Sri. D. Ajay Kumar

CC No.149/2013, AJFCM, Jangaon

Dt: 13.1.2020

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: JANGAON

Present: Sri Devan Ajay Kumar, Judicial First Class Magistrate

Monday, the 13th day of January, 2020

CALENDER CASE NO. 149 OF 2013

Between:

The State of Telangana through the Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Cherial (Cr. No.16 of 2013) … Complainant AND

Tadkapally Yellaiah, s/o. Balaiah, 35 years, RTC Driver, r/o. Arjunpatal village of Maddur Mandal.

...Accused

-o0o- This case coming on 06.01.2020 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Naga Raju, Ld. Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the state, and of Sri. B.Manohar, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Sole accused is prosecuted for the ofence under Sections 498-A of Indian

Penal Code (In short IPC), and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (In

Short D.P.Act).

2.PW1/Tadkapally Swapna is the de-facto complainant and the wife of the accused. PW2/Thummalapally Sanjevulu is the village elder and

PW3/G.Babulal is the Invesigating ofcer.

3.The marriage of PW1 was solemnized with the accused on 02.06.2010 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that Rs.50,000/-, 3 tulas of Gold and Rs.40,000/- worth house hold articles towards dowry. They lived happily for (6) months and thereby disputes arose between. It is alleged that accused started harassing her mentally and physically for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the accused has developed illegal intimacy with Amroju Balaxmi, and they both are harassing her. The matter was placed before the village elders, but there was no change in his attitue.

Having no other alternative, on 24.01.2013 she lodged her report report

before PW3.

Page No.1 of 6

CC No.149/2013, AJFCM, Jangaon

Dt: 13.1.2020

4.Basing on the written report, PW3 has registered a case in Cr. No. 16/2012, for the ofence under Section 498-A, 323, 506 of I.P.C., and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act., and took up the investigation. He has recorded the 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW1 at police station. Initially crime was registered against the accused and Amroju Balalaxmi, and basing on the statements of PW2, and other witnesses, the involvment of Amroju Balalaxmi was ruled out, and hence her name was deleted from charge sheet. On 11.2.2013, the accused was arrested and sent to judicial remand. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid down.

5.Cognizance was taken for the ofence under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 of

IPC., and 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. On appearance of the accused, copies required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., was furnished and they were examined. Charge under Section 498-A, of IPC, and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, and as he has pleaded not guilty, the case came up for trial, wherein the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and exhibited P1 and PW2, in detail mentioned in the appendix of evidence. The evidence of LW2/B.Kistamma, LW3/B.Pochaiah,

LW4/S.Narsimhulu was given up by the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor (In short Ld. APP). Thereafter the statement of accused was recorded U/sec.313

Cr.P.C., and his case is of total denial and he did not choose to produce any evidence.

6.Heard the Ld. APP., and the Ld. Defence counsel. Perused the material on record. The learned APP has argued that; 6.1.The evidence of PW1 is consistent with Ex.P1. Her evidence shows that accused is leading immoral life with Amroju Balalaxmi. Her evidence further estabslishes about the intimidation caused by the accused.

6.2.PW2, the panchayat elder spoke about holding of panchayat and about the illegal intimacy of the accused.

6.3.PW3 spoke about the investigation. He was cross-examined with regard to the jurisdication. As per the ratio laid down in Roopali

Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, Criminal No.

71/201, the Three bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has expressed that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account

Page No.2 of 6

CC No.149/2013, AJFCM, Jangaon

Dt: 13.1.2020

of acts of cruelty committed by the husband would also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of ofence under Section 498A of IPC. Even otherwise defective investigation is not a ground to disbelieve the entire prosecution story.

7.Per contra the Ld. defence counsel has criticized the prosecution case on the following ground; 7.1.PW1 did not state the specifc overacts of harassment. Her marriage took place in the year 2010 and the present case is fled in the year 2013 when she was residing with her parents. If really disputes took place between her and her husband, she would have immediately lodged her report.

7.2.The evidence with regard to giving of dowry is not clear. In 161

Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 there is no demand of additional dowry, which suggest that a bare allegation is made. Accused is employed and earning sufcient, and he has no requirment of additional dowry.

7.3.A panchayat is said to be held before PW2 and other village elders.

PW2 in his 161 Cr.P.C., statement does not state about the illegal intimacy of the accused. Panchayat is held in the presence of both the parties and their family members. The place and the names of the village elders are not mentioned in Ex.P1 and in the 161 Cr.P.C., statements, which suggest that a bare allegation is made. There are several omissions in his evidence, and hence his evidence cannot be relied upon.

7.4.PW3 did not examine the neighbours of Maddur village where PW1 used to reside with the accused. Only on a suspicion the present case is foisted. The person with whom accused is alleged to have illicit relationship, i.e, Amroju Balalaxmi is aged 50 years. As the accused has not father, whe has performed her marriage. She residing with the accused. Hence, the allegation made against the accused is baseless.

7.5.With regard to the allegation of 323 of I.Pc., there is no evidence.

The date of ofence is not mentioned.

Page No.3 of 6

CC No.149/2013, AJFCM, Jangaon

Dt: 13.1.2020

8.In reply, the Ld. APP would content that illicit relationship does to attract section 494 of IPC. Ofence under Section 498-A of IPC is a continuing ofence, and hence date and events are not required. Accused is charged for the ofence under Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, and the burden is on him to produce rebuttal evidence.

9.Now the points for determination are: 1) Whether PW1 was harassed and subjected to cruelty by A2 to A5 and thereby committed an ofence under Section 498-A of I.P.C.? Whether on 19.04.2011, all the accused have beat PW1 and theatned her with dire consequences?

10.POINT NO-1 AND 2: The prosecution case is that the accused used to harass PW1 for additiional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and has developed illicit relationship with Amroju Bala Laxmi and they both harassed her for

additional dowry. On the other hand, the case set up by the accused is that

Amroju Bala Laxmi is her sister and as he has got no father, she has performed his marriage. She is aged 50 years and her daughter is also married and begot childrens. On suspicion PW1 has fled the present case.

