Smt D.naga Venkata Lakshmi Pjcj,atp

CC.427 of 2020 1 Dated 06.11.2020

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: Smt. D. NAGA VENKATA LAKSHMI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu.

Thursday, this the twenty third day of Two thousand twenty one (23.09.2021)

C.C. NO. 121 OF 2021

(Crime number 34 of 2021 of Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station)

Between:

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town

Police station... Complainant

And:

Pasupuleti Uday, aged 28 years, S/o Late P.Vinod, R/o D.No.13/230, Anantha Sagar Colony,….Accused Bukkarayasamudram Mandal.

This case is coming on 23.09.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the

Complainant and of Sri. U.Srinivas, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivers the following:

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

1.The State represented through P.W.5/Sub-Inspector of

Police, Ananthapuramu I Town police station filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.34 of 2021 of Ananthapuramu I Town Police station, for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal

Code.

2.The case of the prosecution alleged against the accused is as follows:

CC.427 of 2020 2 Dated 06.11.2020

On 18.01.2021 at around 6.00 A.M., some unknown offenders committed theft of Auto bearing No. AP02TB2122, worth

Rs.90,000/- belonging to Shaik Hussain(PW1/LW1), when he parked the same in front of his house bearing D.No.19/5-90, situated at Sri Krishna

Devaraya Nagar, Ananthapuramu. Basing on the report of Shaik

Hussain (PW1), M.Ramesh (PW.6/Lw7), Assistant Sub-Inspector of

Police of Ananthapuramu I Town Police station, registered a case in crime No.34 of 2021 under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code on 18.01.2021 at 8.00 p.m., and investigated into. He examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene. During the course of investigation, on 20.01.2021 at 4.00

Pm., near TV Tower, Ananthapuramu to Dharmavaram Road, S.K.Chand

Basha (P.W.5), Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town Police

Station arrested the accused and seized the stolen property concerned to this case and Cr.No.35/2021 from the possession of the accused under cover of mediator reports duly attested by two mediators, i.e,

A.Subahan (P.W.3/Lw5) and D.Anand Kumar (P.W4/Lw6). He produced the accused in this crime No.34/2021 of Ananthapuramu I Town Police station for judicial remand. Therefore, accused is liable for punishment under Section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code.

3.On 24.03.2021 this court took cognizance of case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 or 411 of

Indian penal Code.

4.After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Criminal Procedure

Code.

CC.427 of 2020 3 Dated 06.11.2020

5.On 06.04.2021 the accused was examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code in Telugu, for which he denied. After hearing both sides and on considering the entire record, a charge for the offence punishable under section 379 or 411 of Indian penal Code was framed against him. The same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined LWs 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 7 as PWs 1 to 6 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 besides MO1. The learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of V.G.Bramhaiah (LW3) and V.Padmavathi(LW4).

Accordingly, the prosecution side evidence was closed.

7.On 23.09.2021 after closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in question form in Telugu, for which he denied and reported that there is no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments of the learned Senior Assistant Public

Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. Perused the entire record.

9.Now the Points for determination are:

1. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that PW1 was in possession of MO1/ Auto and the said Auto was stolen from his possession prior to the alleged recovery made on 20.01.2021, beyond the reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that MO1/ Auto was recovered from the possession of

the accused, beyond the reasonable doubt?

CC.427 of 2020 4 Dated 06.11.2020

3. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused had dishonestly received or retained M.O.1/Auto by knowing or having reason to believe that M.O.1/Auto is stolen property, beyond the reasonable doubt?

4. Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused committed theft of MO1/ Auto from the house of PW1 and committed an offence punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, beyond the reasonable doubt?

5. Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for an offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, beyond the reasonable doubt?

10. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined

PWs1 to 6 out of 8 listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 besides MO1. PW1 is the defacto complainant. Ex.P1 is report given by PW1 dated 18.01.2021. M.O.1 is Bajaj Auto bearing No.

AP02TB2122. PW2 is the brother of PW1. PW3 and PW4 are the mediators who are said to have accompanied the police at the time of arrest and seizure. Exs.P2 and Ex.P3 are signatures of PW3 and PW4 respectively on mediator reports dated 20.01.2021 at 4.00 Pm. Ex.P4 is first information report dated 18.01.2021. Ex.P5 is rough sketch of scene. PW5 is the Sub-Inspector of police, Ananthapuramu I Town

Police Station, who arrested the accused and recovered the properties.

Ex.P6 is red marked relevant portion in the mediator report dated 20.01.2021 at 4.00 P.m., pertaining to arrest and seizure of MO1. PW6 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town Police

Station, who registered and investigated into the case.

11.The stand of the accused is of total denial. No evidence is adduced on his behalf.

CC.427 of 2020 5 Dated 06.11.2020

12.The learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW1 and PW.2 coupled with the contents of

Ex.P1/report establishes that MO1/ Auto was stolen from the possession of PW1 and that the evidence of P.W.5 further establishes that the accused had stolen the same and had dishonestly retained the said stolen property for wrongful gain and therefore, the accused is liable for conviction under Section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code.

13.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that there is no direct evidence to establish that the accused committed theft of Auto from the possession of Pw1 and further, there is no support of the independent mediators i.e., PW3 and PW4 to the prosecution case and furthermore, P.W.5 failed to secure local inhabitants as mediators and the CC footage of the scene of offence or the place of seizure and as, he failed to follow the procedure laid under law at the time of arrest and seizure, Accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.

14.In view of rival contentions, the entire evidence is perused.

15.Point No.(i):-

The evidence of P.W.1, the defacto complainant shows that in the year 2021 at around 7.00P.M., he parked his Auto bearing No.

AP02TB2122 i.e., MO.1 in front of his house situated at Sri Krishna

Devaraya Nagar, Ananthapuramu and on the next day, he noticed that his vehicle was stolen and then, he searched for the vehicle in the surrounding areas and on 18.01.2021 he gave report, i.e., Ex.P1 in

Ananthapuramu I Town Police station. His evidence further shows that after some days, he came to know about the recovery of his property.

CC.427 of 2020 6 Dated 06.11.2020

He identified the said auto bearing registration No. AP02TB2122 before the Court, as the vehicle stolen from his possession and the same is marked as M.O.1. His evidence is corroborative to the contents of

Ex.P1-report. The evidence of PW2 also goes in the same lines. Further, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 remained unchallenged. So, the court finds no reason to disbelieve his evidence.

16.The evidence of PW6 also corroborates the version of PW1 with regard to giving report(Ex.P1). His evidence further shows about registration of case in crime No.34 of 2021 under Section 379 of Indian

Penal Code, issuance of first information report, i.e., Ex.P4, examination of PW1 and other witnesses, recording of their statements and preparation of rough sketch of scene of offence(Ex.P5). Except putting suggestion that false case was registered for statistical purpose, which was denied by PW6, nothing was elicited to discard the evidence of PW6 in this aspect. Moreover, not even a suggestion was given to PW1 by disputing the factum of theft of MO1/Auto from his possession. Thus, the court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 supported by PW2 and PW6.

17.Further, no one including the accused disputed that PW1 is owner of that Auto(MO1) or claimed the said property as their own. In such circumstances, the court is of the view that the evidence of PW1 and PW6 coupled with the contents of Ex.P1/ report clinchingly establishes that MO1/ Auto belongs to PW1 and the same was stolen from his possession, prior to the alleged recovery made on 20.01.2021, beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution.

18. Point No.(ii) and (iii):-

CC.427 of 2020 7 Dated 06.11.2020

Now, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish that the said stolen property (MO1) was recovered from the possession of the accused. To prove this aspect, the prosecution has examined PW3 to P.W.5 and got marked Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Among them,

PW3 and PW4 are the independent mediators and P.W.5 is the investigation officer. According to P.W.5, on receiving credible information on 20.01.2021 at around 3.00 pm., he secured mediators, i.e., PW3 and PW4 and proceeded along with his staff to a place near

TV Tower, Ananthapuramu to Dharmavaram Road, where he found accused in possession of auto bearing registration No.AP02TB2122 i.e.,

MO.1 and on interrogation, accused confessed about the commission of the present offence and other crime. His evidence further shows that he recovered MO1-Auto and one tyre, four side mirrors, one horn, auto umbrella, auto mat from the possession of the accused, which are related to Cr.No.35/2021 of Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station and then, he arrested the accused, recorded his confession and seized the said motor cycle, i.e., M.O.1 and other properties under cover of mediator report (Ex.P6) and after following due formalities, he produced the accused in this crime before the court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

19.On coming to the independent mediators i.e., PW3 and

PW4, they did not support the prosecution version. Even though, they identified their respective signatures i.e., Exs.P2 and Ex.P3 in mediator report, they deposed that they did not know the contents of those papers. As PW3 and PW4 did not support the prosecution case, the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor declared them as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the court. But nothing was elicited from their evidence which supports the prosecution case or the

CC.427 of 2020 8 Dated 06.11.2020

cause of the hostility of those witnesses. So, there is no support of independent witnesses as well as independent mediators to the prosecution case.

20. The learned defence counsel argued that in the absence of support of the independent witnesses, the evidence of PW5 and PW6 cannot be relied upon to prove the alleged recovery of property. Per contra, the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.W.5 which establishes the recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused, need not be discarded for the reason of non-support of mediators. Though there is some force in the said contention, it is to be noted that the alleged recovery was not made subsequent to confession alleged to be made by the accused.

So, the contents of the said report (Ex.P6) are not even admissible under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Since, there is no support of independent mediators, the contents of the said mediator report which are hit by Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act, cannot be considered. No reason was assigned by the P.W.5 for non-securing the local inhabitants of the alleged place of arrest and seizure. In such circumstances, when there is no support of independent mediators, the

Court feels that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of

P.W.5.

21.At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the decision in

Botcha Raju and State represented by the Inspector of police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circle reported in 1994(2) ALT (Crl.) 69 (AP), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held in para 2 as follows:

CC.427 of 2020 9 Dated 06.11.2020

“… The evidence of PW3, PW8 and PW9, who are all police officers, cannot be easily believed without proper corroboration by disinterested witnesses. As such, the Courts below fell in error by accepting the version of police officers without the corroboration of disinterested witnesses mentioned above. No particular motive is made out against the above witnesses, who turned hostile, so as to say, that they are specially interested in the petitioner to bail him out of the offence”.

22.In the light of the above decision, in the absence of support of independent mediators, the Court is of the view that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW5 with regard to the recovery of MO1 from the possession of the accused. Therefore, the

Court finds no convincing and satisfactory evidence to hold that on 20.01.2021 the stolen property i.e., M.O.1/ Auto was recovered from the possession of the accused. When the prosecution failed to establish the alleged recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused, the question as to whether the accused had knowledge that the said Auto is stolen property or not, does not arise. Accordingly, points no 2 and 3 are answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

23.Point No.(iv):-

Now it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused had committed theft of MO1, as alleged.

Admittedly, Pw.1 or any other witness did not witness the commission of theft. Apparently, PW.5 or PW6 did not seize or secure any incriminating material such as finger prints and the CC Footage in the scene of offence, in order to connect the accused to the commission of

CC.427 of 2020 10 Dated 06.11.2020

offence. Further, there is no support of independent mediators even to the alleged recovery of MO1-Auto from the possession of the accused and the alleged confession said to be made by the accused. Thus, in absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence to connect the accused to the commission of offence, the court is not even able to draw any adverse presumption under section 114 of Evidence Act against the accused to conclude that he committed theft of Mo1.

Therefore, the court finds no convincing and satisfactory evidence to hold that the accused committed an offence punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, beyond the reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, Point No4 is answered against the prosecution.

24.Point No.(v):-

In view of the above discussion and findings in point no.(1) to (3), though the prosecution is able to establish that M.O.1/Auto was stolen from the possession of PW1 without his consent, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had dishonestly retained or received the said vehicle, by knowing that the said vehicle is stolen property. Therefore, the court holds that the prosecution failed to establish all the essential ingredients of Section 411 of Indian Penal

Code, to bring home the guilt of the accused for the said offence, beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point no.(5) is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

25.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the

CC.427 of 2020 11 Dated 06.11.2020

said offences. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

M.O.1/Auto (CPR No.13/2021) was already given to the interim custody of PW1. Hence, M.O.1 is ordered to be retained by PW1 after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of

September, 2021.

Sd/- D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1Shaik HussainNone

P.W.2S.Mahaboob Basha PW.3A.Subahan PW.4D.Anand Kumar PW.5S.K.Chand Basha, Sub-Inspector of police, I Town police station, Ananthapuramu. PW.6M.Ramesh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Ananthapuramu.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution:

ExhibitDescription Ex.P1:Report given by PW1, dated 18.01.2021.

