D Kiran Kumar

1 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014

TSKM010000042014

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KAMAREDDY

PRESENT: SRI D. KIRAN KUMAR,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAMAREDDY.

Friday, the 31st day of March, 2023

OS No. 39 of 2014

Between:-

1.Paidi Surender, S/o. Late China Narsaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Paidi Narsimlu, S/o. Late China Narsaiah, Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture,

Both are R/o. Adloor Yellareddy Village, Sadashivnagar Mandal, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District).

... Plaintiffs

And

1.Paidi Venkavva, W/o. Late China Narsaiah, Age: 70 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Adloor Yellareddy Village, Sadashivnagar Mandal, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District).

2.Paidi Shyam, S/o. Late China Narsaiah, Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Adloor Yellareddy Village, Sadashivnagar Mandal, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District).

3.Paidi Ramulu, S/o. Late China Narsaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Adloor Yellareddy Village, Sadashivnagar Mandal, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District).

4.Paidi Rajeshwar @ Ashok, S/o. Gangadhar, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Odyatpally Village, Makloor Mandal, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District).

2 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014

5.Paidi Ramesh, S/o. Rajaiah, Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Adloor Yellareddy Village, Sadashivnagar Mandal, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District).

6.Paidi Suvarna, W/o. Rajaiah, Age: 46 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.6-7-433/5, Opp: Police Station, Bansilalpet, Secunderabad.

7.Municipal Counsel, Kamareddy represented by its Commissioner

8.Paidi Ganesh, S/o. Rameshm, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.5-84, Adloor Yellareddy Village, Sadashivnagar Mandal, Kamareddy District.

(Defendant No.8 is added as per orders in IA.No.300/2019 dated 27-09-2019) … Defendants.

This suit is coming on 02.03.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Venkatram Reddy, Advocate, Kamareddy for Plaintiffs and Sri. T. Rajgopal Goud, Advocate, Kamareddy for the Defendants No.5 and 8 and remaining defendants remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for partition and separate possession, for passing preliminary decree against the defendant No.1 to 6 for effecting partition of suit schedule property by dividing it into 1/8 equal shares to the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 6 and for injunction against defendant No.7. The suit schedule property is as follows :

3 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

1.House bearing No.1-7-135 and No.1-7-120 in Ward No.1,

Block No.7 admesuring North to South : 15.6 feet and East to West : 86 feet, total area of which 149 Sq. yards, situated at Tilak Road/

Daily Market, Kamareddy Town and District, bounded by :

North : Maligi of Shankaraiah;

South : Maligi of Suram Ramachander;

East : Daily Market Road;

West : Tilak Road.

2.House bearing No.2-10-71 in Ward No.2, Block No.10 admesuring North to South : 42 feet and East to West : 21.6 feet, total area of which 100.3 Sq. yards, situated at Shivaji Road (Gopal

Swamy Temple Road), Kamareddy Town and District, bounded by :

North : Road;

South : House of Kishan Goud;

East : House of B. Balaraju;

West : M. Vittala Chary.

2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows :

One Paidi Chinnaiah, S/o. Bhagaya is common ancestor of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 6 and 8, he died long back. Said

Chinnaiah got two sons namely Gangaiah and Chinna Narsaiah both have died. Gangaiah got two daughters Godavari and

Kamalamma, Chinna Narsaiah had two wives Venkavva and

Kausalya. Daughters of Gangaiah namely Godavari and 4 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014

Kamalamma and second wife of Chinna Narsaiah namely Kausalya died about 2 years back and 5 years back in the year 1994. the plaintiffs are elder sons of Chinna Narsaiah through Kausalya and

Venkavva. The defendant No.1 (Venkavva) is first wife, the defendant No.2 and 3 are sons of Chinna Narsaiah, the defendant

No.4 is elder daughter’s son and defendant No.5 and 6 are youngest daughter’s son and daughter of Late Gangaiah. The defendant No.8 is son of defendant No.5. The defendants and plaintiffs constituted as undivided Hindu Joint Family, they have inherited the suit schedule houses from their common ancestor

Paidi Chinnaiah who died in the year 1966, and his wife

Komaravva died in the year 1962 leaving two sons namely

Gangaiah and Gangadhar. The suit schedule property herein is joint family property and is in the enjoyment of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 6 and 8. The defendant No.1 to 6 and 8 by taking advantage that the suit property stands in the name of

Paidi Gangaiah and Kamalamma, are trying to transfer the suit property in their names, in collusion with the defendant No.7 without consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs with an intention to deprive shares of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.1 to 6 and 8 are getting rents, they are not paying share in the rents to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs approached and demanded the defendants

No.1 to 6 and 8 for partition of the suit schedule property into 5 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014 equal shares however the defendants No.1 to 6 refused for partition and separate possession. On 10-05-2014 the plaintiffs approached the defendants No.1 to 6 and 8 along with elders and demanded for partition, however the defendants No.1 to 6 and 8 refused to do so, on 15-05-2014 the plaintiffs have filed an application before the District Collector not to entertain application by the defendant No.7 and others for transfer of suit property. Hence the plaintiffs filed the present suit for partition and separate possession.

3. The case of the defendants in brief is as follows :

I.The defendants No.5 filed written statement denying that

Paidi Chinnaiah is the common ancestor but the suit schedule property is not joint family property, according to the defendant

No.5 late Paidi Chinnaiah having three sons namely Pedda

Narsimlu, Chinna Gangaiah and Chinna Narsimlu, they have partitioned the properties of their father, the suit properties purchased by Gangaiah who is grandfather of defendant No.5,

Late Chinna Narsaiah who is father of the plaintiffs having two wives namely Venkavva and Kausalya. First wife of Chinna

Narsaiah namely Venkavva having two sons namely Narsimlu and

Shyam, two daughters namely Narsavva and Gangavva. The 6 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014 plaintiffs intentionally not made the first wife of Chinna Narsaiah daughters Narsavva, Gangavva and sister of the plaintiff No.1 namely Bhagya as parties to the present suit, as such the present suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

The suit schedule property herein is self acquired property of Late

Gangaiah who is father of the defendant No.5, the same was purchased by Gangaiah about 60 years back after partition with his brothers, another suit house No.2-10-71 belongs to

Kamalamma who is mother of defendant No.5 and it is not ancestral property. The plaintiffs are not legal heirs of Gangaiah, the defendant No.5 alone is legal heir, sons of Pedda Narsimlu and his daughter are not made as parties to the present suit. Father of the plaintiffs partitioned his properties through his wives. The plaintiffs filed the present suit claiming share in the suit property without entitlement, therefore prayed to dismiss the suit.

II.As per orders in IA.No.300/2019 the defendant No.8 who is son of defendant No.5 added as party to this case, he filed written statement in the lines of the written statements filed by the defendant No.5.

4. Based on the rival pleadings of both the parties, the following issues and additional issues are settled for trial.

7 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014 “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for preliminary decree against the defendants No.1 to 6 for partition and separate possession of suit schedule property ?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for final decree by allotting 1/8 share in the suit schedule property in accordance with preliminary decree ?

3. To what relief ?”

Additional Issues :

1 “Whether the suit schedule property is ancestral property of the defendants No.5 and 8 and they are legal heirs of Kamalamma who is daughter of Late Paidi Gangaiah” ?

2. “Whether this Court is not having the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit“ ?

3. “Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties “ ?

4. “Whether the cause of action not available in favour of the plaintiffs to file the suit “ ?

5. “To what relief “ ?

5.During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiffs PW1 to

PW4 witnesses are examined and got exhibited Ex.A1 to A6 documents. On behalf of defendants DW1 and DW2 witnesses are examined and got exhibited Ex.B1 to B11

6. Arguments:

I.Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted oral 8 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014 arguments contending that, the defendant No.5 in written statement contended that father of the plaintiffs namely Paidi

Chinnaiah partitioned the property, the defendants pleaded past partition, however there is no document in support of the case of the defendants. Gangaiah died at the age of 65 years, there is no document to show the suit properties are purchased by Gangaiah and Kamalamma. In revenue records nature of possession over property is mentioned as Joint family property. The defendant

No.5 as DW1 in his cross-examination admitted that there was no prior partition, Ex.B8 is executed during the pendency of the suit, in Ex.B7 property tax receipt there is no house number, therefore prayed to decree the suit.

II.Learned counsel for the defendants No.5 and 8 submitted oral arguments contending that the suit schedule property consists of two houses and is not of joint family property, PW1 in his cross-examination admitted that Gangaiah is also grandfather to defendant No.5, the plaintiffs have not made all the legal heirs of Paidi Chinnaiah as parties to this suit, as such, for partial partition this is not maintainable. Legal heirs of defendant No.1 are not brought on record, sisters of the plaintiffs are not added as parties. The plaintiffs not filed separate pedigree showing details of legal heirs of Paidi Chinnaiah, the plaintiffs failed to prove their case, the suit properties are in the name of Gangaiah the 9 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014 defendant No.5 and 8 alone are entitled to inherit them, therefore prayed to dismiss the suit.

7.This suit is filed for partition, the defendant No.5 is father of the defendant No.8 their pleadings are similar and to avoid repetition and confusion for better appreciation issues settled on 15-04-2019 and additional issues dated 28-01-2020 are recasted as follows :

“1. Whether the suit schedule property is ancestor property of the plaintiffs and defendants, if so whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get 1/8 th share in the suit property ?

2. Whether the present suit for partition is maintainable without adding all legal heirs of common ancestor Paidi Chinnaiah ?

3. Whether there is cause of action to the plaintiffs for filing this suit ?

4. Whether this court is not having pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit ?

5. To what relief ?”

Findings on recasted issues :

8. Issue Nos.4 :

This issue is with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of this

Court, this suit is filed in the year 2014. As per Civil Courts Act, 1972, this Court is having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the 10 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014 suits of value above Rs.3,00,000/- and above as on the date of filing of this suit. As seen from valuation para of the plaint, market value of the suit property shown as Rs.26,32,050/- upon which a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- paid by the plaintiffs and share of the plaintiffs is Rs.6,58,012/- which is more than Rs.3,00,000/-, therefore this Court is having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this suit, accordingly issue is answered.

9. Issue No.3:

This issue is with regard to ‘cause of action’ which means when a right to sue accrued to the plaintiffs for filing this suit for partition. In the present case the plaintiffs pleaded that on 10-05- 2014 and on 15-05-2014 cause of action has arisen. This suit is filed on 21-07-2014 claiming partition. The plaintiffs examined

PW1 to PW4 in support of their contention they relied on documentary evidence in Ex.A1 to A6. Ex.A3 is letter dated 15-05- 2014 submitted to District Collector by the plaintiffs in-turn the plaintiffs issued reply, as seen from documents the plaintiffs are having a cause of action to file the present suit.

10. Issues No.1 and 2 :

I.These two issues are with regard to partition and 11 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014 entitlement of the plaintiffs to get share in the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property comprising of two houses according to the plaintiffs the suit schedule property belongs to

Late Paidi Chinnaiah who is common ancestor, father of the plaintiffs namely Chinna Narsaiah is son of said Paidi Chinnaiah along with Gangaiah who is ancestor of the defendants No.1 to 6 and 8, as such the plaintiffs being sons of Paidi Chinna Narsaiah are entitled to share in the property of Paidi Chinnaiah.

II.The defendants No.1 to 4 not contested the case, the defendant No.1 died, her legal heirs are not brought on record, the defendant No.5 filed written statement claiming that the suit schedule property exclusively belongs to Gangaiah and

Kamalamma who are grandfather and mother of defendant No.5 and it is their self acquired property, not joint family property, therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled for share. It is also the contention of the defendants that Paidi Chinnaiah having daughter and other legal heirs they are not added as parties to this suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.

III.The plaintiffs to substantiate their case relied on oral evidence of PW1 to PW4, the plaintiff No.1 and 2 are examined as 12 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014

PW1 and PW2. PW3 and PW4 are third parties, these two witnesses examined to support the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property is joint family property. The plaintiffs also relied on documentary evidence in Ex.A1 to A6.

IV.The plaintiff No.1 as PW1 in his chief examination deposed that the suit schedule property inherited from their common ancestor Paidi Chinnaiah who died in the year 1966. In cross-examination of PW1, he stated that his grandfather Paidi

Chinnaiah having three sons they are Paidi Pedda Narsaiah, Paidi

Gangaiah and Paidi Chinna Narsaiah (father of the PW1), Paidi

Pedda Narasaiah having wife and children they are not made as parties. PW1 in his cross-examination further admitted that the suit schedule property documents stands in the name of Paidi

Gangaiah who is grandfather of defendant No.5 and at present the suit property is in the name of defendant No.8. after death of

Paidi Gangaiah mother of the defendant No.5 shown as owner of the suit property in revenue records. PW1 in his cross- examination further stated that his grandfather Chinnaiah also having agriculture land near Adloor Yellareddy Village and also house property at Adloor Yellareddy, some properties partitioned by his father Chinna Narsaiah and his paternal uncle Gangaiah, 13 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014 which are inherited from grandfather. PW1 further admitted that they have not included some joint family properties in the suit which are situated at Adloor Yellareddy Village, Gangaiah is having two daughters namely Kamalamma and Godavari, he did not added daughters of Godavari as parties to this suit, they are having one sister by name Bhagyamma, she is not included as defendant. PW1 on confrontation of Ex.A1 and A2 tax receipts admitted that these two tax receipts are in the name of Paidi

Gangaiah from the year 1960 on-wards and thereafter name of

Kamalamma is shown as owner.

V.The plaintiff No.2 as PW2 deposed in the lines of PW1 that his grand father having three sons, other properties are in the name of his grandfather, this suit house stands in the name of

Gangaiah and after his death it is mutated in the name of

Kamalamma and they are not legal heirs of Gangaiah and there are other family members and heirs of Paidi Chinnaiah, they are not made as parties to this suit. PW3 and PW4 deposed that Paidi

Chinnaiah is common ancestor and during his life time he acquired properties. Except this there is no other evidence in support of the plaintiffs. PW3 and PW4 have deposed that the suit houses belongs to Paidi Chinnaiah who died in the year 1966, but they 14 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014 have not deposed about the partition which admittedly took place between Gangaiah, Chinna Narsaiah and other son of Paidi

Chinnaiah.

VI.On examination of Ex.A1 and A2 document the suit property herein stands in the name of Gangaiah, later name of Kamalamma who is mother of defendant No.5 is entered in records. Ex.A4 certificate issued by VRO not showing that the suit house properties are in the name of Paidi Chinnaiah. Ex.A6 document issued Municipal Counsel, Kamareddy, it clearly shows that the suit property as per the assignment registers is in the name of P.

Gangaiah.

VII.The plaintiffs have not filed any document to show that the suit property is in the name of Paidi Chinnaiah. The defendant

No.5 as DW1 deposed that after death of his mother he became owner. Ex.B1 is document dated 22-01-1979 shows that, as per

Grama Panchayat records mother of the defendant No.5 namely

Kamalamma paid tax. Ex.B2 (7) receipts of house tax are in the name of Kamalamma, Ex.B4 mutation order dated 17-10-1977 is in the name of Kamalamma that the suit properties after death of

Gangaiah transferred in the name of Kamalamma, Ex.B5 15 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014 ownership certificate issued by Municipal Counsel, Kamareddy and

Ex.B6 ownership certificate in the name of defendant No.5, Ex.B7 tax receipt in the name of defendant No.8 clearly shows from the year 1977 on-wards the suit properties are not in possession of the plaintiffs anf they are in possession of Gangaiah, Kamalamma, defendant No.5 and 8.

VIII.The plaintiffs contented that long back partitioned took place between their father and brothers of their father, the plaintiffs have not included all legal heirs and properties acquired by late Paidi Chinnaiah in the present suit.

IX.It is settled principle of law that in a suit for partition all the persons who are having right and interest by virtue of their birth in the joint family property needs to be made as party, in their absence a suit for partition is not maintainable. Further a partition suit cannot be filed for some property leaving other properties and partial partition is not permissible. In the present case all legal heirs who are having right of partition are not included as parties, as per evidence of PW1 and PW2 late Paidi

Chinnaiah also having agriculture land at Adloor Yellareddy and other houses, those properties are not included in the present suit, 16 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014 therefore on this ground the suit is liable to be dismissed.

X.The plaintiffs failed to adduce any evidence to show that the suit schedule property exclusively belongs to Paidi

Chinnaiah and they have not partitioned. The defendants established their right over the suit properties by virtue of oral and documentary evidence, in terms of Ex.B8 gift settlement deed the defendant No.8 is shown as owner, for all these reasons the plaintiffs are not entitled for share in the suit property, accordingly issue No.1 and 2 are answered against the plaintiffs.

11. Issue No.5 :

In view of my findings in issue No.1 to 4 the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.

12.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on 31st day of March, 2023.

Senior Civil Judge,

Kamareddy

17 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

PW.1 :Paidi Surender (Plaintiff No.1) PW.2 :Paidi Narsimlu (Plaintiff No.2) PW.3 :Marri Pedda Sangareddy. PW4 :Paidi Chinna Gangareddy.

FOR DEFENDANTS

DW.1 :Paidi Ramesh (Defendant No.5) DW.2 :Chetkuri Rajeshwar Reddy.

:: Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiffs ::

Ex.A1 :Certificate issued by Commissioner, Municipal Counsel, Kamareddy in respect of House bearing No.1-7-120, 1-7- 135 (New), 1-7-132, 1-7-145, 1-7-83 and 1-7-105 (Old).

Ex.A2 :Certificate issued by Commissioner, Municipal Counsel, Kamareddy in respect of House bearing No.2-10-71.

Ex.A3 :Petition dt. 15-05-2014 by the plaintiff No.1 before the District Collector, Nizamabad.

Ex.A4 :Certificate issued by VRO, Adloor Yellareddy Village.

Ex.A5 :Family Member Certificate.

Ex.A6 :Letter addressed by In-charge Manager of Municipal Counsel, Kamareddy under Right to Information Act.

:: Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendants ::

Ex.B1 :Mutation Order of Kamalamma dt. 28-01-1977.

Ex.B2 :Ownership Certificate of Kamalamma dt. 23-05-2014.

Ex.B3 :(12) tax receipts of Kamalamma.

Ex.B4 :Mutation Order of Kamalamma dt. 28-01-1977

Ex.B5 :Ownership Certificate of Kamalamma dt. 23-05-2014.

Ex.B6 :Ownership certificate of P. Gangaiah.

Ex.B7 :(8) tax receipts of P. Gangaiah 18 of 18 OS.No. 39/2014

Ex.B8 :House tax receipt of P. Ganesh (Defendant No.8)

Ex.B9 :CC of Gift Deed No.3044/2014 dt. 26-05-2014.

Ex.B10 :CC of Gift Deed No.3043/2014 dt. 26-05-2014.

Ex.B11 :EC No.2 dt. 18-07-2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

Kamareddy

1 of 13 OS.No.48/2016

TSKM010000252016

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KAMAREDDY

PRESENT: SRI D. KIRAN KUMAR

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KAMAREDDY.

Monday, the 03rdday of April, 2023.

OS.No. 48 of 2016

Between:-

Mohammed Yousuf, S/o. Late Ahmed Hussain, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bramhanapally Village of Tadwai Mandal, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District), represented through its brother-in-law GPA Holder, namely Shaik Muqthyar, S/o. Shaik Chand, Age: 45 years, R/o. Bodhan Town and Mandal, Nizamabad District.

... Plaintiff.

And

1.Abbagoni Saya Goud, S/o. Late A. Raja Goud, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bramhanapally Village of Tadwai Mandal, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District). (Died, case against him is abated).

2.Abbagoni Nara Goud, S/o. Late A. Raja Goud, Age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bramhanapally Village of Tadwai Mandal, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District).

3.Abbagoni Kista Goud, S/o. Late A. Rama Goud, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bramhanapally Village of Tadwai Mandal, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District).

4.Abbagoni Raja Goud, S/o. Late A. Satya Goud, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bramhanapally Village of Tadwai Mandal, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District). (Died, case against him is abated). … Defendants.

2 of 13 OS.No.48/2016

This suit is coming on 06.03.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.B.Rammesh Chand, Advocate, Kamareddy for the plaintiff, Sri. K. Shyam Gopal, Advocate, Kamareddy for defendants No.1 to 3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.This suit is filed for grant of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, servants, workmen, followers etc., from in any way interfering, encroaching or trespassing into the possession of the plaintiff over suit schedule agriculture land in

Sy.No.90/5/A, an extent Ac.01-05 gts, situated at Bramhanapally

Village, Tadwai Mandal, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad

District), bounded by North : Agriculture land of Kista Goud and others, South: Agriculture land of Mangali Shekar, East : Agriculture land of Sangareddy, West : Way, herein after referred as ‘Suit

Schedule Property’.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief as follows:-

The plaintiff is absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule agriculture land and it is his ancestral property, the plaintiff cultivating the suit land without any interruption. The plaintiff also having pattedar passbook, his name entered in revenue records, 3 of 13 OS.No.48/2016 pahanies for the year 2012-13 to 2015-16 are showing name of the plaintiff as owner and possessor of the suit land. The defendants have no way concern with the suit land by creating false and fabricated documents without any right they are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land the defendants in collusion with un-social elements on 01-07-2016 came to the suit land and tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and warned to occupy the suit land. The plaintiff apprehending that the defendants may by taking law into their hands may disposes the plaintiff. Hence the present suit is filed for perpetual injunction.

3. The case of the defendants in brief as follows:-

The defendant No.1 to 3 filed written statement, defendant

No.1 and 4 died during pendency of this suit, no steps have taken against them. The defendants contending that, the plaint contents are false, they are having agricultural land beside the land of the plaintiff, this said lands are ancestral properties, the defendants are cultivating their lands without any interference from others, they also obtained loan from the Bank for raising crops. The plaintiff being NRI since 20 years he is residing in Arab Countries, he do not know the present situation of the village, the plaintiff already sold 4 of 13 OS.No.48/2016

Ac.01-00 land covering the suit land to third parties, since then the purchasers from the plaintiff are in possession, to occupy lands of the defendants, the plaintiff shown wrongly the suit land boundaries and filed this case, therefore prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on above pleadings of the parties, after hearing both sides and on perusal of documents the following issues are settled for trial :

“1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction ?

2) To what relief ?”

5.During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiff PW1 and

PW2 are examined, Ex.A1 to A6 documents are exhibited. On behalf of the defendants DW1 to DW3 are examined, Ex.B1 to B13 documents are exhibited.

6. Arguments :

I.Heard both parties. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted oral arguments contending that, the suit is filed on 18- 08-2016, the defendants have not furnished any information of legal heirs of defendant No.1 and 4, as such no steps have taken. The 5 of 13 OS.No.48/2016 defendant No.2 as DW1 deposed on behalf of the dead person/defendant No.1. The defendants have admitted that the plaintiff is having land abutting to the suit land. PW2 who cultivated the suit land clearly deposed as to possession of the plaintiff, Ex.A1 shows possession and title of the plaintiff, the witnesses DW2 admitted about ownership of the plaintiff, the defendant No.3 who examined as DW3 introduced new case without pleadings, the defendants failed to prove their case, therefore prayed to decree the suit.

II.Learned counsel for the defendants submitted oral arguments contenting that, the plaintiff failed to established his case, plaintiff was out of country for long time, he is not in possession of the suit property, Ex.A1 to A6 not confers title, the boundaries shown are false, PW1 and PW2 admitted as to cultivation of the suit land by the defendants, therefore prayed to dismiss the suit.

Findings on issues :

7. Issue No.1 :

I.The plaintiff in the present case claiming title and possession over the suit schedule property i.e., Agricultural open 6 of 13 OS.No.48/2016 land in Sy.No.90/5/A, an extent Ac.01-05 gts of Bramhanapally

Village of Tadwai Mandal and filed this suit against the defendants for the relief of perpetual injunction. The defendants disputed possession, boundaries of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, further the defendants claims that part of suit land sold by the plaintiff, contented that plaintiff is not in possession and therefore prayed to dismiss the suit.

II.The present suit is filed by GPA Holder of the plaintiff, however the plaintiff to substantiate his case himself examined as

PW1 got exhibited Ex.A1 to A6 documents. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is his ancestral property and he is in possession and cultivation of the suit land, on 01-07-2016 the defendants interfered with his possession. As per pleadings and evidence of PW1 the defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property. The plaintiff in support of his title and possession over the suit schedule property relied on Ex.A1 pattedar passbook for Katha

No.371, Ex.A2 title deed, Ex.A3 to A6 pahanies for the year 2012-13 to 2015-16. On examination Ex.A1 and A2 the plaintiff shows as pattedar of land in Sy.No.90/5/A, an extent Ac.01-05 gts, Ex.A3 to

A6 pahanies shows the plaintiff as possessor and pattedar of land in

Sy.No.90/5/A, an extent Ac.01-05 gts.

7 of 13 OS.No.48/2016

III.The plaintiff also relied on oral evidence of PW2, according to him he is having land towards western side of the suit land in Sy.No.93/5 plaintiff and his family members are cultivating the suit land. In cross-examination of PW1, he deposed that, the plaintiff residing in Dubai from 20 years, the suit land is fit for cultivation of dry crops, the defendants are in possession of their land, the plaintiff is in possession of his land, brother-in-law of plaintiff used to cultivate the suit land. PW2 deposed boundaries of the suit land that towards East : land of the defendant No.2, West :

Land of Panadi, North : Land of Kista Goud and South : Land of

Mangali Shenker.

IV.The defendants to disprove the claim of the plaintiff examined DW1 and DW2 and relied on documentary evidence in

Ex.B1 to B11. DW1 is defendant No.2, according to him he is owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.90/5/AA, extent Ac.01-18 gts along with other lands, the defendant No.1 was in possession of the land in Sy.No.90/4/BA, an extent Ac.0-18 gts, the defendant No.3 is owner of land in Sy.No.90/5/e, an extent Ac.0-21 gts, they acquired properties from their ancestors and also obtained loan. Ex.B1 pattedar passbook, Ex.B2 title deed, Ex.B3 title deed of defendant

No.3 are marked. Ex.B4 and B5 are old pattedar passbooks of defendant No.2 and 3. Ex.B6 to B8 are Form No.1B extracts of 8 of 13 OS.No.48/2016 defendant No.1 to 3. Ex.B9 certified copies of pahanies, Ex.B10 certified copies of pahanies defendant No.3. Ex.B11 to B13 are

Telangana Grameena Bank Statements.

V.In support of the defendants, DW2 is examined, his evidence is that, he know the plaintiff and defendants. He is having land beside the land of the defendants, according to him the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the agriculture land in Sy.No.90/5/AA, extent Ac.01-18 gts, the defendant No.1 and 3 are also having land in Sy.No.90, the lands are ancestral properties. In cross-examination it is the evidence of DW2, that his land is in

Sy.No.90 towards Eastern side of defendants land and it is abutting to land of Kista Goud, one Saya Goud is grandfather of Kista Goud.

The defendant No.3 examined as DW3, he deposed in the lines of

DW1, that the plaintiff sold his part of land to one Kurma person, they are in possession of their land, the plaintiff is having house in their village and he is not having objections if boundaries are fixed to the lands in Sy.No.90. In cross-examination of PW1 he stated that land of defendant No.3 is situated abutting to the suit land, the land of the defendants is in ‘L’ Shape towards backside of the suit land. PW1 further deposed he sold Ac.02-13 gts land to one

Narsimlu.

9 of 13 OS.No.48/2016

VI.On examination of pleadings and oral evidence of both the parties the plaintiff and defendants are claiming the lands in

Sy.No.90. The plaintiff claiming land in Sy.No.90/5/A an extent

Ac.01-05 gts. It is admitted by the plaintiff in his cross-examination as PW1 that the lands of the defendants are situated in Sy.No.90 abutting to his land, the lands of the defendants are in ‘L’ Shape.

The defendant No.1 claimed land in Sy.No.90/4/BA, the defendant

No.2 claimed land in Sy.No.90/5/AA, extent Ac.01-18 gts, the defendant No.3 is claiming land in Sy.No.90/5/e. The plaintiff not disputing as to ownership of the lands claimed by the defendants, the defendants mainly disputed boundaries of the suit land and also contented that, the plaintiff sold part of his land to third parties, as such boundaries are not correct. The plaintiff as PW1 in his cross- examination admitted that he sold Ac.02-13 gts to one Narsimlu out of his land. The plaintiff either in pleadings, in evidence or in documents not shown how much extent out of total extent of land owned by him in Sy.No.90/5/A. The plaintiff not filed any document showing the lands sold by him and there is no document as to boundaries claimed by the plaintiff.

VII.The defendants in written statement disputed suit boundaries as false and they are incorrect, in such circumstance it is the duty of the plaintiff to produce some evidence showing that 10 of 13 OS.No.48/2016 the suit schedule boundaries as mentioned in the plaint are correct and they are of the land in Sy.No.90/5/A to an extent Ac.01-05 gts,

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are pattedar passbook and title deed, there is no mention of boundaries in these documents, in Ex.A2 land

Sy.No.90/5 its extent alone is mentioned, there is sub-division of survey number, whereas Ex.A1 issued recently showing

Sy.No.90/5/A, the plaintiff not given any explanation when and how the land in Sy.No.90/5 further divided and sub-divided Sy.No.90/5/A when allotted to him. The defendants in the present case are also claiming land in Sy.No.90/5 with different sub-division numbers and extents. Admittedly the lands of plaintiff and defendants are situated side by side.

VIII.The plaintiff in the present case sought for perpetual injunction which is an equitable relief, the plaintiff to get the relief of injunction against the defendants has to establish his exclusive possession and right over the suit land in Sy.No.90/5/A and at the same time the plaintiff is under an obligation to establish that the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property are correct and they belongs to the land of the plaintiff. The defendants herein mainly disputed the suit boundaries, their neighbors to the plaintiff, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove his land boundaries then only illegal interference by the defendants can be ascertained. In the 11 of 13 OS.No.48/2016 present case the boundaries claimed by the plaintiff are disputed and they remained not proved. This is a simple suit for injunction the right claimed by the plaintiff is under cloud, as such, the plaintiff has to seek for declaration and injunction. In these circumstances the plaintiff is not entitled to get the equitable relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interference.

IX.The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff are not sufficient to conclude that the suit schedule boundaries are in existence, the plaintiff not shown the part of the land sold by him out of the suit land survey number to third parties to ascertain the boundaries are correct. Since the parties are neighboring land owners, in the absence of evidence as to the boundaries, if perpetual injunction is granted the same may cause hardship to the defendants and may lead to further litigation between the parties, as per Section 41 (g) of Specific Relief Act an injunction cannot be granted to prevent a continuing breach, since the parties lands are abutting there is a every possibility of continuing breach of obligations, as such, on this ground also an injunction can be refused. Accordingly issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiff that the plaintiff is not entitled for perpetual injunction.

12 of 13 OS.No.48/2016

8. Issue No.2 :

In view of my findings in Issue No.1 the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

9.In the result, this suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 03rd day of April, 2023.

Senior Civil Judge,

Kamareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

PW.1 : Mahammed Yousuf (Plaintiff).

PW2 :Paidakula Gangaiah.

FOR DEFENDANTS :

DW.1 : Abbagoni Nara Goud (Defendant No.2).

DW.2 :Kodakanti Narsimlu.

DW.3 :Abbagoni Kista Goud (Defendant No.3).

:: Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff ::

Ex.A1:Pattedar Passbook cum Title Deed with Katha No.371 (New).

Ex.A2:Title Deed (Old).

Ex.A3:Pahani for the fasli year 1423.

Ex.A4:Pahani for the fasli year 1424.

Ex.A5:Pahani for the fasli year 1425.

Ex.A6:Pahani for the fasli year 1426.

13 of 13 OS.No.48/2016 :: Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendants::

Ex.B1:Online Specimen Copy of New Pattedar Passbook cum Title Deed No.T12210050016, Katha No.31 of defendant No.2.

Ex.B2:Online Specimen Copy of New Pattedar Passbook cum Title Deed No.T12210050350, Katha No.547 of wife of deceased defendant No.1. Ex.B3:Online Specimen Copy of New Pattedar Passbook cum Title Deed No.T12210050376, Katha No.580 of defendant No.3.

Ex.B4:Original Old Pattedar Passbook No.159714 of defendant No.2

Ex.B5:Original Old Pattedar Passbook No.159736 of defendant No.3

Ex.B6:Original 1-B Namuna (ROR) dt. 25-08-2016 of defendant No.2 obtained from Mee-Seva.

Ex.B7:Original 1-B Namuna (ROR) dt. 18-08-2015 of defendant No.3 obtained from Mee-Seva.

Ex.B8:Original 1-B Namuna (ROR) dt. 25-08-2016 of defendant No.1 obtained from Mee-Seva.

Ex.B9:Original (3) pahani fasli 1420, 1423, 1426 dt. 22-08-2016 of defendant No.2 obtained from Mee-seva.

Ex.B10:Original (3) pahani fasli 1420, 1423, 1426 dt. 22-08-2016 of defendant No.3 obtained from Mee-seva.

Ex.B11:Bank statement of Telangana Grameena Bank obtained through online of defendant No.2 dt. 08-06-2022.

Ex.B12:Bank statement of Telangana Grameena Bank obtained through online of defendant No.1 dt. 08-06-2022.

Ex.B13:Bank statement issued by Union Bank in favour of defendant No.3 dt. 09-06-2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

Kamareddy.

1 of 14 SC.145/2021

TSKM010000842021

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KAMAREDDY

Present: Sri D. Kiran Kumar,

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Kamareddy

Wednesday, the 12th day of April, 2023

S.C. No. 145 of 2021

1. Name of the ComplainantThe State represented by SHO of :P.S., Yellareddy.

2. Name of accused persons :

A1- Dingroth Shankar, S/o. Hari, Age: 25 years, Caste: ST-Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Balajinagar Thanda of Yellareddy Mandal, Kamaareddy District.

A2- Katroth Shankar @ Reddy, S/o. Chander, Age: 28 years, Caste: ST-Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Balajinagar Thanda of Yellareddy Mandal, Kamaareddy District.

A3- Rathnavath Deeplal, S/o. Mangthya, Age: 38 years, Caste: ST- Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Balajinagar Thanda of Yellareddy Mandal, Kamaareddy District.

A4- Rathnavath Tharachand, S/o. Gangaram, Age: 29 years, Caste: ST-Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Balajinagar Thanda of Yellareddy Mandal, Kamaareddy District.

A5- Rudavath Roopsing @ Venkati, S/o. Amber Sing, Age: 35 years, Caste: ST-Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Balajinagar Thanda of Yellareddy Mandal, Kamaareddy District.

A6- Katroth Bansilal @ Bansi, S/o. Chander, Age: 26 years, Caste: ST-Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Balajinagar Thanda of Yellareddy Mandal, Kamaareddy District.

2 of 14 SC.145/2021

3. Charges:U/Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC

4. Plea of the accused:Not guilty

5. Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

6. Sentence or order :The accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence under section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the same, under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused are ordered to be cancelled after appeal time. The unmarked case property empty pesticide bottle deposited vide CPR.No.109/2020 before JFCM, Yellareddy is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time by the JFCM, Yellareddy.

7. Prosecution conducted by:Sri N. Damodhar Reddy

Additional Public Prosecutor

8. Accused defended by:Sri. P. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate, Kamareddy for Accused persons.

This case coming before me for hearing on 06-04-2023 in the presence of Sri. N. Damodhar Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate, Kamareddy for Accused persons and having heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

This is a case of ‘abetment to commit suicide’, for which the

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Yellareddy filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under section 306 r/w 34 of IPC.

3 of 14 SC.145/2021

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows :

The accused No.1 to 6 herein belongs to Balajinagar Thanda of Yellareddy Mandal, Kamareddy District and deceased Rudavath

Jagan also belongs to said Balajinagar Thanda, the accused and deceased belongs to same caste. Prior to 27-09-2020 all accused went to the house of the Rudavath Jagan and alleged that he is practicing sorcery/black magic in the village and imposed fine of

Rs.55,000/- on him, the deceased paid said fine. Again on 27-09- 2020 at 10:00 Pm the accused No.1 to 6 along with other caste persons went to the house of Rudavath Jagan and attacked on him, bet him, threatened him saying they will impose higher fine, alleged he is doing sorcery. By keeping the acts of the accused in the mind Rudavath Jagan disgusted over his life and committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison and died on 28-09-2020.

Immediately brother of Rudavath Jagan gave a report to the police, on receipt of the same case registered against the accused, police have conducted scene of offence panchanama near RTC Bus-stop

Yellareddy Town, secured presence of two mediators, in their presence conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized pesticide poison bottle and conducted inquest over the dead body was conducted, the medical officer, Yellareddy conducted postmortem examination over the dead body and as per his 4 of 14 SC.145/2021 opinion the cause of death of Rudavath Jagan is due to pesticide poison consumption. Later the accused were arrested and statements of the witnesses are recorded and on completion of investigation charge sheet is filed.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy taken the case on file against the accused and committed the case in PRC No. 04 of 2021 to the Court of Sessions, Nizamabad. The

Hon’ble Prl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad took the case on file for the

offence punishable under section 306 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

4. After appearance of the accused, based on the material available on record as well as the allegations leveled in the charge sheet, chargeunder section 306 r/w 34 of IPC is framed and explained to the accused, for which they denied and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the case of prosecution, it has examined

PWs.1 to 12 out of 18 cited witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to

P13 documents. The prosecution given up the evidence of 5 of 14 SC.145/2021 witnesses namely LW3/Smt. Rathnavath Sarika, LW7/Devosath

Sangram, LW10/Mustyala Shravan Kumar, LW14/Mantri Mahesh,

LW15/Mantri Srinivasulu and LW18/P. Madhusudhan Reddy.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec 313 Cr.P.C. explaining them incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution evidence is sufficient to convict the accused for charged offence under section 306 r/w 34 of IPC. ?

9. Arguments :

I.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted oral arguments contending that, evidence of PW1 to PW3 is in corroboration, consistent there are no doubtful circumstance in their evidence the prosecution has proved its case and prayed to convict the accused.

6 of 14 SC.145/2021

II.Learned Counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the place of offence, sorcery, panchayat and place of imposing fine are not stated. There is no possibility of getting poison in the Bus-stand. PW1 and PW2 deposed inconsistently, there are material omissions and contradictions in their evidences. Evidence of PW1 and PW2 is hearsay. Villager sarpanch or elders are not examined by the prosecution. Therefore prayed to acquit the accused.

Point:-

10. As per the report of investigation officer the accused persons in the present case being villagers and caste elders of Rudavath

Jagan have suspected that, he is practicing sorcery, as such, they have imposed fine and also attacked on him due to which

Rudavath Jagan disgusted on his life and committed suicide by consuming poison, the prosecution alleged that all the accused have abetted the deceased to commit suicide, as such charge sheet is filed for the offence under section 306 r/w 34 of IPC.

11.The prosecution examined PW1 to PW12 witnesses among them PW1 is brother of the deceased and complainant, his oral 7 of 14 SC.145/2021 evidence is that about 10 days prior to death of Rudavath Jagan the accused and villagers of Balajinagar Thanda have conducted a panchayat and imposed fine of Rs.55,000/- on Rudavath Jagan, he paid said amount to the panchayat elders, thereafter again on 27- 09-2020 the accused including villagers went to the house of deceased break opened the doors alleging that the deceased doing sorcery in the village and demanded further amount, his brother informed him about the incident over phone, at that time he was at

Narsapur, later he came to know that his brother consumed pesticide near RTC Bus-stand, Yellareddy and admitted in Govt.

Hospital, later dead, as such he gave Ex.P1. In cross-examination of PW1, he deposed that the accused alleged the deceased playing sorcery against relatives of accused No.5.

12.PW2/Radravath Anasuya is wife of the deceased, her evidence is that about 10 days back of death of her husband villagers have conducted panchayat as to practicing sorcery by the deceased and imposed fine of Rs.55,000/- and same paid by PW1 to the accused, at that time she was at her elder daughter’s house and came back to her house. PW2 further stated that after 2 days of said incident at the instigation of accused No.3 all the villagers have come to their house, they have break opened the doors at 8 of 14 SC.145/2021 that time herself, her husband, younger daughter were present, all the villagers entered into their house and assaulted on them stating they will impose more fine, the accused No.1 taken away their motorcycle, on the next day herself and her husband went to

Yellareddy since the accused threatened them to arrange money, near Bus-stand her husband asked her to bring a Tea, meantime he purchased pesticide bottle and consumed the same, later her brother-in-laws have come to that place, her husband was shifted to Hospital and thereafter died.

13.PW3 is daughter of the deceased, her evidence is that her father died by consuming pesticide poison, villagers alleged that her father practicing sorcery, a panchayat was conducted

Rs.50,000/- fine imposed and after one week of that further fine of

Rs.20,000/- imposed on her father on the ground of sorcery, on the next day her father and mother went out later she got information that her father consumed pesticide because of insult and died.

14.The prosecution examined PW4 to PW9 as caste elders and witnesses for the incident between the accused and deceased, all these witnesses have not supported the prosecution version, they do not know the cause of death of the deceased except marking 9 of 14 SC.145/2021 their statement there is nothing in their cross-examination as to abetment on the part of the accused. The prosecution examined

PW10 as witness for inquest panchanama this witness deposed as to inquest and observing dead body of the deceased in the

Hospital.

15.PW11 is Medical Officer who conducted autospy over dead body, according to him the cause of death is due to consumption of inseticide poison. Ex.P9 is his report.

16.The investigation officer examined as PW12 she deposed as to receiving report, recording statements of the witnesses, inquest over dead body of the postmortem examination and arrest of the accused, as per investigation the accused in the present case alleged to have committed charged offence.

17.On examination of oral evidence of the prosecution, and arguments submitted by both sides, it is not in dispute that

Rudavath Jagan died on 28-09-2020 by consuming pesticide poison. Death of the deceased is established by evidence of close relatives PW1 to PW3 and by evidence of PW10 who is a witness for inquest panchanama in Ex.P8. The medical evidence of PW11 and 10 of 14 SC.145/2021

Ex.P9 postmortem examination report clearly established that

Rudavath Jagan died by consuming pesticides poison.

18.As per the prosecution the deceased committed suicide because of the insult and illegal acts of the accused. PW1 to PW3 who are brother, wife and daughter of the deceased in their oral evidence clearly stated that, the accused and villagers have suspected that the deceased practicing sorcery in the village, as such a panchayat was conducted, fine of Rs.55,000/- was imposed.

The accused again went to the house of deceased and imposed further fine on the deceased, as such on the very next day the deceased consumed pesticide poison and committed suicide, he died while undergoing treatment. Learned counsel for the accused strongly contended that there are contradictions and material omissions in the evidence of PW1 to PW3. As seen from oral evidence of PW1 to PW3 they have deposed that the accused insulted and threatened the deceased, as such, he committed suicide. Now it is to be seen whether threatening, insult by the accused on Rudavath Jagan is sufficient to attract the offence of instigation for commission of suicide by the deceased.

11 of 14 SC.145/2021

19.As to what would constitute instigation for the commission of an offence would depend upon the facts of the case, in the present case the evidence shows that, the accused along with other villagers insulted and imposed fine on the deceased, as such, suicide was committed. Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a case between Neelam @ Bondila Lachaiah and another

Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2002 (1) ALD (Crl)

539 while appreciating as to humiliation for suicide held that “it cannot be said that the humiliation caused by the accused amounts to instigation which prompted the deceased to commit suicide or that the accused intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide, therefore it is difficult to hold that the accused have abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased.”

20.In the case covered by above decision, the deceased went along with two others to attend the marriage of daughter of their relatives. On the date of marriage some unknown offender committed theft of Rs.2,000/- in the house of the person who performed the marriage. In that connection the accused were called for the enquires for detecting the theft and the first petitioner secured sacred rice (Mantra Biyyam) and administrated said rice to the deceased and some other persons. The petitioners 12 of 14 SC.145/2021 consistently humiliated the deceased holding that the deceased has committed theft in the house of the person who performed marriage, due to such humiliation the deceased went to his house and consumed Endosulfan Pesticide Poison and committed suicide.

In the light of the above circumstances Hon’ble Court held that mere humiliation caused by the accused does not amount to instigation to commit suicide.

21.In the present case the prosecution alleged that the accused suspected that the deceased practicing sorcery, they have imposed fine and insulted him as such the deceased committed suicide. There are no further allegations against the accused that they are having intention to drive the deceased to commit suicide with their acts. Further the allegations are mere humiliation not amounts to abetment to commit suicide. The evidence of the prosecution is not sufficient to conclude that the accused abetted the deceased and as such they have committed offence under section 306 r/w 34 of IPC.

22.In view of the above said circumstance the evidence of the prosecution is not sufficient to find the accused guilty for charged offence, accordingly the accused are entitled for acquittal.

13 of 14 SC.145/2021

23. In the result, the accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence under section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the same, under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused are ordered to be cancelled after appeal time. The unmarked case property empty pesticide bottle deposited vide CPR.No.109/2020 before JFCM, Yellareddy is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time by the JFCM, Yellareddy.

Typed by Stenographer on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of April, 2023.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

F or Prosecution : F or Defence:

PW.1 : Rudavath Ramesh (Defacto Complainant) - None -

PW-2 : Rudavath Anasuya.

PW-3 : Rudavath Saritha (Listed as Harika).

PW-4 : R. Gopal.

PW-5 : R. Shankar.

PW-6 : Banawath Fakira.

PW-7 : R. Hari.

PW-8 : Devavath Gangaram.

PW-9 : Abiram.

14 of 14 SC.145/2021

PW-10 : Md. Wahabuddin.

PW-11 : E. Ravindra Mohan (Medical Officer).

PW-12 : K. Swetha (Investigation Officer).

OCUMENTS MARKED D

F or Prosecution :

Ex.P1 Complaint lodged by PW1. Ex.P2Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW4. Ex.P3 Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW5. Ex.P4 Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW6. Ex.P5Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW7. Ex.P6Signature of PW8 on Crime Detail Form. Ex.P7Signature of PW9 on Crime Detail Form. Ex.P8Signature of of PW10 on Inquest Panchanama. Ex.P9Postmortem Examination Report along with final report and FSL report. Ex.P10Crime Detail Form. Ex.P11Photographs of dead body Ex.P12Confession Panchanama of accused No.1 to 3. Ex.P13F.I.R.

For Defence: NIL

Material Objects: NIL

Asst. Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

1 of 12 OS.No. 67/2022 (Old OS.No.03/2014)

TSKM010004092022

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KAMAREDDY

PRESENT: SRI D. KIRAN KUMAR,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAMAREDDY.

Friday the 31st day of March, 2023

OS No. 67 of 2022

(Initially this suit was filed before the Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kamareddy wherein it is numbered as OS.No. 03/2014. As per the orders of the Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy vide Dis.No.597 dated 09-09-2022, this suit is transferred to this Court and renumbered as OS.No. 67/2022)

Between:-

1.Mutyampeta Yella Goud, S/o. Narayana Goud @ Nara Goud, Hindu, Aged: 50 years, Occ: Private Service,

2.Mutyampeta Srinivas Goud, S/o. Narayana Goud @ Nara Goud, Hindu, Aged: 36 years, Occ: Private Service,

3.Mutyampeta Gopi Goud, S/o. Narayana Goud @ Nara Goud, Hindu, Aged: 32 years, Occ: Private Service,

4.Swamy Goud, S/o. Penta Goud, Hindu, Aged: 35 years, Occ: Private Service,

All are R/o. H.No.1-12/161/1/14, Sailanibaba Colony, Kamareddy Town, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District).

... Plaintiffs

And

1.The District Collector, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District).

2 of 12 OS.No. 67/2022 (Old OS.No.03/2014)

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District).

3.The Tahsildar, Kamareddy Town, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District).

4.The Village Revenue Officer, Kamareddy Town, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District).

5.M. Laxmi, W/o. Yella Goud, Hindu, Major, R/o.H.No.2-1-37, Tehsil Road, Kamareddy Town, Kamareddy District (Erstwhile Nizamabad District).

6.Dr. Samuel Rajkumar, Pastor and Secretary, International Outreach, Kings Temple, 1-8-449/4/1/13A, Patigadda Begumpet, Secunderabad- 500003.

… Defendants.

This suit is coming on 02.03.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M. A. Rasheed, Advocate, Kamareddy for the plaintiffs and Sri. M. Venkatram Reddy, Advocate, Kamareddy for the defendant No.5 and remaining are remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for declaration of entries made in revenue records/pahanies, as incorrect, invalid and void, showing the names of Narayana Goud and M. Laxmi (defendant No.5) as owners and possessors in respect of Ac.0-10 gts and Ac.0-07 gts respectively in Sy.No.638/3A situated at Kamareddy Town and for rectification of entries and for perpetual injunction restraining defendant No.6 and persons in interest on his behalf from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit open 3 of 12 OS.No. 67/2022 (Old OS.No.03/2014) land i.e., Ac.0-10 gts in Sy.No.638/3A out of Ac.01-10 gts dry land, situated at Kamareddy Town and District.

2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows :

The plaintiffs are brothers and sons of late Narayana @ Nara

Goud, plaintiff No.4 is cousin of the plaintiff No.1 to 3. The plaintiffs are owners of the suit land. Originally father of the plaintiff No.1 to 3 was pattedar and possessor of land an extent Ac.01-20 gts in

Sy.No.638/E, he died on 15-10-1994, mother of the plaintiff No.1 to 3 died in the year 1983. During life time of father of the plaintiff

No.1 to 3 he sold Ac.01-10 gts out of Ac.01-20 gts to one Parsi

Vittal vide Doc.No.1016/1981 dated 16-04-1981, the remaining land is the suit property herein, it is inherited by the plaintiffs, name of father of plaintiff No.1 to 3 is continued in the revenue records and it is recorded as Sy.No.638/3A. The defendant No.3 and 4 (Govt. Authorities) without knowledge of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 recorded name of the defendant No.5 as owner and possessor of Ac.0-07 gts in the suit survey number in the pahanies for the year 2008-09 without conducting enquiry as contemplated under

Records of Rights Act, thus entry of name of defendant No.5 in revenue records is false not binding on the plaintiffs. On 12-09- 2013 the plaintiffs have come to know about false entries, the suit 4 of 12 OS.No. 67/2022 (Old OS.No.03/2014) open land is situated near to NH.7 Road, the defendant No.6 having no right right or interest taking advantage of the suit land being left unfenced, illegally trying interfere with possession of the plaintiffs, on 22-10-2013 the plaintiffs issued notice to defendant

No.1 to 4 to correct the revenue records by recording name of the plaintiffs, by deleting name of their father and defendant No.5 in respect of Ac.0-07 gts, the defendant No.5 issued vague reply

dated 16-11-2013, therefore the revenue entries needs to be

declared as invalid, incorrect and void. Hence the present suit for rectification of entries and for injunction.

3. The case of the defendant No.5 in brief is as follows :

I.The defendant No.1 to 4 and 6 are set exparte, the defendant No.5 contested the case by filing written statement.

II.The defendant No.5 filed written statement denying contents in the plaint. According to defendant No.5, husband of the defendant No.5 was owner and pattedar of land in

Sy.No.638/A, an extent Ac.01-20 gts, the same was mutated in the name of defendant No.5 in the revenue records after death of her husband, she got pattedar passbook and title deed.

III.According to the defendant No.5, she sold entire 5 of 12 OS.No. 67/2022 (Old OS.No.03/2014) extent to third person, the purchaser is in possession and enjoyment, the suit land already converted into non-agriculture purpose and a Function Hall was constructed, therefore prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Based on the rival pleadings of both the parties, the following Issues are settled for trial.

“1. Whether the entries made in the revenue records/pahanies showing the names of Narayana Goud and defendant No.5 as owners and possessors of 10 guntas and 07 guntas in Sy.No.638/3A, situated at Kamareddy are incorrect, invalid and void?

2. Whether the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are entitled to be declared as owners and possessors of the suit land by deleting the names of Narayana Goud @ Nara Goud and Defendant No.5 in respect of 10 guntas out of Ac.1-10 gts and also 07 guntas in the said suit survey number ?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendant No.6 restraining the defendant No.6 form interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit open land ?

4.To what relief ?”

5.During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiffs PW1 and

PW2are examined and got exhibited Ex.A1 to A10 documents. No evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant No.5.

6 of 12 OS.No. 67/2022 (Old OS.No.03/2014)

6. Arguments:

I.Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted oral arguments contending that, the entries in revenue records are false, the plaintiffs are seeking for declaration of their right and therefore prayed to decree the suit.

II.Learned counsel for the defendant No.5 submitted oral arguments contending that the suit is liable to be dismissed, the defendant No.5 sold the property and land is converted for non- agricultural purpose.

Findings on Issues :

7. Issue Nos.1 :

I.The plaintiffs claims that the suit schedule property is agriculture land in Sy.No.638/A, father of the plaintiff No.1 was pattedar, he sold some portion out of Ac.01-20 gts and remaining land is Ac.0-10 gts but the entries in revenue records with respect to Ac.0-10 gts are in the name of defendant No.5 as possessor to an extent Ac.0-07 gts, the defendant No.3 and 4 have recorded 7 of 12 OS.No. 67/2022 (Old OS.No.03/2014) name of the defendant No.5 in revenue records as owner and possessor without following the procedure. Therefore the entries are false, hence the plaintiffs have sought for rectification of entries in revenue records.

II.The defendant No.5 though filed written statement not adduced any evidence however he participated in the proceedings. Since the suit schedule property is agriculture land the governing law as to entries in revenue records is Telangana

Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbook Act, 1971, this suit is filed in the year 2014. There is separate procedure is prescribed in record of rights act for mutation, rectification and maintenance of revenue records and issuance of pattedar passbooks. The person aggrieved against entries made in revenue records has to approach the recording authority in the prescribed manner for rectification, then Tahsildar or recording authority as to conduct enquiry in terms of Rule 15 and 16 by issuing prior notice to both parties, on completion of enquiry Tahsildar has to give his opinion by passing order and can direct rectification, an application for rectification of entries has to be disposed of within a period of 60 days. Section 8 of act is relevant for present case it reads as follows :

8 of 12 OS.No. 67/2022 (Old OS.No.03/2014)

Sec.8 - Bar of Suits :

“1) No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of

Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made or in relation to any entry made in any record of rights to have any such entry omitted or amended”.

“2) If any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession by any entry made in any record of rights, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Specific

Relief Act and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration”.

There is a clear bar to file a Civil Suit against Government or any Officer of the Government for rectification of entries in revenue records as per above section 8 (1) of Telangana R.O.C

Act, 1971.

III.The defendant No.1 to 4 herein are the Government and Revenue Department, the plaintiffs not approached concerned revenue authorities in terms of the prescribed law governing entries in revenue records, directly filed this suit for rectification of entries and deletion of names of Narayana Goud @ Nara Goud 9 of 12 OS.No. 67/2022 (Old OS.No.03/2014) (father of plaintiffs No.1 to 3) and defendant No.5.

IV.Under Section 8 (2) of the act – the remedy is for declaration of title against person denying and after that the entry in record has to be amended by revenue authorities, therefore in view of bar of suit for the relief of rectification the present suit is liable to be dismissed, accordingly issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiffs.

8. Issue No. 2 :

I.This issue is with regard to declaration of ownership of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3. The plaintiffs claims that their father is owner and pattedar, sold Ac.01-10 gts to one Parsi Vittal in the year 1981, the defendant No.3 and 4 have recorded name of the defendant No.5 as owner and possessor of Ac.0-07 gts and as such sought for declaration. The plaintiffs examined PW1 and 2 in support of their case, PW1 cross-examined in part, PW2 not cross- examined by the defendant No.5, father of plaintiffs died in the year 1983, it is the case of the plaintiffs during life time of their father he sold Ac.01-10 gts out of Ac.01-20 gts and remaining

Ac.0-10 gts is in the name of their father and still name of their 10 of 12 OS.No. 67/2022 (Old OS.No.03/2014) father incorrectly continuing in revenue records for total extent

Ac.01-20 gts and then the plaintiffs are claiming correction and name of defendant No.5 is entered as owner for land admeasuring

Ac.0-07 gts in said survey number in pahanies.

II.The plaintiffs filed Doc.No.1016/1981 which is marked as Ex.A6. As per written statement of defendant No.5 and Ex.A10 reply the defendant No.5 inherited property from her husband and she sold it, the purchasers are in possession and enjoyment and converted into non-agricultural purpose.

III.Here the defendant No.5 who is close relative of plaintiffs, she is claiming right by way of inheritance, as seen from cross-examination of PW1, there are other heirs to Late Narayana @ Narsa Goud. Said Narsa Goud having daughter, leaving some of heirs who are having vested interest, the plaintiffs cannot seek a declaration as owners against the defendant No.5, declaration of title is not a proper remedy to the plaintiffs, therefore no finding can be given by this Court as to ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property, as such the plaintiffs alone cannot be declared as owners of suit schedule property.

11 of 12 OS.No. 67/2022 (Old OS.No.03/2014)

9. Issue No.3 :

The plaintiffs and defendant No.5 are claiming right by way of inheritance, they become co-owners, the defendant No.6 claiming right through defendant No.5, the plaintiff are exclusive owners of suit property, as such no injunction can be passed at the instance of one co-owner against defendant No.6. The plaintiffs have not followed the due procedure under Record of

Right Act for entries in records filed this suit and in view of bar under section 8 of this act the present suit is liable to be dismissed, as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for injunction against the defendant No.6.

10. Issue No.4 :

In view of my findings in issue No.1 to 3 the suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

11.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on 31st day of March, 2023.

Senior Civil Judge,

Kamareddy

12 of 12 OS.No. 67/2022 (Old OS.No.03/2014)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

PW.1 :Swamy Goud (Plaintiff No.4)

PW.2 :Syed Esaruddin.

FOR DEFENDANTS

- Nil -

:: Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff ::

Ex.A1 :CC of consolidated pahani for the years 1973-74, 1980-81.

Ex.A2 :CC of consolidated pahani for the years 1985-86, 1990-91

Ex.A3 :CC of consolidated pahani for the years 1994-95, 2000-01

Ex.A4 :CC of consolidated pahani for the years 2005-06, 2008-09.

Ex.A5 :CC of pahani for the year 2011-12.

Ex.A6 :CC of sale deed Doc.No.1016/1981, dt. 16-04-1981, issued by the Sub-Registrar, Kamareddy.

Ex.A7 :Copy of legal notice dt. 22-10-2013 issued to the defendants.

Ex.A8 :Six postal receipts (D1 to D6).

Ex.A9 :Four postal acknowledgments passed by the D2 to D4 and D6.

Ex.A10 :Reply notice got issued by the defendant No.5 dt. 16-11- 2013.

:: Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defendants ::

- Nil -

Senior Civil Judge,

Kamareddy

1 of 9

O.S.No.40/2019

TSKM010000922019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KAMAREDDY

Present : Sri D. Kiran Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge,

Kamareddy.

Wednesday, this the 12th day of April, 2023.

O.S.No. 40 of 2019

Between:

Pedda Beera Bhasker, S/o. Vittal Rao, Aged: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture and Business, R/o. H.No.2-110, Lingampally Village (Post), Bhoompally, Sadashivnagar Mandal, Kamareddy District. Cell No.9440690614.

… Plaintiff.

And

Eppakayala Suresh, S/o. Ramulu, Aged about 46 years, Occ: R.M.P., Private practice, R/o. H.No.4-35, Bhoompally Village, Sadashivnagar Mandal, Kamareddy District.

…Defendant.

This case is coming on 03-04-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Rajender Jain, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri P. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for Defendant, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T:

1.The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,25,800/- with future interest @ 18% per annum 2 of 9

O.S.No.40/2019

from the date filing the suit till the date of realization of the suit amount.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows :

Plaintiff and defendant are having well acquaintance with each other. Out of such acquaintance the defendant approached plaintiff and requested the plaintiff for hand-loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for his personal necessities. On the same day the plaintiff advanced said money as security, the defendant executed promissory note agreeing to repay borrowed money on demand along with interest.

The plaintiff several times demanded the defendant for repayment however he failed to repay it, as such, on 03-04-2019 the plaintiff issued demand notice through his counsel to the defendant, the same is received, the defendant not paid money, hence the present suit for recovery of money.

3. The case of the defendant in brief is as follows :

Defendant filed written statement denying the transaction, execution of the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- with a promise to repay the same, whenever the plaintiff demanded. The defendant alleged that on 18-02-2016 he approached Y.Hanmanth Rao, borrowed sum of 3 of 9

O.S.No.40/2019

Rs.5,00,000/-, and executed bond paper on Rs.20/- stamp paper and also gave two blank promissory notes for Rs.3,00,000/- and

Rs.2,00,000/- by putting his signatures, later the defendant paid

Rs.2,00,000/- on 18-07-2016, Rs.2,50,000/- on 30-10-2018, on 02-01- 2019 and handed over Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff who was present in the house of Hanmanth Rao. The defendant subsequently came to know that the plaintiff is brother-in-law of Hanmanth Rao, even-after repayment of loan amount Hanmanth Rao not returned promissory notes, the defendant approached Gram Panchayat Authorities, a panchanyat was conducted in that panchayat Hanmanth Rao admitted that he will return the promissory notes, strangely the defendant received demand notice from the plaintiff and the present suit is filed on false grounds therefore the defendant is not liable to pay that suit amount and prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.On the basis of the above rival contentions, the following issues were settled for trial:

1) Whether the suit document (promissory note) is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant, as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

4 of 9

O.S.No.40/2019

5.The plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and brought on record

Exs.A1 to A3 documents. The plaintiff in support of his case he has examined PW2 who is attesting witnesses to the Ex.A1 promissory note. The Defendant himself is examined as DW-1 and in support of his case examined DW2 and no documents are exhibited, at the instance of defendant one Hanumanth Rao examined as CW1.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. ISSUE No .1 :

“Whether the suit document (promissory note) is true, valid and binding on the defendant?”

I.This suit is filed for recovery of money base on Ex.A1 promissory note. The plaintiff as PW1 deposed that the defendant on 18-02-2017 borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- promising to repay borrowed money with interest on demand, the defendant executed promissory note later he issued Ex.A2 demand notice, for which the defendant gave Ex.A3 reply, hence prayed to direct the defendant to pay the suit amount. The defence of the defendant is total denial of transaction with the plaintiff. The defendant in written statement and as well as in his evidence as DW1 taken defence that he borrowed money from one Hanmanth Rao on 18-02-2016 for said transaction he gave two blank signed promissory notes as security 5 of 9

O.S.No.40/2019

for Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- even after repayment said

Hanmanth Rao (CW1) not returned promissory notes, as such a panchayat was conducted in the village, then said Hanmanth Rao endorsed on the stamp paper agreeing to return the promissory notes. It is further case of the defendant that the plaintiff herein is brother-in-law of said Hanmanth Rao, misused one promissory note filed the present suit.

II.PW2 is examined by the plaintiff as one of the attesting witness to Ex.A1, his evidence is that Ex.A1 promissory note transaction took place in the house of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and defendant both are practicing as RMP Doctors, plaintiff is scribe of

Ex.A1 he attested as witness No.1. The defendant examined DW2 as caste elder, his evidence is that in their village a panchayat was conducted between Hanmantha Rao and defendant, in said panchayat Hanamatha Rao admitted to return the promissory notes.

In cross-examination of PW1 he stated that he is not a witness to money transaction between plaintiff and Hanmantha Rao.

III.The plaintiff relied on Ex.A1 promissory note, the defendant disputed transaction, however admitted his signature on

Ex.A1 promissory note. Ex.A1 is a negotiable instrument, once the person admitted his signature on negotiable instrument the statutory 6 of 9

O.S.No.40/2019

presumption is in the favour of the plaintiff (Holder) that, the holder of the negotiable instrument is a holder in due course, further as per

Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act, there is a presumption as to transaction in favour of the plaintiff that he is holder of the negotiable instrument in due course and Ex.A1 is executed for discharge of legally enforceable debt.

IV.Since the defendant admittedly his signature, in view of the statutory presumption in favour of the plaintiff the defendant has to rebut said presumption by adducing probable evidence. The defendant in support of his case that Hanmanth Rao misused promissory note got examined said Hanmanth Rao as Court Witness (CW1). During examination of CW1/Hanmanth Rao, he deposed that there was a hand-loan transaction between himself and defendant, the defendant repaid borrowed money, the defendant executed stamp paper. However, CW1 denied as to receiving two blank signed promissory notes from defendant.

V.The defendant examined witness DW2 as panchayat elder, normally if any panchayat conducted in the village there is practice of executing decision of panchayat elder on a document. In the present case the witness DW2 claimed that he is a panchayat elder of Grama Panchayat however there is no evidence that DW2 is elder 7 of 9

O.S.No.40/2019

of Grama Panchayat. Except panchayat elder the defendant not adduce any kind of evidence. According to the defendant he borrowed money in the year 2016 from Hanmanth Rao, repaid upto the year 2019. the defendant is a practicing RMP Doctor, he did not issued any notice to said Hanmanth Rao for return of promissory notes, there is no evidence that the defendant gave promissory notes in the blank form to Hanmanth Rao and plaintiff got them from

Hanmanth Rao, in the absence of such evidence it cannot be believed and presumed that being relative of Hanmanth Rao the plaintiff herein misused the promissory note and filed this suit. The defendant not stated any thing as to the another promissory note of him said to be with Hanmanth Rao, he did not issued any notice for return of the same as on today, no document of panchayat is filed, no prudent person would remain silent without getting back signed blank promissory notes even after panchayats, therefore basing on oral evidence evidence of the defendant it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff misused blank signed promissory of the defendant. For all these reasons the plaintiff proved that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant, the defendant failed to prove his case. Accordingly issue No.1 answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8 of 9

O.S.No.40/2019

8. Issue No.2 :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant, as prayed for?”

The plaintiff proved his case by examining PW1 and PW2 and by documentary evidence covered under Ex.A1 promissory note that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 18-02-2017 and in consideration the defendant has executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of his suit amount.

9. Issue No.3 : “To what relief?”

In view of findings in issue No.1 and 2 the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with interest.

10. IN THE RESULT the suit is decreed with costs. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.4,25,800/- with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit to till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of April, 2023.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAMAREDDY.

9 of 9

O.S.No.40/2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

F OR PLAINTIFF :

PW.1: Pedda Beera Bhasker (Plaintiff)

PW.2: Baddam Raji Reddy.

FOR DEFENDANT:

DW.1: Eppakayala Suresh (Defendant).

DW.2 : Pasula Sailu. Court Witness :

CW.1 : Y. Hanmanth Rao.

OCUMENTS MARKED D

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Promissory note dt. 18-02-2017.

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 03-04-2019.

Ex.A3: Reply notice dated 15-04-2019.

FOR DEFENDANT: – NIL-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAMAREDDY.