkat Reddy :EXHIBITS MARKED:

Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 Agreement of sale dated:31.03.2007. Ex.A2 Copy of legal notice dated: 28.06.2012. Ex.A3 Postal Acknowledgment.

Defendants: - NIL -

Sd/-

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::MAHABUBNAGAR

Present: Smt. Chiranji Ashalatha, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.

O.S.No. 37 of 2015

Between:

Smt. K.Zelophehad W/o. Late Gnanaprakash, aged: 50 years, Occ:Teacher, R/o. H.No. 13-136/1, Kaverammapet(Jadcherla), Mahabubnagar District.

...Plaintiff

And

Smt. K.Anitha W/o.Late Anilkumar, aged: 45 years, Occ:Govt. Servant r/o. H.No. 8-3-17/3, Door no. E/2, 1st floor, teachers colony, Mahabubnagar.

... Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Narappa, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri U.SathyaSheel, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

****

Order:31-10-2023

Perused. Ample adjournments were given to the plaintiff to adduce evidence. But the plaintiff failed to proceed with the matter. Plaintiff called absent. No representation till 04.45Pm. It seems the plaintiff has no interest to proceed with matter. Hence, suit is dismissed for default.

Give under my hand and seal of the court on this the 31st day of October, 2023.

Sd/-

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE::MAHABUBNAGAR

Present: Smt. Chiranji Ashalatha, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.

O.S.No. 35 of 2018

Between:

Smt. K. Laxmi W/o. Shivashanker Reddy, aged: 48 years, R/o. B.S.N.Reddy complex, Rajendranagar, Mahabubnagar.

...Plaintiff

And

K.Balraju S/o. K.Maraiah, aged: Major, Occ:Business, R/o. H.No. 6-1-86/B/18, Ganeshnagar Near Prathibha High School, Mahabubnagar.

... Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Srinivas Chary, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri B.Balagangadhar Reddy, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

****

Order:30-10-2023

Plaintiff’s counsel filed memo stating that the matter is settled out of court. In view of the same, suit is dismissed as withdrawn..

Give under my hand and seal of the court on this the 30th day of October, 2023.

Sd/-

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE::MAHABUBNAGAR

Present: Smt. Chiranji Ashalatha, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.

O.S.No. 38 of 2018

Between:

K.Shivashanker Reddy S/o.K.Bal Reddy, aged:55 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. B.S.N.Reddy Complex, Rajendranagar,Mahabubnagar Town.

...Plaintiff

And

K.Balraju S/o. K.Maraiah, aged: Major, Occ:Business, R/o. H.No. 6-1-86/B/18, Ganeshnagar Near Prathibha High School, Mahabubnagar.

... Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Srinivas Chary, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri B.Balagangadhar Reddy, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

****

Order:30-10-2023

Plaintiff present and filed memo stating that matter settled out of court. In view of the same, suit is dismissed as withdrawn.

Give under my hand and seal of the court on this the 30th day of October, 2023.

Sd/-

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.