Ex.P2:Signature of PW3 on mediator report, dated 20.01.2021 at 4.00 Pm., Ex.P3:Signature of PW4 on mediator report, dated 20.01.2021 at 4.00 Pm., Ex.P4:Original First Information Report, dated 18.01.2021.

CC.427 of 2020 12 Dated 06.11.2020

Ex.P5:Rough Sketch of the scene. Ex.P6:Red marked relevant portion in the mediator report dated 20.01.2021 at 4.00 p.m., pertaining to arrest and seizure of MO1.

For Defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For prosecutionFor defence

MO1Autobearingregistration Nil No.AP02TB2122

Sd/- D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ananthapuramu.

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ananthapuramu.

CC.427 of 2020 13 Dated 06.11.2020

CALENDAR CASES TRIED

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ANANTHAPURAMU

Calendar Case No.121 of 2021

Complainant : Sub-Inspector of police, Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station. (Crime No.34 of 2021 of Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station) Pasupuleti Uday, aged 28 years, S/o Late P.Vinod, R/o D.No.13/230, Anantha Sagar Colony, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal.

Date of Report or Appearance / Released Commence Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint Apprehension on bail ment of trial Order

of accused trial

17.01.2021 18.01.202120.01.2021 28.01.202115.04.2021 23.09.2021 23.09.2021

Offences :-Under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Finding :- Found not guilty. Sentence of Order:- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

M.O.1/Auto (CPR No.13/2021) was already given to the interim custody of PW1. Hence, M.O.1 is ordered to be retained by PW1 after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ananthapuramu. Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu.

//True copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ananthapuramu.

DIS.No._____________, Dt._________________.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Smt. D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

Tuesday, this the 07 th day of September, 2021.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.578 of 2018

Between:- S.Chand Basha @ S.Chand, aged 32 years, S/o S.Razak, Muslim, R/o D.No.19-4- 307, Vinayaka Nagar, Ananthapuramu City and District. ..Plaintif AND

1) P.Gangadhar, aged 46 years, S/o Chinna Pullanna, Hindu, R/o D.No.9-278, Gulzarpet, Ananthapuramu City.

2) Y.Subramanyam, aged 42 years, S/o Y.Papaiah, Hindu, R/o Bondaladinne Village, Tadipatri Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

3) Palva Kale Naik, aged 44 years, S/o Narasimha Naik, Hindu, Ex-Sarpanch, R/o Rudrampet, Ananthapuramu Rural and District.

4) M.Narayana Swamy, aged 38 years, S/o Narayanappa, Hindu, R/o D.No.13-30, Ananthapuramu Mandal and District.

..Defendants

Suit is filed for the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants, from interfering with the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit. This suit is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri R.Jayaramu Reddy, Advocate for the plaintif and Sri N.R.K.Mohan, Advocate for the defendant No.2 and 4, and plaintif’s counsel filed a memo, this Court delivers the following:- // J U D G M E N T //

Called through video conference (virtual mode). The learned counsel for the plaintif filed a memo through e-filing intimating that the matter is settled out of the court with the intervention of the elders and so, the plaintif is not pressing the suit and thus, the suit may be dismissed. Memo is also filed physically on 03.09.2021. Notice is given to the learned counsel for defendant No.2 and 4. Summons are not yet served on defendant No.1 and 3. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for defendant No.2 and 4 reported no objection and endorsed the same on memo. Hence, the memo is recorded. In the result, suit is dismissed without costs, as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in the open Court through virtual mode on this the 07th day of September, 2021.

Sd/- D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence: Nil

Sd/- D.N.V.L.,

P.J.C.J.

Ananthapuramu.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Smt. D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

Monday, this the 21 st day of June, 2021.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.463 of 2021

Between:- R. Praveen Kumar Reddy, aged 54 years, S/o Ramakrishna Reddy, Hindu, Private Employee, Residing at D.No.3-162-1, 2nd Road, Ananthapuramu City and District. ..Plaintif AND G. Narasimha Reddy, aged 57 years, S/o Narayana Reddy, Hindu, Business and Cultivation, Residing at LIG-423, A.P. Housing Board Colony, Ananthapuramu City and District.

..Defendant

Suit filed for recovery of Rs.5,24,665/- (Rupees Five lakhs twenty four thousand six hundred and sixty five Only) being the principal and interest at the rate of 24% per annum due on a promissory note dated 11.03.2021 executed by the defendantin favour of plaintif for Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakhs Only) and for costs of the suit. This suit is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri L.Rajiv Reddy, Advocate for the plaintif and plaintif’s counsel filed a memo, this Court delivers the following:- // J U D G M E N T //

As per the orders in I.A.No.530/2021, dated 21.06.2021, suit is advanced from 29.06.2021 to this day i.e., 21.06.2021. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif through Bluejeans video conference. He filed a memo dated 18.06.2021, intimating that the matter is settled out of the court and the plaintif received an amount of Rs.5,24,665/- (Rupees Five lakhs twenty four thousand six hundred and sixty five Only) from the defendant. Memo is recorded. Hence, suit is dismissed as settled out of the court.

Pronounced by me in the open Court through (virtual mode) on this the 21st day of June, 2021.

Sd/- D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence: Nil

Sd/- D.N.V.L.,

P.J.C.J.

Ananthapuramu.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Smt. D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

Monday, this the 21 st day of June, 2021.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.459 of 2021

Between:- L. Purushotham Reddy, aged 48 years, S/o L.Peddi Reddy, Hindu, Cultivation, Residing at D.No.2-109, Muthyalacheruvu Village, Kadiri Mandal, Ananthapuramu District-515591. ..Plaintif AND G. Narasimha Reddy, aged 57 years, S/o Narayana Reddy, Hindu, Business and Cultivation, Residing at LIG-423, A.P.Housing Board Colony, Ananthapuramu City and District.

..Defendant

Suit filed for recovery of Rs.4,65,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs and sixty five thousand Only) being the principal and interest at the rate of 24% per annum due on a promissory note dated 05.04.2021 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four lakhs and fifty thousand Only) and for costs of the suit.

This suit is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri L. Rajiv Reddy, Advocate for the plaintif and plaintif’s counsel filed a memo, this Court delivers the following:- // J U D G M E N T //

As per the orders in I.A. No. 532/2021, dated 21.06.2021 suit is advanced from 29.06.2021 to this day i.e., 21.06.2021. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif through Bluejeans video conference. He fiiled a memo intimating that the plaintif received Rs.4,65,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs sixty five thousand Only) from the defendant and the suit is settled out of the court and so, suit may be dismissed without costs. Memo is recorded. Hence, suit is dismissed without costs as settled out of the court.

Pronounced by me in the open Court through virtual mode on this the 21 st day of June, 2021.

Sd/- D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence: Nil

Sd/- D.N.V.L.,

P.J.C.J.

Ananthapuramu.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Smt. D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

Wednesday, this the 30 th day of June, 2021

ORIGINAL SUIT No.156 of 2019

Between:- P. Rambhupal Reddy, aged 53 years, S/o Sreerami Reddy, R/o Thimpeta Village, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. ..Plaintif AND

1. B. Venkataramudu, aged 58 years, S/o Pedda Sanjeevulu, R/o Thalagasipalli Village, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapuramu.

2. E. Narasappa, aged 40 years, S/o Narasappa, R/o Kallumadi Village, Singanamala Mandal.

..Defendants

Suit filed for Specific Performance of an agreement of Sale dated 21.11.2017 directing the 1st defendant to execute the Registered Sale deed in favour of plaintif for the plaint schedule property by receiving balance of consideration and if he fails to do the same, the same may be ordered through Court of law and for costs of the suit. This suit is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri P.L.Eswar Reddy, Advocate for the plaintif and defendant No.1 having remained exparte, Sri N.R.K.Mohan, Advocate for defendant No.2 and plaintif’s counsel filed a memo, this Court delivers the following:- // J U D G M E N T //

Called through Video Conference. The learned counsel for the plaintif filed a memo intimating that the matter is settled out of the court and so, the suit may be dismissed without costs. Notice is given to other side. Reported no objection. Heard. Memo is recorded. In the result, suit is dismissed without costs, as settled out of the court.

Pronounced by me in the open Court through virtual mode on this the 30 th day of June, 2021.

Sd/- D.Naga Venkata Lakshmi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence: Nil

Sd/- D.N.V.L.,

P.J.C.J.

Ananthapuramu.