11.In criminal trial, the burden is also on the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the accused need not prove his case. It is sufcient for him to create a doubt in the prosecution story.

However he can establish his case by producing positive or negative evidence. The standard of proof is prepondarance of probabilities.

12.By applying the above prepositions, I have perused the entire material on record and found that PW1 has come up with Ex.P1 only on a suspicion that the accused has developed illicit relationship with Amroju Bala Laxmi.

13.Initially FIR was registered against the accused and Amroju Bala Laxmi.

PW3, basing on the 161 Cr.P.C., statements of PW2 and other witnesses has ruled out the involvement of Amroju Bala Laxmi and deleted her name from the charge sheet. But, suprisingly PW2 has spoke that a panchayat was held in their village and in the said panchayat a allegation is made that the accused has developed illegal intimacy with the said Lady. This is a improved version of PW2. He did not state the said fact in his 161 Cr.P.C., statement. Apart from this the evidence with regard to holding of panchayat is not convincing.

Page No.4 of 6

CC No.149/2013, AJFCM, Jangaon

Dt: 13.1.2020

14.From the evidence of PW1 and PW2 it is understood that in the panchayat only the elders of PW1 were present. PW1 claims that no resolution was passed in the panchayat but whereaas PW2 states that resolutation was passed. In Ex.P1 the names of the village elders and the place of holding the panchayat was not mentioned. All the above circumstances clearly suggest that no panchayat was held as claimed by the prosecution.

15.From the evidence of PW1 it is elicited that the accused has no father and

Amroju Bala Laxmi has performed their marriage. She is aged about 50 years and has got threee childrens and her daughter is married and begot children. Ex.P1 shows that the husband of Amroju Bala Laxmi is residing at

Dubai and she is residing with the accused. From the above evidence it is understood that Amroju Bala Laxmi is relative of the accused. As the accused has no parents her marriage was performed by her. She is nearly 50 years and got childrens. There is no evidence to show that the accused is leading immoral life with the said Lady. Admitedly, the neighbours of the accused are not examined. No instances are brought on record to support the said allegations. Thus, this court holds that merely on a suspicion, PW1 has left the company of her husband and living with her parents.

16.With regard to demand of additional dowry, even this allegation is found without any basis. The specifc overtacts of accused is not mentioned Ex.P1.

There are several omission and discrepencies in the evidence of PW1 and

PW2. Accused is a RTC employee and there was no requirement for him to demand additional dowry.

17.PW1 claims that Rs.50,000/- cash, 03 tulas of Gold, and Rs.40,000/- worth household articles were given to the accused. PW1 was cross-examined to show that her parents have got no capacity to give dowry. From the evidence of PW1 it is emerged that the parents of PW1 are coolies and they have four daughters and one son. They have got no agricultural land. In

Indian culture, marriage is a important part of life. The parents save their hard earned money to perform their daughters marriage. The cash, gold and the house hold articules said to be given to the accused is not huge. Prior to the marriage, PW1 and accused are not related to each other. In these circumstances, it can be assumed that dowry was given to the accused at the time of his marriage. Even in these circumstances, accused cannot be convicted for the ofence under Section 3 o D.P.Act. As per Rule (5) Clause

Page No.5 of 6

CC No.149/2013, AJFCM, Jangaon

Dt: 13.1.2020

(c) and Rule 10 of A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, a complaint for the ofence

U/Sec.3, 4 and 6 of D.P.Act, shall be fled within one year from the date of giving or demanding of dowry. The above rule is mandatory and prescribes the period of limitation. In the instance case, the marriage was solemnized in the year 2010, and Ex.P1 is fled in the year 2013. Hence, conviction for the ofence under Sec.3 of D.P.Act., cannot be sustained. With regard to the ofence under section 323 and 506 of IPC., there is no evidence on record.

PW1 did not speak about any incidence.

18.For the foregoing discussions, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and hence accused is entitled for acquittal.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the ofence under Section 498-A, 323 and 506 of IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said ofence under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall be extended for six months in view of Sec.437 Cr.P.C.

Note: No case property is involved, and hence no property order is passed.

(Typed by me on Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of January, 2020).

Sd/xxxx

ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

JANGAON

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW.1: P.Swapna-None- PW.2: Y. Sanjeevulu PW.3: G. Babu Lal

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1: Report of PW1 -Nil- Ex.P2: First Information Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL- Sd/xxxx

ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

JANGAON

Page No.6 of 6

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: JANGAON

Present: Sri Devan Ajay Kumar, Judicial First Class Magistrate

Friday, the 17th day of January, 2019

CALENDER CASE NO. 255 OF 2012

Between:

The State of Telangana through the Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Palakurthy. (Cr. No.64 of 2012) … Complainant AND

1. Sudida Yellaiah, s/o. Agamallu, 40 years,

2. Sudida Yakaiah, s/o Lingaiah, 42 years,

3. Sudida Ramesh, s/o. Komuraiah, 26 years,

4. Sudida Yakaiah, s/o Yadagiri, 25 years, All belong to Golla Community and are residents of Vavilala village

...Accused

-o0o- This case coming on 06.12.2019 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Naga Raju, Ld. Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the state, and of Sri. K. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for the accused No.1 to 5 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused No-1 to 4 (In short A1 to A4) are prosecuted for the ofence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (In short IPC).

2.PW1/Thati Ramulu is Sub-Engineer with APNPDCL, Palakurthy. On 27.05.2012 he lodged a written report before th Asst. Sub-Inspector of

Police, P.S. Palakurthy, M.Ram Reddy/PW3 alleging that on the intervening night of 25.05.2012, some unknown ofenders have stole the aluminum electric wires between two electic poles, situated at Machuppula village worth Rs.2,000/-.

3.Basing on a said report, PW3 has registered a case in Cr. N.64/2012, under

Section 379 of IPC., and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, at the police station he has recorded the 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW1. From there he has visited the scene of ofence, situated at Eeravenu village and prepared a crime detail form in the presence of mediators, LW.4-Banoth Chandra Banu, LW5/Banoth Ramu. While the investigation was in progress, on 12.07.2012, the Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Palakurthy, V.Cheralu/PW4 has arrested all the accused herein with gunny bags near Durgamma Temple of Thorror Road, Vavilala village. On

CC No.255-2012, AJFCM, Jangaon,

Dt: 17.01.2020

interrogation, all the accused have confessed about the comission of the ofence on hand and the ofence in Cr. No.84/2012 of P.S.

Palakurthy. 28 Kgs of Aluminum wires were recovered from their possession in the presence of the medatiors, LW6/Ranga Ramesh and

PW2/Pogu Raju. After completion of the arrest formalities, accused were remanded to judicial remand. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid down.

4.Cognizance was taken for the ofences under Section 379 of the IPC.

On appearance of all the accused, copies required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., was furnished and they were examined. Charges under

Section 379 of the IPC was framed, and as all the accused have pleaded not guilty, the case came up for trial, wherein the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and exhibited P1 to P4 apart from MO1, in detail mentioned in the appendix of evidence.

5.The evidence of LW.2-Banoth yakub, LW.3-Bhukya Ravi, LW.4-Banoth

Chandra Bhanu, LW.5-Banoth Ramu, LW.6-Ranga Ramesh was given up by the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor (In short Ld. APP). Thereafter the statements of accused was recorded U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., and their case is of total denial and they did not choose to produce any evidence.

6.Heard the Ld. APP., and the Ld.Defence counsel. Perused the material on record. The learned APP would argued that:

6.1.PW1 is a public servant and after coming to know about the incidence, he lodged his report/Ex.P1.

6.2.PW2 is the mediators for the confession-cum-recovery of the stolen property. He categorically spoke about the confession and recovery of MO1.

6.3.PW3 is the 1st investigating ofcer and he spoke about the investigation. PW4 is the Sub-Inspector of Police and he has recovered MO1 and other stolen propery from the accused in the presence of PW2. He coorabrated PW2 in all material aspects. Hence recovery of MO1 is proved.

7.Per contra the Ld. defence counsel has criticized the prosecution case on the following grounds;

Page No.2 of 7

CC No.255-2012, AJFCM, Jangaon,

Dt: 17.01.2020

7.1.There is a delay in lodging FIR. LW2 is not exmained to prove that he has informed about the ofence to PW1. Crime detail mediators are not examined to prove the crime scene.

7.2.The lineman and Line inspector, who are responsible for electric poles and transformers are not examined. They have got frst hand information about the ofence. Hence a doubt arose whether really any incidence took place as naratted by the prosecution.

7.3.There is a contradiction in the evidence of PW1. In his chief examination he deposed that 280 mts of aluminiuum wire was stolen and in his cross examination he deposed that the distance between the transformer and the pole is 50 mts.

There is a discrepency in the lenght of the wire.

7.4.The evidence of PW2 and PW4 with regard to recovery of MO1, was challenged by pointing out contradictions. The evidence of

PW2 shows that the distance between the place of seizure and

Palakurthy village is 8-10 Kms He received the information to act as a mediator at 8.00 A.M., and within no time he reached the place. According to him, there were 4 police constables and 10-15 villagers present during the seizure proceedings but whereas PW4 deposed that 3 police constables and no villagers were present. It was conteded that no panchanama was prepared at Durgamma Temple of Thorror village, Vavilala village. It was further conteded that there is non-compliance of 100 (4) Cr.P.C. In support, Ld.counsel relied upon the decision,

Mustkeem @ Sirajudden Vs. State of Rajastan, 2011 (2)

ALD (Crl) 965 (SC); Gandham Ravi Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh, 2014 (2) ALD (Crl)248.

8.Now the points for determination are: 1) Whether on 23-07-2012 some unknown ofenders have stole aluminium wire from the poles situated at Gudukunta Thanda? 2) Whether on 12.07.2012, the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused near

Durgamma Temple of Thorror Raod, Vavilala village?

Page No.3 of 7

CC No.255-2012, AJFCM, Jangaon,

Dt: 17.01.2020

9.POINT NO-1 & 2: As both these points are interconnected with each other, and in order to avoid repetition of evidence, they are taken up simultaneously.

10.I have perused the entire material on record. The evidence of PW1 with regard to commission of ofence by some unknown ofender is found convincing. The incidence took place on the intervening night of 25.05.2012 and after confmation of the incidence, on 27.05.2012,

Ex.P1 was lodged. It is true that both the lineman and the line

Inspector, who are responsible for maitaining the poles and the transformers are not examined, but in my view the said omission is not fatal. It is not a circumstances to doubt the evidence of PW1. FIR is promptly lodged. After receipt of the information with regard to the ofence, on the same day evening PW1 has visited the scene of ofence and on the next day he has lodged his report/Ex.P1. He is a public servant and he has got no animosity to speak falsehood. Hence, this court holds that on 25.05.2012 some unknown ofenders have stolen aluminium wife of electric pole, situated at Gudikunta Thanda.

11.Coming to confession and seizure panchanama, Ex.P2 basing on which the entire prosecution story rest upon. According to the prosecution, on 12.07.2012, PW4 has received credible information about the movement of the accused and accordingly proceeded near Durgamma temple of Vavilala village and apprehended the accused with gunny bags. Later he has secured the mediators, PW2 and in their presence the gunny bags were verifed and aluminium wires were recovered.

MO1 is the four gunny bags of aluminium wires recovered from the accused.

12.No doubt, both PW2 and PW4 have spoke consistenly with regard to the confession and seizure of MO1 from the accused. But, in my view the mandatory formalities of search and seizure as stipulated under

Section 100 and 165 of Cr.P.C. are not complied.

13.As per Section 100 (4) of PW4 was required to secure two local inhabitants of the locality to witnesses the search and seizure proceedings. This is to ensure that the investigation is fairly conducted.

The afect of non-compliance of the above procedure is discussed in cantena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. (See:

Page No.4 of 7

CC No.255-2012, AJFCM, Jangaon,

Dt: 17.01.2020

Narender and Etc., V. State, 2009 CRLJ 3613; State Of Punjab

vs Balbir Singh, 1994 AIR 1872; Karnail Singh V. State of

Punjab, 1983 CRLJ 1218). The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has expressed that Bona Fide non-compliance of provisions of Sec.100 (4) and 165 of Cr.P.C., would amount to an irregularity and does not vitiate the entire search proceedings.

14.In the instant matter certain material is elicted from the cross- examination of PW2 and PW4, which estabslishes that there is wilful non-compliance of Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. There is also an ambiguity with regard to holding Ex.P2 proceedings at Durgamma Temple in the presence of PW2.

15.The mediators secured by PW4, i.e., PW2 and another mediators are public servants. During the particular period of conducting Ex.P2 they were residing at Palakurthy village, which is Eight Kms away from the place of seizure. As per the evidence of PW2, about 10-15 villagers were present when Ex.P2 was prepared, but whereas accordingly to

PW4 no villagers were present. Here a doubt arose with regard to holding Ex.P2 proceedings at Durgamma Temple. Be it as it is.

16.PW4 did not secure local inhabitants of Vavilala village. Instead he has secured PW2 and another mediators who are government ofcials, always available on his call. This is another circumstances which creates doubts in the prosecution story. It is not the case of PW4 that independent mediators have refused to act as mediators or he had no sufcient time to secure them. The conduct of PW4 in securing only public servants as mediators is found doutful. Thus, this court holds that there is wilful non-compliance of section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., and the same is fatal to the prosecution.

17.According to Ex.P2, about 45 days prior to Ex.P2, all the accused have commited an ofence and have equally distributed the wires and kept it in their possession. Again about Seven days back, they have commited an ofence in the felds of Md. Sakeer, and wires were equally distributed and left to their house. On 12.07.2012, they have gathered near Durgamma Temple, waiting for public transport, to proceed to sell the stolen properties but they were caught. It is appropriate to mention that confession statement has to assessed as some other evidence.

Page No.5 of 7

CC No.255-2012, AJFCM, Jangaon,

Dt: 17.01.2020

The above confession statement made by all the accused is found unnatural. Accused have commited the ofence to meat their monetary requirements. They would not have stored the stolen properties with they for several days. Even they would not have come out in the brought day light to be noticed by the general public. This is yet another circumstances to doubt the prosecution story.

18.For the foregoing discussions, this court holds that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly all the accused are entitled for acquittal.

19.In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the ofence under

Section 379 of the IPC., and accordingly, they are acquitted for the said ofence under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall be extended for six months in view of Sec.437 Cr.P.C.

Note: MO1, which is unclaimed shall be, after expiry of appeal period sold in public auction and the sales proceedes shall be confsicated to the state.

Typed by me on my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of January, 2020.

Sd/xxxx

ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

JANGAON

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1: T. Ramulu -None- PW.2: P.Raju PW.3: M.Ram Reddy PW4: V.Cheralu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Report of PW1 Ex.P2: Confession cum seizure panchanama dt. 12.07.202 Ex.P3: First Information Report Ex.P4: Crime detail form

FOR DEFENCE: NIL.

Page No.6 of 7

CC No.255-2012, AJFCM, Jangaon,

Dt: 17.01.2020

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

MO-1 :Four bags of Aluminium wires

Sd/xxxx

ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

JANGAON

Page No.7 of 7

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: JANGAON

Present: Sri Devan Ajay Kumar, Judicial First Class Magistrate

Friday, the 17th day of January, 2019

CALENDER CASE NO. 257 OF 2012

Between:

The State of Telangana through the Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Palakurthy. (Cr. No.84 of 2012) … Complainant AND

1. Sudida Yellaiah, s/o. Agamallu, 40 years,

2. Sudida Yakaiah, s/o Lingaiah, 42 years,

3. Sudida Ramesh, s/o. Komuraiah, 26 years,

4. Sudida Yakaiah, s/o Yadagiri, 25 years, All belong to Golla Community and are residents of Vavilala village

...Accused

-o0o- This case coming on 06.12.2019 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Naga Raju, Ld. Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the state, and of Sri. K. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for the accused No.1 to 5 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused No-1 to 4 (In short A1 to A4) are prosecuted for the ofence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (In short IPC).

2.PW1/Pentala Venkanna is Lineman with APNPDCL, Palakurthy. On 09.07.2012 he lodged a written report before th Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.

Palakurthy, M.Ram Reddy/PW3 alleging that on the intervening night of 08.07.2012, some unknown ofenders have stole the aluminum electric wires between two electic poles, situated at Vavilala village worth

Rs.8,000/-.

3.Basing on a said report, PW3 has registered a case in Cr. N.84/2012, under

Section 379 of IPC., and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, at the police station he has recorded the 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW1. From there he has visited the scene of ofence, situated at Vavilala village and prepared a crime detail form in the presence of mediators, LW.3-Medida Venkanna and LW4-Gajji Srinivas. While the investigation was in progress, on 12.07.2012, the Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Palakurthy, V.Cheralu/PW4 has arrested all the accused herein with gunny bags near Durgamma Temple of Thorror Road, Vavilala village. On

CC No.257-2012, AJFCM, Jangaon,

Dt: 17.01.2020

interrogation, all the accused have confessed about the comission of the ofence on hand and the ofence in Cr. No. 64/2012 of P.S.

Palakurthy. 28 Kgs of Aluminum wires were recovered from their possession in the presence of the medatiors, LW6/Ranga Ramesh and

PW2/Pogu Raju. After completion of the arrest formalities, accused were remanded to judicial remand. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid down.

4.Cognizance was taken for the ofences under Section 379 of the IPC.

On appearance of all the accused, copies required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., was furnished and they were examined. Charge under

Section 379 of the IPC was framed, and as all the accused have pleaded not guilty, the case came up for trial, wherein the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and exhibited P1 to P4 apart from MO1, in detail mentioned in the appendix of evidence.

5.The evidence of LW.2-Md. Fakeer, LW.3-Medida Venkanna, LW.4-Gajji

Srinivas, LW.5-Ranga Ramesh was given up by the learned Asst. Public

Prosecutor (In short Ld. APP). Thereafter the statements of accused was recorded U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., and their case is of total denial and they did not choose to produce any evidence.

6.Heard the Ld. APP., and the Ld.Defence counsel. Perused the material on record. The learned APP would argued that:

6.1.PW1 is a public servant and after coming to know about the incidence, he lodged his report/Ex.P1.

6.2.PW2 is the mediators for the confession-cum-recovery of the stolen property. He categorically spoke about the confession and recovery of MO1.

6.3.PW3 is the 1st investigating ofcer and he spoke about the investigation. PW4 is the Sub-Inspector of Police and he has recovered MO1 and other stolen propery from the accused in the presence of PW2. He corroborated PW2 in all material aspects. Hence recovery of MO1 is proved.

7.Per contra the Ld. defence counsel has criticized the prosecution case on the following grounds;

Page No.2 of 7

CC No.257-2012, AJFCM, Jangaon,

Dt: 17.01.2020

7.1.There is a delay in lodging FIR. LW2 is not exmained to prove that he has informed about the ofence to PW1. Crime detail mediators are not examined to prove the crime scene.

7.2.The Assistant Engineer and Line inspector, who are responsible for electric poles and transformers are not examined. They have got frst hand information about the ofence. Hence a doubt arose whether really any incidence took place as naratted by the prosecution.

7.3.There is a contradiction in the evidence of PW1. In his chief examination he deposed that 280 mts of aluminiuum wire was stolen and in his cross examination he deposed that the distance between the transformer and the pole is 50 mts.

There is a discrepency in the lenght of the wire.

7.4.The evidence of PW2 and PW4 with regard to recovery of MO1, was challenged by pointing out contradictions. The evidence of

PW2 shows that the distance between the place of seizure and

Palakurthy village is 8-10 Kms He received the information to act as a mediator at 10.00 A.M., and within no time he reached the place. According to him, there were 4 police constables and 10-15 villagers present during the seizure proceedings but whereas PW4 deposed that 3 police constables and no villagers were present. It was conteded that no panchanama was prepared at Durgamma Temple of Thorror village, Vavilala village. It was further conteded that there is non-compliance of 100 (4) Cr.P.C. In support, Ld.counsel relied upon the decision,

Mustkeem @ Sirajudden Vs. State of Rajastan, 2011 (2)

ALD (Crl) 965 (SC); Gandham Ravi Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh, 2014 (2) ALD (Crl)248.

8.Now the points for determination are: 1) Whether on 08-07-2012 some unknown ofenders have stole aluminium wire from the poles situated at Gudukunta Thanda? 2) Whether on 12.07.2012, the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused near

Durgamma Temple of Thorror Raod, Vavilala village?

Page No.3 of 7

CC No.257-2012, AJFCM, Jangaon,

Dt: 17.01.2020

9.POINT NO-1 & 2: As both these points are interconnected with each other, and in order to avoid repetition of evidence, they are taken up simultaneously.

10.I have perused the entire material on record. The evidence of PW1 with regard to commission of ofence by some unknown ofender is found convincing. The incidence took place on the intervening night of 08.07.2012 and after confmation of the incidence, on 09.07.2012,

Ex.P1 was lodged. It is true that both the lineman and the line

Inspector, who are responsible for maitaining the poles and the transformers are not examined, but in my view the said omission is not fatal. It is not a circumstances to doubt the evidence of PW1. FIR is promptly lodged. After receipt of the information with regard to the ofence, on the same day evening PW1 has visited the scene of ofence and on the next day he has lodged his report/Ex.P1. He is a public servant and he has got no animosity to speak falsehood. Hence, this court holds that on 08.07.2012 some unknown ofenders have stolen aluminium wire of electric pole, situated at Vavilala village.

11.Coming to confession and seizure panchanama, Ex.P2 basing on which the entire prosecution story rest upon. According to the prosecution, on 12.07.2012, PW4 has received credible information about the movement of the accused and accordingly proceeded near Durgamma temple of Vavilala village and apprehended the accused with gunny bags. Later he has secured the mediators, PW2 and in their presence the gunny bags were verifed and aluminium wires were recovered.

MO1 is the four gunny bags of aluminium wires recovered from the accused.

12.No doubt, both PW2 and PW4 have spoke consistenly with regard to the confession and seizure of MO1 from the accused. But, in my view the mandatory formalities of search and seizure as stipulated under

Section 100 and 165 of Cr.P.C. are not complied.

13.As per Section 100 (4) of PW4 was required to secure two local inhabitants of the locality to witnesses the search and seizure proceedings. This is to ensure that the investigation is fairly conducted.

The afect of non-compliance of the above procedure is discussed in cantena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. (See:

Page No.4 of 7

CC No.257-2012, AJFCM, Jangaon,

Dt: 17.01.2020

Narender and Etc., V. State, 2009 CRLJ 3613; State Of Punjab

vs Balbir Singh, 1994 AIR 1872; Karnail Singh V. State of

Punjab, 1983 CRLJ 1218). The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has expressed that Bona Fide non-compliance of provisions of Sec.100 (4) and 165 of Cr.P.C., would amount to an irregularity and does not vitiate the entire search proceedings.

14.In the instant matter certain material is elicited from the cross- examination of PW2 and PW4, which estabslishes that there is wilful non-compliance of Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. There is also an ambiguity with regard to holding Ex.P2 proceedings at Durgamma Temple in the presence of PW2.

15.The mediators secured by PW4, i.e., PW2 and another mediators are public servants. During the particular period of conducting Ex.P2 they were residing at Palakurthy village, which is Eight Kms away from the place of seizure. As per the evidence of PW2, about 10-15 villagers were present when Ex.P2 was prepared, but whereas accordingly to

PW4 no villagers were present. Here a doubt arose with regard to holding Ex.P2 proceedings at Durgamma Temple. Be it as it is.

16.PW4 did not secure local inhabitants of Vavilala village. Instead he has secured PW2 and another mediators who are government ofcials, always available on his call. This is another circumstances which creates doubts in the prosecution story. It is not the case of PW4 that independent mediators have refused to act as mediators or he had no sufcient time to secure them. The conduct of PW4 in securing only public servants as mediators is found doutful. Thus, this court holds that there is wilful non-compliance of section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., and the same is fatal to the prosecution.

17.According to Ex.P2, about 45 days prior to Ex.P2, all the accused have commited an ofence and have equally distributed the wires and kept it in their possession. Again about Seven days back, they have commited an ofence in the felds of Md. Sakeer, and wires were equally distributed and left to their house. On 12.07.2012, they have gathered near Durgamma Temple, waiting for public transport, to proceed to sell the stolen properties but they were caught. It is appropriate to mention that confession statement has to assessed as some other evidence.

Page No.5 of 7

CC No.257-2012, AJFCM, Jangaon,

Dt: 17.01.2020

The above confession statement made by all the accused is found unnatural. Accused have commited the ofence to meat their monetary requirements. They would not have stored the stolen properties with they for several days. Even they would not have come out in the brought day light to be noticed by the general public. This is yet another circumstances to doubt the prosecution story.

18.For the foregoing discussions, this court holds that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly all the accused are entitled for acquittal.

19.In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the ofence under

Section 379 of the IPC., and accordingly, they are acquitted for the said ofence under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall be extended for six months in view of Sec.437 Cr.P.C.

Note: MO1, which is unclaimed shall be, after expiry of appeal period sold in public auction and the sales proceedes shall be confsicated to the state.

Typed by me on my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of January, 2020.

Sd/-xxxx

ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

JANGAON

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1: Pentala Venkanna -None- PW.2: P.Raju PW.3: M.Ram Reddy PW4: V.Cheralu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Report of PW1 Ex.P2: Confession cum seizure panchanama dt. 12.07.202 Ex.P3: First Information Report Ex.P4: Crime detail form

Page No.6 of 7

CC No.257-2012, AJFCM, Jangaon,

Dt: 17.01.2020

FOR DEFENCE: NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

MO-1 :Four bags of Aluminium wires

Sd/-xxxx

ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

JANGAON

Page No.7 of 7

OS No. 169/2014, PJC-JFCM, Jangoan,

Dt: 15-11-2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE: JANGAON

PRESENT: S RI . A JAY K UMAR D EVAN ,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon

Monday, this the 15th day of November, 2021

O.S.No. 169 / 2014

BETWEEN:

Akula Sravanthi, W/o Ramesh, aged about 34 years, Occupation: House-wife, R/o 6-1-41 (New), 6-1-34/C (old), Suryapet Road, Jangoan Town of Jangaon Revenue Mandal, Warangal District. …Plaintif

AND

1. Erugu Benjamin @ Bikshapathi, S/o Not known, Age: 56 years, Occupation: Business, R/o H.No. 6-1-34/A, Suryapet Road, Jangaon- 506167, Warangal District.

2. Erugu Williums, S/o Benjamin, Age: 26 years, Occupation: Govt. Doctor, R/o H.No. 6-1-34/A, Suryapet Road, Jangaon, Warangal District.

3. Bokka Prabhakar, S/o Prakasham, Age: 56 years, Occupation: Business, R/o H.No. 6-1-36/71, Suryapet Road, Jangaon of Warangal Distirct.

…Defendants -o0o- This suit is coming on 11-11-2021 before me for fnal hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri A. Bikshapathi, Advocate for the Plaintif and of Sri. V. Ram Gopal,Advocate for the defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a simple suit for perpetual Injunction.

2.The plaintif claims to be owner and possessor of house bearing

Municipal No. 6-1-34/C (old) 6-1-41(New) along with open place in 80.66 Sq.Yards of land, situated at Suryapet road, Jangaon Town and

Mandal, Warangal District (hereinafter referred to as “suit land”). She has purchased it from Gummadavelly Yadagiri under a sale deed, document No. 6402/2010, dated 30.09.2010 and since then in it’s exclusive possession. She along with her husband are running a business in the suit land under the name and style “Sowmya Iron and

Hardware Merchant”. The defendants are strangers to the suit land and they are trying to grab it. On 28-10-2014 by making false claims over the suit land they tried to dispossess the plaintif but the same was

Page No.1 of 5

OS No. 169/2014, PJC-JFCM, Jangoan,

Dt: 15-11-2021

resisted with the help of neighbors and well wishers. As there is a threat of interference the present suit is fled.

3.Written statement is fled by the defendant No.3 and it is adopted by other two defendants. According to them the vendor of the plaintif has got no right to execute sale deed in favor of the plaintif. In-fact these defendants are owner and possessors of suit land including the land on north and east, total to an extent of 560 Sq.Yards situated in Sy.No. 88.

The said land was allotted by the Mandal Revenue Ofcer, Jangaon, Sri.

R. Danamaiah to the vendor of the defendant in proceeding No.

A/4701/2000, to meet the needs of local christian community. Christian

Welfare Association of Baptist Church, Jangaon (registered No.

1420/1986) without any membership, resolution or minutes have created a registered gift deed, Doc.No.2702/2008, dated 27.05.2008 in favor of the vendor vendor’s of the plaintif, and it was done during the pendency of status quo order, dated 14.05.2005 passed in IA No.

291/2005 in OS No. 195/2003 fled by the defendants herein. Thus, the sale deed executed by Gummadavelli Yadagiri is void and illegal.

4.The vendor of the plaintif also fled a suit for injunction in OS No.

84/2010 for the suit land but it was dismissed on 29.08.2017. Without conducting any enquiry the municipal authorities have allotted house number to the suit land. On 10.03.2010, they have got issued a objection notice to the Municipal Commissioner, Jangaon to reject the application of the plantif seeking mutation of his name and for grant of building permission if any, but he failed to respond. In turn he has issued a notice to them in ROC No. H1/349/2010, dated 08.06.2010 stating that boundaries of the suit land and the land of the defendants are diferent. In-fact the municipal authorities have no authority to decide the title and interfere with the land disputes.

5.The defendants further submit that they formed a society for the betterment and upliftment of Dalith Christian and for their welfare, vide registration No. 1673/2001. The suit land is part and parcel of land alloted to the said society. When third parties tried to interfere with their land, OS No. 09/2010 was fled and injunction was obtained. The defendant’s society also obtained injunction against Sri. Kandula John, who is none other than President of the vendors’ vendor of the plaintif.

Page No.2 of 5

OS No. 169/2014, PJC-JFCM, Jangoan,

Dt: 15-11-2021

Thus the relief claimed by the plaintif is hit by the provisions of res- judicata and the suit is liable to be dismissed. There is no cause of action to fle the suit.

6.Basing on the above pleadings on 25-06-2018 following issues are settled for trial; 1) Whether the plaintif is in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of the fling of the suit and such possession threatened to be disposed by the defendants? 2) Whether the plaintif is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? 3) To what relief?

7.At trial the plaintif was examined as PW-1 and executed A1 to A12. Y.

Krishna Murthy was examined as PW-2. These witnesses were not cross examined. Against this, no oral or documentary evidence was produced by the defendants.

8.Issue No.1:-The plaintif claims to be owner and possessor of the suit land by virtue of a sale deed. Ex.A1 is the said sale deed and this document shows that it pertains to the suit land and as on the date of it’s execution there was a house in existence. Ex.A2 is miscellaneous receipt issued by Jangaon Municipality to the plaintif for H.No. 6-1-34/C i.e., the suit house. Ex.A3 is property tax receipt remitted by the plaintif for H.No. 6-1-41. Ex.A4 is miscellaneous receipt, dated 21.08.2010 paid to Jangaon Municipality by G. Yadagiri. Ex.A5 is miscellaneous receipt, dated 30.07.2012 paid to Jangaon municipality by plaintif for H.No.6-1-41. Ex.A6 is building permission obtained by G.

Yadagiri for 67.43 Sq.Yards of land in Sy.No. 88/C with house No. 6-1-

P972. Ex.A8 is certifed copy of gift deed, document No. 2702/2008 executed by the Christian Welfare Society of Baptist churches in favor of G. Yadagiri in respect of the suit house. Ex.A9 is electricity bill and receipt paid by the plaintif. Ex.A10 is building permission granted to the plaintif for the suit house along with a building plan. Ex.A11 is miscellaneous receipt, dated 07.05.2010 paid to municipal commissioner by G. Yadagiri. Ex.A12 is miscellaneous receipt, dated 11.05.2010 paid to municipal commissioner by G. Yadagiri.

9.When the above documents are considered it is clear that under Ex.A8

G. Yadagiri, the vendor of the plaintif herein has acquired the suit land.

Page No.3 of 5

OS No. 169/2014, PJC-JFCM, Jangoan,

Dt: 15-11-2021

Later he has obtained building permission from Jangaon Municipality and constructed a house in it. Under Ex.A1 he has sold the suit land to the plaintif. The above documents also shows that since the date of purchase, the plaintif is in possession of the suit land.

10.The present suit being one for Injunction the prime point for consideration is the possession of the plaintif over the suit land. The question of title can be looked into only for limited purpose to ascertain the nature of possession. As stated supra the vendor of plaintif has acquired the suit land under a registered gift deed and conveyed it to the plaintif. Thus this court holds that the plaintif has come in possession of suit land basing on valid documents. It it apt to mention here that a registered document carries a presumption about valid execution of the document. Thus, it is presumed that Ex.A1 and A8 are validly executed.

11.According to the defendants, the vendor of G. Yadagiri had no authority to execute Ex.A8 and as such the subsequent sale deed, Ex.A1 is also a invalid document. In-fact they are in possession of the suit land along with some other extent of the land and obtained injunction against the vendor’s vendor and the vendor of the plaintif. In order to prove the above fact, the defendants did not choose to cross examine Pws.1 and 2 and also did not choose to produce oral or documentary evidence.

12.As stated supra the evidence produced by the plaintif proves her possession over the suit land and threat of interference by the defendants. In these circumstances this Court is inclined to grant

Injunction.

13.IN THE RESULT, suit is decreed with cost directing the defendants, their agents, henchmen, etc., from interfering with the plaintif’s possession over the suit land.

Typed to dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of November, 2021.

Sd/-xxxx

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, JANGAON

Page No.4 of 5

OS No. 169/2014, PJC-JFCM, Jangoan,

Dt: 15-11-2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintif:For the Defendant: PW1:Akula Sravanthi None PW2:Y. Krishna Murthy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Plaintif: Ex.A1Sale deed, document No. 6402/2010, dated 30-09-2010 Ex.A2 Miscellaneous receipt, dated 18-12-2010 Ex.A3 Property tax receipt, dated 18-11-2013 Ex.A4Miscellaneous receipt, dated 21-08-2010 Ex.A5Miscellaneous receipt, dated 30-07-2012 Ex.A6 Building permission in fle No. A1/417/2010, dated 21-08-2010 Ex.A7 Property tax receipt, dated 10-12-2009 Ex.A8Certifed copy of gift deed, Doc.No. 2702/2008, dated 27-05-2008 Ex.A9Electricity bill, dated 14-11-2014 along with payment receipt Ex.A10Original building permission along with map issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Jangaon on 14-05-2020 Ex.A11 Original Miscellaneous receipt, dated 07-05-2010 Ex.A12Original Miscellaneous receipt, dated 11-05-2010

For Defendant : NIL.

Sd/-xxxx

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, JANGAON

Page No.5 of 5

OS No. 127/2013, PJC-JFCM, Jangoan,

Dt: 12-11-2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE: JANGAON

PRESENT: S RI . A JAY K UMAR D EVAN ,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon

Friday, this the 12th day of November, 2021

O.S.No. 127 / 2013

BETWEEN:

Manchala Yellaiah, S/o China Komuraiah, Aged about: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Palakurthy Village and Revenue Mandal, Warangal District. …Plaintif

AND

1. Rapaka Rangaiah, S/o Somaiah, Aged about: 82 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/ o Palakurthy Village and Revenue Mandal, Warangal District.

2. Rapaka Ramesh, S/o Rangaiah, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o Palakurthy Village and Revenue Mandal, Warangal District.

3. Rapaka Sreenu, S/o Rangaiah, Aged about: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o Palakurthy Village and Revenue Mandal, Warangal District.

4. Rapaka Dayaker, S/o Rangaiah, Aged about: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o Palakurthy Village and Revenue Mandal, Warangal District.

…Defendants -o0o- This suit is coming on 11-11-2021 before me for fnal hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M. Jan Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintif and of Sri. V. Prasad Rao, Advocate for the defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a simple suit for perpetual injunction.

2.The plaintif claims to be owner and possessor of Ac.3.26 gts., of land in Sy.No. 377 of Palakurthy Village and Mandal, Warangal District (herein referred to as “suit schedule property”). He has purchased it under a sale deed, Doc. No. 1966/2010, dated 04.10.2010 from Kathula

Bixapathi and since then in it’s possession. He got his name mutated in the revenue records. The defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property and they pressurized him to sell the suit schedule property to them but he refused. Since then they are trying to interfering with the suit schedule property. On 05.05.2013 they tried to disposes him from the suit schedule property, but the same was resisted with the help of

OS No. 127/2013, PJC-JFCM, Jangoan,

Dt: 12-11-2021

neighbours and well wishers. As there is a threat of interference the present suit is fled.

3.Written statement is fled by defendant No.1 and it is adopted by other defendants. They denied the allegations made against them. According to them the suit boundaries are imaginary and the sale deed, Doc. No.

1966/2010 is brought into existence to knock away their property. The revenue records produced by the plaintif does not create any right over the suit schedule property. They further submit that they are absolute owners and possessors of Ac.2.13 gts., of land in Sy.No. 379 and under the guise of Injunction the plaintif is trying to grab their land. They have acquired the land from their ancestors and when the plaintif tried to interfere with their possession they have fled a suit in

O.S.No. 76 of 2013 on the fle of the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon

and obtained injunction in IA. No. 478 of 2013. The suit boundaries pertains to land in Sy.No. 379 but not for Sy.No. 377 as claimed by the plaintif. The suit schedule property is not in existence on ground.

4.Basing on the above pleadings on 10.04.2015 following issues are settled for trial:- 1) Whether the plaintif is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for? 2) To what relief?

5.At trial the plaintif was examined as PW-1 and executed A1 to A13. K.

Bixapathi was examined as PW-2. Against this no oral or documentary evidence is produced by the defendants.

6.Issue No.1:- Ex. A1 is the sale deed under which the plaintif is claiming right over the suit schedule property and this document show that PW-2 has sold the suit schedule property. The boundaries of the said document are East:- land of Rapaka Lachaiah and Sudhakar,

West:- land of Kathula Murali and Somanarsaiah, South:- land of

Kathula Yakaiah and Krishna Kumar and North:- land of Rapaka

Narayana and others. The suit is fled for the land within the above boundaries.

7.Ex.A4 to Ex.A6 are pahanies and shows PW-2 as pattedar and possessor of Ac.3.36 gts., in Sy.No. 377. The above documents proves the fact that originally PW-2 was the pattedhar of the suit schedule property and under Ex.A1 he has sold it to the plaintif. Basing on the

OS No. 127/2013, PJC-JFCM, Jangoan,

Dt: 12-11-2021

said sale deed the plaintif got mutated his name in the revenue records and obtained pattedar passbook and title deed under Exs. A2 and A3. Ex. A8 to Ex. A13 are revenue records and proves the possession of the plaintif over the suit schedule property.

8.According to the defendants Ex.A1 is a sham document and it’s boundaries are imaginary. It is also their case that they are the owners and possessor of the suit land which is situated in Sy.No. 379 but not in

Sy.No. 377. In order to prove the above claim, the defendants did not cross examine Pws.1 and 2 and also did not choose to produce oral or documentary evidence. Thus this court cannot accept the said contention.

9.As stated supra the evidence produced by the plaintif proves his possession over the suit schedule property and also proves threat of interference by the defendants. In these circumstances this Court is inclined to grant Injunction.

10.IN THE RESULT, suit is decreed with cost directing the defendants, their agents, henchmen, etc., from interfering with the plaintifs possession over the suit schedule property.

Typed to dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of November, 2021.

Sd/-xxxxx

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintif:For the Defendant: PW1:Manchala Yellaiah None PW2:K. Bixapathi

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Plaintif: Ex.A1: Original registered sale deed bearing Doc. No. 1966/2010, dt: 04.10.2010 Ex.A2 :Original ROR title deed, dt: 18.12.2010 Ex.A3 Original ROR pattedar passbook, dt: 18.12.2010 Ex.A4Certifed copy of pahani for the year 2004-2005 Ex.A5Certifed copy of pahani for the year 2005-2006 Ex.A6 :Certifed copy of pahani for the year 2007-2008

OS No. 127/2013, PJC-JFCM, Jangoan,

Dt: 12-11-2021

Ex.A7 Certifed copy of pahani for the year 2008-2009 Ex.A8Certifed copy of pahani for the year 2010-2011 Ex.A9Certifed copy of pahani for the fasli year 1422 (2012-2013) Ex.A10Certifed copy of pahani for the fasli year 1423 Ex.A11 Certifed copy of pahani for the fasli year 1424 Ex.A12Certifed copy of pahani for the fasli year 1425 Ex.A13Certifed copy of pahani for the fasli year 1426

For Defendant : NIL.

Sd/-xxxxx

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON