Sri D.ramakanth

1 of 16 Judgment in Crl.A.16 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :

NAGARKURNOOL.

PRESENT : SRI. D.RAMAKANTH,

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

NAGARKURNOOL.

Tuesday, this the 19 th Day of May, 2026.

Crl. Appeal No.16 of 2023

From which court this Appeal is Judicial Magistrate of First Class, preferredKalwakurthy.

Case Number in that CourtC.C. No. 646 of 2016

Criminal Appeal NumberCrl. Appeal No. 16/2023.

Name and Description of the Erlapally Venkataiah S/o Sailu, aged

Appellant/Accusedabout. 26 years, Occ. Driver of Auto No.

AP 28-Y-6542, N/o Sirsangandla Village,

Vangoor Mandal, Now at Narsampally

Village, Midjil Mandal.

Name and Description of the The State of Telangana, rep. by the

Respondent/ComplainantStation House Officer, P.S., Kalwakuthy.

The Law under which the The Accused is found guilty of the offence

Appellant was convicted and the under Sec. 304-A of IPC, convicted under sentence imposedSec. 255 (2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three Months and to pay fine of

Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for a period of One Month.

Whether Confirmed, modified or The Criminal Appeal is allowed as prayed 2 of 16 Judgment in Crl.A.16 of 2023 reversedfor and the Judgment of conviction passed against the Appellant/Accused for the offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC in

C.C. No. 646 of 2016, dated: 29.08.2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Kalwakurthy is set aside. The

Appellant/Accused is acquitted for the offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC and he is set at liberty forthwith and his bail bonds, if any shall stand canceled. The fine amount paid if any, shall be refunded to the Appellant/Accused.

Date or on which

Presentation of Appeal22.09.2023

Filing of Appeal22.09.2023

Notice issued to Respondent to 20.10.2023 appear

Whether on bail, if so, bail bond-

Respondent ordered to appear-

Hearing of Appeal19.05.2026

Judgment19.05.2026

This criminal appeal is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Venkateshwarlu and Sri. C. Krishnaiah, Advocates for the

Appellant/Accused and Sri. Md. Hameed Ali, Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 3 of 16 Judgment in Crl.A.16 of 2023

J U D G M E N T

The challenge in the present Criminal Appeal is to the conviction recorded in C.C. No.646/2016, dt. 29.08.2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy, wherein and whereby the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC.

2.The parties are referred as arraigned before the trial court for convenience.

3.Before going into the prosecution evidence, it is appropriate to see what is the background of the case, which in brief is as under:

(a) On 10.08.2016 at 2100 hours, the Defacto Complainant/P.W.1 namely

Bangi Srinivasulu lodged report to Police stating that they have around 100 sheep and about 8 months back, he along with Sarda Anjaneyulu (P.W.1) and their servant Atkuri Yadaiah (deceased) went to

Mirlyalaguda to graze the sheep and on that day while they were returning to their village along with sheep, at about 7:00 pm when they reached the outskirts of Marchala Village, Kalwakurthy Mandal, the accused, being the driver of auto bearing No. AP 28 Y 6542 came from their back side with his auto in rash, negligent manner with high speed and dashed to said Yadaiah and the sheep, due to which, the sheep received bleeding injuries and Yadaiah sustained bleeding injuries to his 4 of 16 Judgment in Crl.A.16 of 2023 head and fracture injury to his left calf. Then Yadaiah was shifted to

Government Hospital, Kalwakurthy for treatment.

(b) Basing on said report, a case in Cr.No. 191/2016 for the offence U/Sec.

337 of IPC was registered. During investigation, Police examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators. On 13.08.2016 at 7:46 am, the injured Atkuri Yadaiah succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at Good Life Hospital, Hyderabad. Thus, the Police altered the case from Sec. 337 of IPC to Sec. 304-A IPC, conducted inquest panchanama over the corpse of the deceased and sent to Post Mortem

Examination. After completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC.

(c) After taking cognizance, the trial court has secured the presence of accused, supplied copies to him and explained accusation for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC for which, the accused denied the allegations and sought for trial. During trial, the trial court has examined

P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. On completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf, but got marked Exs.D1 and D2 on his behalf.

5 of 16 Judgment in Crl.A.16 of 2023

(d) After hearing the prosecution and defence counsel, the trial court has found the accused guilty of the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC, convicted him under Sec. 255(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of Three Months and to pay a fine of

Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of One Month.

4.Being aggrieved bythe judgment of conviction, the appellant/accused is thus, before this Court and sought to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court on following grounds:

a) The trial court has passed the impugned judgment against the settled principles of law and the same is liable to be set aside.

b) The impugned judgment is without cogent reasons. The trial court has failed to note that the prosecution could not make out the ingredients under Sec. 304-A IPC. The trial court has erroneously convicted the accused without appreciating the evidence properly.

c) The trial court has failed to observe that

d) The trial court has

e) and erroneously convicted the accused. Hence, the appellant/accused prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment.

6 of 16 Judgment in Crl.A.16 of 2023 5.Heard both sides at length. Perused the trial court record. I have given my thoughtful consideration as to the contentions of both sides and the material record.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant would maintain that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and has erred in convicting the appellant and therefore, the Judgment of the trial court is liable to be set aside and thus, sought to allow the Appeal.

7.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the trial court has rightly considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and convicted the appellant and therefore, there is no need to interfere and sought to dismiss the Appeal by confirming the Judgment of conviction.

8.On hearing both sides, the following points emerge for consideration:

(1) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Appellant/

Accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec.

304-A IPC ?

(2) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment passed in C.C. No. 646 of 2016, dated: 29.08.2023 on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy ?

(3) To what result ?

7 of 16 Judgment in Crl.A.16 of 2023

9. Point Nos.1 and 2: To establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC, the prosecution has to prove the identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle, that he has committed a rash or negligent act and due to such rashness or negligence, the death of the deceased was caused.

10.To prove said ingredients, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 9. The P.W.1 is the Defacto Complainant. Himself and P.W.2 are the eye witnesses. The P.Ws.3 to 5 are the family members of the deceased. The

P.W.6 is the mediator for inquest panchanama and crime details form. The

P.W.7 is the Medical Officer, P.W.8 is the Motor Vehicles Inspector and P.W.9 is the investigating officer.

11.So far as proving the death of the deceased is concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, report (Ex.P1), inquest mediator (P.W.6), inquest panchanama (Ex.P3) and post mortem examination report (Ex.P4) are clearly showing that the deceased Yadaiah died on 13.08.2016 in a road traffic accident occurred on 10.08.2016 at 1900 hours in the limits of Marchala Village and the cause of his death is due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to intracranial hemorrhage. Thus, the death of the deceased due to road traffic accident, is proved beyond doubt.

8 of 16 Judgment in Crl.A.16 of 2023

12.To prove the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle i.e., auto bearing No. AP 28 Y 6542 at the time of alleged incident and to prove the rash or negligent act of the driver of crime vehicle, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, motor vehicles inspector (P.W.8), his report (Ex.P5) and crime details form (Ex.P2) are very much crucial.

13.The P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that on 10.08.2016 while they along with

Yadaiah were coming from Kalwakurthy to Mahaboobnagar along with their sheep and when they reached Marchala village at about 7:00 p.m., the accused drove his auto bearing No.6542 in rash and negligent manner and hit their two sheep and Yadaiah, due to which two sheep died on the spot and

Yadaiah received fracture to his left leg and fell on the ground and they shifted

Yadaiah in the crime vehicle to the hospital at Kalwakuthy and from there he was initially taken to Mahabubnagar and later to Hyderabad for better treatment and while undergoing treatment, Yadaiah succumbed to injuries.

The P.Ws.1 and 2 identified the accused as the driver of crime vehicle and caused the death of the deceased. As per P.W.1, he lodged report to the

Police as in Ex.P1.

14.In cross examination, P.Ws.1 and 2 stated that at the time of incident, the P.W.1 was present in the front side of the sheep flock and P.W.2 was present in the middle of the flock and the deceased was present at the end.

9 of 16 Judgment in Crl.A.16 of 2023

They categorically stated that they came to know the name and other particulars of the accused in the Police Station through others. As per P.W.1, the accused was not shown to him at the scene of offence and in his auto, they have shifted the deceased to the hospital and neither the accused nor any passengers in the crime vehicle sustained injuries in the incident.

15.The P.Ws.3 to 5 are the relatives of the deceased and they are hear-say witnesses. They deposed that they received information through phone that the deceased met with an accident around 7:00 pm on 10.8.2016 as one auto dashed him from behind near Marchala road, due to which he received severe bleeding injuries to his head, left leg and thus, they rushed to a hospital at

Hyderabad and after three days, the injured succumbed to injuries and they came to know the auto number is 6542.

16.The P.W.6 deposed that on 13.8.2016 at 2:00 pm the Police conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased at CHC Kalwakurthy and he found injury on the back side of head, fracture injury on left leg, scratch injury on the left eye and he signed the Inquest panchanama (Ex.P3).

He stated that the Police also prepared crime details form cum rough shketch (Ex.P2) at the scene of offence and he attested the same.

10 of 16 Judgment in Crl.A.16 of 2023

17.The P.W.7 deposed that on 13.08.2016, he has conducted the post mortem examination on the corpse of the deceased and found the injuries as noted in post mortem report i.e., Ex.P4 and opined that the cause of death of the deceased is due to “cardio pulmonary arrest due to severe intracranial hemorrhage.”

18. The P.W.8 deposed that on 24.8.2016 on receipt of requisition from

Police, Kalwakurthy, he inspected the crime vehicle bearing No.AP28 Y 6542 (Auto Rickshaw) at Police Station, Kalwakurthy and issued Motor Vehicle

Inspector’s report as in Ex.P5 opining that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects. In cross examination, P.W.8 admitted that the crime vehicle was inspected after 15 days of the incident.

19.The P.W.9 deposed that basing on the report (Ex.P1) lodged by P.W.1, he registered Cr.No.191/2016 U/Sec. 337 IPC and issued FIR (Ex.P6) and he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama (Ex.P2) and on 13.8.2016 on receipt of death information of deceased, he altered the case from Sec. 337 IPC to Sec. 304-A IPC and conducted inquest panchanama (Ex.P3) and sent the dead body for post mortem examination and after obtaining Post Mortem Examination report (Ex.P4) and MVI report (Ex.P5), he filed the charge sheet.

11 of 16 Judgment in Crl.A.16 of 2023

20.In cross examination, P.W.9 admitted that he did not examine the owner of the crime vehicle namely Siddu to ascertain whether the accused was working under him on crime vehicle. He admitted that though it is mentioned in the charge sheet that the sheep was injured, he did not mention how many sheep were injured and according to him, no such sheep died in the incident.

He admitted that he did not examine any of the passengers travelled in the crime vehicle. He admitted that till the inspection of crime vehicle by P.W.8, it was kept in Police Station and that when he inspected the scene of offence, there were no injured or dead sheep at that place, except the crime vehicle.

21.On careful perusal of above evidence, though the material witnesses have supported the prosecution, the P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the eye witnesses and the persons allegedly present at the scene of offence at the time of incident, admitted that the P.W.1 was present in front side of the sheep flock and P.W.2 was present in the middle and the deceased was present at the end. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the contents of Ex.P1 which is the report lodged to Police at the earliest point of time, the accused drove the crime vehicle from the back side of the sheep flock and dashed against the flock and the deceased Yadaiah.

22.In such circumstances and as the time of alleged incident is 07.00 p.m, during the mid of August month, there would not be any scope for the P.Ws.1 12 of 16 Judgment in Crl.A.16 of 2023 and 2 to observe whether the crime vehicle was being driven in a rash or negligent manner at the time of alleged incident and that it was driven by the accused. When a huge flock of more than 100 sheep was proceeding on the road, it would not be possible for any vehicle driver to drive the vehicle in high speed. The crime details form cum rough sketch (Ex.P2) recorded by P.W.9 is not containing any particulars to show that the crime vehicle was proceeding in a rash or negligent manner at the time of alleged incident. No tyre marks or skid marks or any other aspects were noted in Ex.P2 by P.W.9 to infer that the crime vehicle was proceeding in a rash or negligent manner.

23.The Ex.P2 though containing a rough sketch, is not describing about any physical features of scene of offence or about the condition of the road.

Further, the evidence of Motor Vehicles Inspector (P.W.8) and his report (Ex.

P5), are not showing any material observations to infer that there was any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of crime vehicle. Ex.P5 is not speaking about the visiting the crime scene by Motor Vehicles Inspector.

24.Though P.Ws.1 and 2 have identified the accused as the driver of crime vehicle and stated that the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital,

Kalwakurthy in the same vehicle driven by the accused, this version is not found place in the report (Ex.P1) lodged by P.W.1. The P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated the said version before the court for the first time without there being 13 of 16 Judgment in Crl.A.16 of 2023 any earlier statement in that regard. Therefore, the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Kalwakurthy in the crime vehicle, does not inspire confidence. Further, the admissions of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they came to know about the particulars of the accused through the villagers of the accused that too in Police Station, also belies their version.

25.Apart from this, the owner of the crime vehicle was not examined by the investigating officer for the reasons better known to him. The evidence of

Motor Vehicle Inspector (P.W.8) and his report (Ex.P5) discloses that the crime vehicle was inspected on 24.08.2016 i.e., after two weeks of the alleged road traffic accident which took place on 10.08.2016. When the crime vehicle is removed from the scene of offence and when there is a delay of 14 days in inspecting the crime vehicle by P.W.8, that too after its shifting from the scene of offence to the Police Station, this Court is of the view that no much value is attached to the evidence of P.W.8 and his report as in Ex.P5.

26.The evidence of inquest mediator (P.W.6) and the inquest panchanama (Ex.P3) are establishing the death and cause of death of the deceased.

However, it is the settled law that the evidence of inquest mediator is relevant, only to know the cause of death of the deceased, but not to connect the accused with such death, unless such inquest mediator happens to be the eye witness to the alleged incident.

14 of 16 Judgment in Crl.A.16 of 2023

27.As it is found that there is no scope for P.Ws.1 and 2 to observe what was happening behind them as the deceased was present in the back side of the sheep flock at the time of alleged incident and as it is clearly established that the P.Ws.1 and 2 could not observe the accused at the scene of offence at the time of incident and as it was a night hours and as there was no occasion for the P.Ws.1 and 2 to observe that whether the crime vehicle was proceeding in rash or negligent manner at the time of the incident, this Court is of the view that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not inspiring confidence either to establish the identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle or to show that crime vehicle was driven in a rash or negligent manner at the time of alleged incident. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no legally acceptable evidence to establish the identify of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle and to prove that he drove the crime vehicle i.e., Auto bearing No. AP 28 Y 6542 in a rash or negligent manner at the time of alleged incident and only due to such rash or negligent act, the death of the deceased is resulted.

28.In the light of above observations, this Court holds that there is no legally acceptable evidence to establish the identity of the accused as the driver of crime vehicle and to establish that he drove the said vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and thereby caused the death of the deceased Yadaiah.

Therefore, this Court holds that there is no clinching evidence to prove the 15 of 16 Judgment in Crl.A.16 of 2023 rash and negligent act of the driver of crime vehicle resulting into the death of the deceased. Thus, I hold that the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

29.The trial court has failed to observe the above aspects in its judgment and failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution in proper manner and thus, erroneously recorded the conviction of the accused for the offence under

Sec. 304-A IPC. As the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, I hold that the accused is entitled for acquittal. Thus, the judgment of conviction as recorded by the trial court against the accused is unsustainable and therefore, the same is deserves to be set aside. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

30. Point No.3: In view of the findings recorded while answering the Points

Nos.1 and 2, the Judgment of conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy against the Appellant/Accused for an offence under Sec. 304-A IPC in C.C. No. 646 of 2016, dated: 29.08.2023 is liable to be set aside and the Criminal Appeal as preferred by the Appellant/Accused is to be allowed. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

16 of 16 Judgment in Crl.A.16 of 2023

31. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed as prayed for and the

Judgment of conviction passed against the Appellant/Accused for the offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC in C.C. No. 646 of 2016, dated: 29.08.2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy is set aside. The

Appellant/Accused is acquitted of the offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC and he is set at liberty forthwith and his bail bonds, if any shall stand canceled. The fine amount paid if any, shall be refunded to the Appellant/Accused.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Garde-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of May, 2026.

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

NAGARKURNOOL.

1 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: NAGARKURNOOL.

Present: - D. Ramakanth,

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal -cum-Principal District Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

Wednesday, this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

MVOP No.2 of 2023

Between:

1) Singarapu Rajitha W/o Late Singarapu Srisailam,

Age: 23 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2) Singarapu Rithwika D/o Late Singarapu Srisailam, Age: 2 years,

3) Singarapu Nandasri D/o Late Singarapu Srisailam, Age: 4 years,

4) Singarapu Alivelamma W/o Chenrayudu, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,

5) Singarapu Chenrayudu S/o Late Pedda Balaiah, Age: 60 years,

Occ: Agriculture, The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are minors under guardianship of their mother, the petitioner No.1.

All R/o H. No.6-80, Sripuram Village,

Nagarkurnool Mandal & District. … Petitioners

And

1) Devender Singh S/o Thatiram, Age: major, Occ: Driver of the crime vehicle, R/o Ghoshpura, Gwalior District, Maharastra State.

2) Midathana Venkatalakshmi W/o M. Ch. Nayudu, Age: major,

Occ: Owner of the vehicle, R/o House No.36-94-60, Ward No.37,

Bapujinagar, Kancherlapalem, Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

3) National Insurance Company Limited,

Represented by it's Manager, Road No.1, Badepally (Jadcherla),

Mahabubnagar District, Telangana State.

(Policy No.560200312110002234 valid from 15-12-2021 to 14-12-2022) … Respondents 2 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023

This Original Petition is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. V. Rama Krishna Yadav and Sri. S. Sreekanth, Advocates for the Petitioners and Sri. M.D. Pasha, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. K. Mohan Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and upon perusing the material on record, the tribunal delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This is a claim petition filed under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming the compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- for the death of Singarapu

Srisailam, caused in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 01-12-2022.

2. The brief facts of the petition are as follows :-

(a) The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased Singarapu

Srisailam.

(b) On 01-12-2022 at 6.30 p.m, while the deceased was returning to

Sripuram from Deval Thirumalapur Village on his motor bike bearing No.

TS 31 B 4540 and when he reached Chandubatla Village Gate lying on the road from Kollapur to Nagarkurnool, the deceased dashed from rear side to one lorry bearing No. AP 31 TU 8889 with HITACHI, which was parked on the road negligently without any indications, having no lights and without taking any precautions, due to which, Srisailam sustained severe bleeding injuries all over his body and died at that place itself.

3 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023

(c) The respondent No.2 is the registered owner, the respondent No.3 is the insurer and the respondent No.1 is the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No. AP 31 TU 8889. On the report lodged by the petitioner

No.1, a case in Cr. No.407/2022 under Sec. 304-A IPC was registered by the Police, Nagarkurnool against the respondent No.1 and after due investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

(d)At the time of said incident, the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 26 years and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month as shepherd and as he was also earning by working as mason and he was maintaining his family from said income. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners suffered mental agony and lost only earning member of the family and the petitioner No.1 lost her husband, his company and consortium, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 lost their father’s love and affection and the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 lost their son's love and affection. The deceased if alive, would have taken care of the petitioners till his lifetime and the petitioners are his only legal heirs and except them, there is no other legal heir. The petitioners estimate the loss sustained by them at Rs.60,00,000/. As the respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of said motor vehicle, they are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence, the petition.

4 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023

3.The respondent Nos.1 and 2 entered into appearance. The respondent

No.1 filed his counter and the same is adopted by the respondent No.2. They resisted the claim of the petitioners with following defence. :-

The petition averments are totally false and incorrect. The claim of the petitioners is very excessive and not sustainable. The lorry which was involved in the said accident is insured with respondent No.3. If the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, that may be awarded against the respondent

No.3. Thus, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to dismiss the petition.

4.The respondent No.3 entered into appearance and filed counter and resisted the claim of the petitioners with following defence. :-

(a) The petition averments are totally false and incorrect. In the charge sheet it is shown that the deceased drove the motor bike negligently and dashed the lorry from rear side. As the alleged Road Traffic Accident occurred at 6.30 P.M, sunlight might be there and it is doubtful which vehicle was involved in said accident. The petitioners created a false story for claiming huge compensation. The alleged motor vehicle accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the motor bike bearing No. TS 31 B 4540 only, as he was unable to control his bike and hit the stationed lorry from rear side and he was not having valid driving licence and he did not wear helmet at the time of said incident.

5 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023

The respondent No.1 lorry was road worthy to ply at the material time of the alleged accident.

(b) The respondent No.3 company is unaware of the alleged accident as the respondent No.1 did not inform it with in prescribed time. The petitioners are put to strict proof and evidence of alleged Road Traffic Accident. It is a mandatory duty of the Police concerned to forward all the relevant documents to the insurer concerned within 30 days from the date of the information, but the Police, P.S., Wanaparthy rural has failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory requirement.

(c) As such, the claim petition is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed. In fact, the death of the deceased was resulted due to negligence of the deceased, as he negligently drove the motor bike and hit to the stationed lorry, which resulted into his death. Thus, the deceased contributed himself for the fateful incident and the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation. The petitioners failed to produce the proof of income of the deceased. The compensation as claimed by the petitioners is excessive, arbitrary and out of all proportions.

(d) Even though, if any compensation is to be awarded to the petitioners, the respondent No.3 is duty bound to deduct the income tax at source and to remit the same to the State. Therefore, the petitioners have to state the

PAN card number in the claim application. The respondent No.3 is 6 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023 having the protection of the provisions under Secs. 147, 149 and 170 of

M.V. Act. The petitioners are not entitled for the compensation as sought for. Thus, the respondent No.3 sought to dismiss the petition.

5.Basing on the rival pleadings, the following issues were settled :

(1) Whether the accident occurred on 01.12.2022 at about 0630 hours at BT

Road of Chandubatla gate on the road leading from Kollapur to Kollapur

X-Road of Nagarkurnool Mandal and District is due to rash and negligent driving of Devender Singh (Respondent No.1) with lorry bearing No. AP 31 TU 8889 and whether it resulted in causing death of the deceased/Singarapu Srisailam ?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, to what amount and from whom ?

(3) To what relief ?

6.Heard both sides at length.

7.To prove their case, the petitioners examined the petitioner No.1 as

P.W.1 and further examined one Orsu Narsimha as P.W.2 and they relied upon

Exs.P1 to P8. On the other hand, the respondents reported no evidence on their behalf. However, the Ex.R1 is marked on behalf of the respondent No.3 7 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023 with consent of both sides. Ex.R1 is the Insurance Policy pertaining to the lorry bearing No. AP 31 TU 8889. No other evidence could be adduced by the respondents.

8. Issue Nos.1 and 2: To prove their case, the petitioners examined the petitioner No.1 as P.W.1. The P.W.1 has reiterated the petition averments in chief examination. In her cross examination, P.W.1 stated that she do not know whether her husband was having driving licence to ride a motor bike and admitted that they have not filed such driving licence into the Court. She admitted that she had not filed any document to show that her husband was earning Rs.1,000/- per day.

9. Through P.W.1, Exs.P1 to P8 are marked.

(a) Ex.P1 is the first information report. Ex.P2 is the report in Cr.No.

407/2022 of P.S. Nagarkurnool. They shows that the petitioner No.1, who is the wife of the deceased has lodged report to Police stating that on 02.12.2022 at 0800 hours, she was informed over phone that while her husband (deceased) was proceeding on his motor bike bearing No. TS 31 B 4540 and when he reached Chandubatla Village Gate, on the road from Kollapur to Nagarkurnool, the deceased dashed a lorry with

HITACHI bearing No. AP 31 TU 8889, which was parked on the road 8 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023 negligently without giving any indications, having no lights and without taking any precautions, due to which, Srisailam sustained severe bleeding injuries all over his body and died at that place itself. It is alleged that the respondent No.1 is the driver of said vehicle. On said report, Cr.No.407/2022 under Sec. 304-A IPC was registered by P.S.,

Nagarkurnool.

(b) Ex.P3 is the Inquest Panchanama in Cr.No.407/2022 of P.S.,

Nagarkurnool.

(c) Ex.P4 is the post mortem examination report of the deceased. It shows that the Medical Officer, has conducted medico legal autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Singarapu Srisailam on 03.12.2022 at 12.30 p.m and opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to head injury and other injuries, caused in a road traffic accident.

(d) Ex.P5 is certified copy of charge sheet in C.C. No.51/2023on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool. It shows that the Police

had investigated Cr.No.407/2022, which was registered under Sec. 304-

A I.P.C and filed the charge sheet against the accused i.e., respondent

No.1 herein for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC.

(e) Ex.P6 is the Bonafide Certificate of the deceased S.Srisailam, dt.

08.06.2018 issued by Head Master, Central Primary School, Sreepuram 9 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023 and it shows the date of birth of the deceased as 21.02.1997 and thus he is aged about 26 years by the date of his death.

(f) Ex.P7 are the photos of crime vehicle and the deceased Srisailam.

(g) Ex.P8 is the original e-SHRAM/labour card of the deceased issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India vide universal account No. 781279058812.

10.One Orsu Narasimha is examined as P.W.2 and he deposed that he is a builder and the deceased was working under him and earning Rs.1200/- per day towards wages and that the deceased was a hard worker and expert in elevation and design work. In cross examination, P.W.2 admitted that he had not produced any document to show his profession.

11.From Exs.P1 to P5 and P7, it is clear that the deceased met with road traffic accident that was occurred on 01.12.2022 on the road from Kollapur towards Nagarkurnool, due to the lorry bearing No. AP 31 TU 8889 driven by the respondent No.1 and suffered injuries and died on the spot. Exs.P1 to P5 which are the certified copies of record in C.C. No.51/2023 (Cr.No. 407/2022 of

P.S. Nagarkurnool) are showing that on the report lodged by the petitioner No.1 herein, said case was registered for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC and 10 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023 after investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the respondent No.1 herein for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC.

12.As per the P.W.1, the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident occurred on 01.12.2022 at 1830 hours. The charge sheet (Ex.P5) and post mortem report (Ex.P4) are clearly showing that the deceased had sustained severe injuries on his person due to the said road traffic accident and died on the spot. The documentary evidence is substantiating that the death of deceased was caused due to road traffic accident. On reading of the evidence adduced by the petitioners under Exs.P1 to P5 and P7, it is proved that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.

13.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjith v. Abdul Kayam Neb, 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 497 has clearly held that once the charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent in such charge sheet, no further evidence is required to prove that the motor vehicle was being negligently driven by the driver of the vehicle. In view of the above evidence and legal position, I hold that it is clearly established that the road traffic accident occurred on 01.12.2022 which resulted into the death of the deceased, was caused due to the negligence in parking the vehicle bearing No. AP 31 TU 8889 without giving any indications by its driver i.e., the respondent No.1 herein.

11 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023

14.To award compensation, the petitioners have to prove the age of the deceased, his earnings and their dependency on the deceased. The petitioners contended that the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of the incident. Ex.P6 which is the bonafide certificate of the deceased is showing his date of birth as 21-02-1997 and thus it is proved that he was aged about 26 years as on the date of the alleged Road Traffic Accident leading into his death.

However, the Exs.P3 and P4 are showing the age of the deceased as 26 years on the date of his death. It is pertinent to note that Exs.P3 and P4 are the opinions given by the Police and medical officer respectively. As the bonafide certificate (Ex.P6) got great significance to assess the age of a person and in view of said document, it is proved that the deceased was aged about 26 years as on the date of incident.

15. As per Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance

Company Ltd v. Pranaysethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier that is to be applied in the present case is 17. Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 is wife, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the minor daughters and the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. As per petitioners, there is no other legal heir of the deceased. Thus, it is proved that the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased.

12 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023

16.So far as the earnings and income of the deceased are concerned, the petitioners contended that the deceased was a hale and healthy person and he was working as shepherd and mason and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. They examined the builder (P.W.2) where the deceased was allegedly working as a mason and the P.W.2 deposed that he was paying Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,200/- per day to the deceased. The petitioners could not produce any document to substantiate the monthly/annual income of the deceased. In the absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate the daily/monthly/annual income of the deceased as contended by the petitioners, I hold that the only scale to be applied is the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by treating the deceased as a skilled 1st class skilled mason.

17.Thus, this Court by taking into aid of the circular/notification as to

Minimum Wages payable for the workers in construction field for the period from 1.10.2022 to 31.03.2023, where under the monthly minimum wages including Basic Wage + Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) for 1st class skilled mason in the construction or maintenance of roads and buildings field are fixed, notionally fixes the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.12,196/- (Rs.4,938/- as basic wages + Rs.7,258/- as VDA) as on the date of his death.

Thus, the annual income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.1,46,352/-.

13 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023

18.In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16

SCC 680, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the compensation is to be assessed by including/adding future prospects. Hence, 40% of the income of deceased is to be added towards future prospects, since the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of his death. Therefore, the total annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,04,893/- (Rs.1,46,352/- plus

Rs.58,541/-) after allowing future prospects. Since there are five dependents on the deceased, one fourth of income is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the actual annual income of the deceased for the purpose of applying multiplier comes to Rs.1,53,670/- (Rs.2,04,893/- minus

Rs.51,223/-). As already stated supra, the deceased was aged 26 years as on the date of the fateful incident. As per Pranay Sethi (Supra) in these claim petitions, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses are to be awarded @ Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively, which should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every 3 years. Since, more than 9 years time is passed after the decision in Pranay Sethi, these amounts are to be revised as Rs.20,000/-, Rs.52,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively.

19.As per the decision inSarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121,the relevant multiplier to be applied for the age group of 26 to 30 years is ‘17’. Therefore, the amount of compensation to be awarded 14 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023 under the head “loss of dependency and future prospects” comes to

Rs.26,12,390/- (Rs.1,53,670/- X 17).

20.Thus, by taking all the above calculations into consideration, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled for the below mentioned amounts.

Head of Compensation Amount in Rupees

assessed 26,12,390.00 Loss of Dependency and Future Prospects

Funeral Expenses20,000.00

Loss of Consortium52,000.00

Loss of Estate20,000.00

Total: 27,04,390.00

Thus, the total amount of compensation to be awarded to the petitioners comes to Rs.27,04,390/-.

21.In view of the above facts and circumstances and as road traffic accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 and as the crime vehicle is owned by the respondent No.2 and as it insured with the respondent No.3, this Tribunal holds that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered in favour of the petitioners.

15 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023

22. In the result,

(a) the claim of the petitioners is partly allowed with proportionate costs against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally, awarding compensation of Rs.27,04,390/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

(b) The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount, costs and interest thereon into the Court, within one month from the date of this award.

(c) On deposit of awarded amount by the respondent No.3, the petitioner

No.1, being the wife of the deceased shall receive 50% with costs and interest, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 being the children of the deceased shall receive 15% each with costs and interest and the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 being the parents of the deceased shall receive 10% each with costs and interest.

(d) The petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw 50% (out of her share) of the deposited amount from the awarded amount, with costs and interest. The remaining 50% amount shall be kept in FDR in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. The petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw the entire awarded amount with costs and interest.

(e) The amount awarded to the minor petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall be deposited in their names in any nationalized bank as fixed deposit 16 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023 receipts, till the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 attains majority.

(f) The Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

(g) The office shall prepare the decree only after payment of deficit court fee payable by the petitioners on the entire claimed amount, after taking into consideration of the court fee already paid.

Dictated to the Stenographer G-II, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court, on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM- PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

NAGARKURNOOL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PETITIONERS:

P.W.1: Singarapu Rajitha

P.W.2: Orsu Narsimha

FOR RESPONDENTS:

- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.P1: Certified Copy of FIR in Cr. No.407/2022, dt. 02.12.2022.

Ex.P2: Certified Copy of Report , dt. 02.12.2022.

Ex.P3: Certified Copy of Inquest Panchanama.

Ex.P4: Certified Copy of Post Mortem Examination Report.

Ex.P5: Certified Copy of Charge Sheet.

Ex.P6: Original Bonafide Certificate of the deceased S. Srisailam.

17 of 17 MVOP No. 02 of 2023

Ex.P7: Photos of deceased Singarapu Srisailam.

Ex.P8: Original e-Shram/labour card of the deceased..

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.R1: Insurance Policy pertaining to vehicle bearing No. AP 31 TU 8889.

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM- PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

NAGARKURNOOL.

1 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE:

NAGARKURNOOL.

Present: - D. Ramakanth,

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

Monday, this the 4 th day of May, 2026.

C.M.A. No.06 of 2025 & C.M.A. No.09 of 2025

Cause Title in C.M.A. No.06 of 2025

Between:

N. Shivaprasad S/o Gopalreddy, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kondraopally Village, Kodair Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

... Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff

AND

N. Narender Reddy S/o Raghavareddy, Age: 67 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kondraopally Village, Kodair Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

…Respondent/Respondent/Defendant

Cause Title in C.M.A. No.09 of 2025

Between:

N. Narender Reddy S/o Raghavareddy, Age: 67 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kondraopally Village, Kodair Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

... Appellant/Respondent/Defendant

AND

N. Shivaprasad S/o Gopalreddy, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kondraopally Village, Kodair Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

… Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff 2 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025

Both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. V.V. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and

Sri. S. Shyam Prasad Rao, Advocate for the Defendant and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court delivered the following:-

C O M M O N O R D E R

Aggrieved by the direction to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land, as passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur vide orders in I.A.

No.116/2024 in O.S. No.57/2024, dt: 16.07.2025, both the plaintiff and the defendant have preferred these separate Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

2.The parties to the present appeals are referred as they were arraigned

before the trial court in the main suit, for convenience.

3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :-

(a) The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit land i.e., Sy.No. 306 to an extent of Ac.2-33 Gts situated at Kondraopally Village, Kodair

Mandal. The grandfather of the plaintiff namely N. Raghava Reddy had gifted the suit land and other lands in Sy.Nos. 316, 310/A/2, 402/A/2 to the petitioner under a registered gift deed vide doc. No.2105/2009, dt.

15.06.2009 as they are his self acquired properties. The plaintiff accepted the gift and got mutated his name in respect of gifted lands in revenue records as owner and pattadar. The title deed and patta pass 3 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025 book were also issued to the plaintiff in respect of the suit land and other lands and the plaintiff is raising crops and cultivating the lands. The defendant who got no right of any kind, came over the suit land on 15.03.2024 with a plough and tried to destroy the standing crop and attempted to occupy the suit land. As such the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant along with the application for temporary injunction.

4. The case of the defendant is as follows :-

(a) The defendant denied the case of the plaintiff in toto.

(b) Late N. Raghava Reddy got three sons i.e., father of the plaintiff namely

Gopal Reddy, Venkatrama Reddy and the defendant and two daughters namely Varalaxmi and Sulochana. The suit land and lands in Sy.Nos.

310/A1 (Ac.2-12 Gts), 316 (Ac.0-35 Gts) situated at Kondraopally Village were kept for the maintenance of Raghava Reddy and they are not his self acquired properties and they are the ancestral properties of the defendant and his siblings and they all got 1/5th share each in said properties. Long back, the defendant and his brothers partitioned other properties, but the suit land and the aforesaid two survey numbers were kept for maintenance of Raghava Reddy and they have to be distributed after the life time of Raghava Reddy among his children. But the father of the plaintiff in collusion with Raghava Reddy, obtained the registered gift 4 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025 deed in favour of the plaintiff and said transaction took place without the knowledge of defendant. As such, said gift deed has no value in law.

(c) The defendant filed a suit for partition in respect of the aforesaid lands including the suit land against his four siblings, claiming 1/5th share vide

O.S. No.59/2024 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s court, Kollapur. In

said suit, the defendant herein obtained temporary injunction against the plaintiff herein from alienating the suit properties including the suit land herein. The defendant is the co-owner and co-parcener in the suit land with the father of plaintiff and other siblings. The suit for injunction is not maintainable against the defendant as suit land is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and the defendant. The registered gift deed as claimed by the plaintiff is a false and created document. Thus, the defendant sought to dismiss the petition.

5.After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the trial court has disposed off the injunction application in I.A. No.116/2024 vide orders dated:

16-07-2025 directing both parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of main suit. Aggrieved by such order, both the plaintiff and defendant preferred these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals separately.

Grounds raised by plaintiff in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.6/2025:

a) The trial court failed to take into consideration the well established principles of law and also failed to appreciate the Exs.P1 to P7 as filed 5 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025 by the plaintiff which establishes his prima facie title and possession over the suit land as on the date of filing the suit.

b) The said documents clearly shows that the suit land is the self acquired property of the donor and as such, he gifted the same to the plaintiff more than 15 years back.

c) The trial court failed to take into consideration the revenue records such as ROR, title deed and patta pass book of the plaintiff.

d) The trial court erroneously considered the documents of the defendant about filing of O.S. No.59/2024 for partition by the defendant and wrongly converted the temporary injunction order into status quo without seeing into the prima facie case and balance of convenience which are in favour of the plaintiff.

e) None of the documents filed by the defendant shows that the suit land is the ancestral property. As such, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Thus, the plaintiff sought to allow the appeal and to modify the order passed by the trial court.

Grounds raised by defendant in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 9/2025: :

a) The trial court failed to hold that the plaintiff got no prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. As such, the injunction application as filed by the plaintiff ought to have been dismissed.

6 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025

b) The trial court ought to have held that the temporary injunction as sought by the plaintiff against co-owner/co-sharer is not maintainable, that too in the light of the pendency of suit for partition filed by the defendant and granting Ad-interim injunction in I.A. No.43/2024 in O.S. No.59/2024 against the plaintiff from alienating the suit land. As such, the trial court ought to have dismissed the injunction application of the plaintiff and instead of doing so, the trial court has erroneously directed both parties to maintain status quo over the suit land.

c) Since the suit land is the ancestral property of the parties and unless the property is partitioned by metes and bounds, the plaintiff cannot claim any exclusive right over the suit land. The trial court has failed to look into this aspect. Thus, the defendant sought to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the injunction application filed by the plaintiff.

6.Heard both sides at length. I have given my anxious consideration as to the pleadings, documents and contentions of both sides.

7.Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the impugned order dated: 16-07-2025 in I.A. No.116/2024 in O.S. No.57/2024 passed by the trial court, suffers from any

irregularity or illegality and require any interference by this Court ?

7 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025

8. Point: According to the plaintiff, the suit land herein was gifted to him by his grandfather Raghava Reddy under a registered gift deed vide doc. No.

2501/2009, dt. 15.06.2009, he accepted the gift and got mutated his name in revenue records and obtained patta pass book, title deed and cultivating the suit land and that the defendant got no concern of any kind over the suit land and interfered with his possession on 15.03.2024.

9.On the other hand, it is contended by the defendant that the suit land and other lands were kept for life time maintenance of his father N. Raghava Reddy and except these lands, remaining joint family properties were partitioned between himself and his brothers. It is further contended that the father of the plaintiff in collusion with N. Raghava Reddy, have created the registered gift deed and as the suit land is the ancestral property, he filed a suit for partition

before the same court in O.S.No.59/2024.

10.During the course of hearing before the trial court, Exs.P1 to P7 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant got marked Exs. R1 to R7.

11. Plaintiff’s Documents:

(a) Ex.P1 is the registered gift deed vide doc. No. 2501/2009, dt.

15.06.2009. Its contents are showing that N. Raghava Reddy, who is the grandfather of the plaintiff had gifted the suit land herein and other lands 8 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025 to the plaintiff out of love and affection and also handed over the possession of the gifted properties to the plaintiff on the date of gift itself.

(b) Ex.P2 is the patta pass book cum title deed of the plaintiff. It shows the name of plaintiff as owner and pattadar of the suit land other lands.

(c) Exs.P3 and P4 are the specimen copies of patta pass book and 1-B

Form/ROR. They are containing the same entries as in Ex.P2.

(d) Ex.P5 is the registered sale deed doc. No.843/1995, dt. 07.06.1995. It shows that N. Raghava Reddy had purchased Ac.0-38 Gts in Sy.No.

306/A and Ac.0-12 Gts in Sy.No. 316/A from N. Balaswamy for Rs.

20,000/- and obtained possession from the vendor on date of sale itself.

(e) Ex.P6 is the registered sale deed doc. No. 1385/1995, dt. 21.12.1995. It shows that N. Raghava Reddy had purchased Ac.0-38 Gts in Sy.No.

306/AA and Ac.0-12 Gts in Sy.No. 316/AA from Pedda Sayamma and N.

Pedda Balaiah for Rs.16,800/- and obtained possession from the vendors on the date of sale itself.

(f) Ex.P7 is the registered sale deed doc. No. 1046/1996, dt. 14.05.1996. It shows that N. Raghava Reddy has purchased Ac.0-37 Gts in Sy.No.

306/E and Ac.0-11 Gts in Sy.No. 316/E of from Chinna Sayamma and A.

Balamma for Rs.16,000/- and obtained possession from the vendors on the date of sale itself.

9 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025

12. Defendant’s Documents:

(a) Ex.R1 is the copy of plaint in O.S. No.59/2024 on the file of Junior Civil

Judge, Kollapur. It shows that the defendant herein has filed a suit for

partition against the father of the plaintiff herein and four others, seeking partition of the suit land herein and other lands.

(b) Ex.R2 is the injunction application in I.A. No.43/2024 in O.S. No.59/2024 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur. It shows that the defendant herein filed application for temporary injunction and sought to restrain the plaintiff herein from alienating the suit land herein and other lands.

(c) Exs.R3 and R4 are the pahanies for the years 1995-96 and 2006-09 respectively. They are showing the name of Raghava Reddy as pattadar and possessor of the suit survey number apart from other lands.

(d) Ex.R5 is the pahani for the year 2017. It shows the name of the plaintiff as pattadar and possessor of the suit land herein.

(e) Exs.R6 and R7 are the third party affidavits of N. Ramakrishna Reddy, N.

Rajavardhan Reddy respectively. These deponents have deposed that

N. Raghava Reddy sold his house No.2-31 to their father Venkatswamy

Reddy for Rs.37,500 /- and that Raghava Reddy died on 21.03.2019.

13.The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 116/2024 for temporary injunction and sought to restrain the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit land. The documents as filed by the plaintiff are showing that his 10 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025 grandfather Raghava Reddy purchased the suit land and other lands under separate sale deeds as in Exs.P5 to P7 and later gifted the suit land and other lands to plaintiff under a registered gift deed (Ex.P1) vide doc. No.2501/2009

dt. 15.06.2009. Exs.P2 to P4 are showing that the patta pass book and title

deed were issued in favour of the plaintiff after incorporating his name in revenue records basing on the said gift deed.

14.Even, the pahani i.e., Ex.R5 filed by defendant is showing possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land. Other documents filed by the defendant are showing that the suit land was previously stood patta and possession in the name of Raghava Reddy, which fact is not in dispute. They show that the defendant filed O.S.No.59/2024 for partition. It is stated that in said suit, on the application filed by the defendant herein, the trial court granted temporary injunction against the plaintiff herein from alienating the suit land.

15.From all these facts it is clear that Raghava Reddy had gifted the suit land to the plaintiff and the plaintiff got implemented the same in revenue records. Even, Ex.R5 as filed by the defendant is establishing the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The defendant has no where pleaded that he is in possession of the suit land or that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. However, his main contention is that the suit land is their ancestral property and as it was kept for the maintenance of Raghava Reddy, it was not 11 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025 partitioned and as such, he filed O.S. No.59/2024 for partition. It is contended by the defendant that the suit land is the ancestral property of both the parties and that Raghava Reddy got no exclusive right to execute the gift deed.

16.However, the Exs.P5 to P7 discloses that Raghava Reddy alone purchased the suit land and other lands. Whether Raghava Reddy has purchased the suit land and other lands in in his own capacity and whether he got exclusive right to gift the suit land in favour of the plaintiff, are serious issues which are required to be answered by trial court in the comprehensive suit in O.S. No.59/2024 while deciding the claim of the defendant herein for partition. However, the fact remains that the suit land was gifted to the plaintiff by Raghava Reddy and the possession was also given to the plaintiff and he got implemented his name in revenue records. When the documents of plaintiff and Ex.R5 are showing the prima facie title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and as the contentions of defendant can be adjudicated only after recording the evidence at length and examining the rival contentions in detail during the course of trial in O.S. No.59/2024, this Court is of the view that for the limited enquiry in the injunction application, the court is only bound to look into the possession of parties over the suit land and nothing else.

17.When the documents of the plaintiff are substantiating his prima facie possession over the suit land and in view of the apprehension as expressed by 12 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025 him, this Court is of the view that plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. Since the defendant has filed O.S. No.

59/2024 for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit land and other lands and if said suit is decreed as sought for, the defendant is entitled to claim mesne profits in respect of the land allotted to him and he can be compensated in that manner. Therefore, at this juncture, it is not correct to hold that the defendant is a co-sharer or co-owner of the suit land, at least for the limited purpose of deciding the injunction application. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of temporary injunction in his favour.

18.The trial court has not considered the above aspects in the impugned order and has erroneously directed both parties to maintain status quo over the suit land. The trial court has failed to apply its judicial mind while passing the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside. In such circumstances, the

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as preferred by the plaintiff is to be allowed and the

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as preferred by the defendant is to be dismissed.

Point is answered accordingly.

19. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6/2025 as filed by the plaintiff is allowed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 9/2025 as filed by 13 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025 the defendant is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Kollapur in I.A. No.116/2024 in O.S. No.57/2024, dt. 16.07.2025 is

set aside. Consequently, the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff in I.A. No.116/2024 in O.S. No.57/2024 on the file of Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Kollapur stands allowed, granting temporary injunction in favour of

the plaintiff and against the defendant. There is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court, this the 4th day of May, 2026.

Principal District Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

-Nil-

Principal District Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

1 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE:

NAGARKURNOOL.

Present: - D. Ramakanth,

Principal District & Sessions Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

Monday, this the 4 th day of May, 2026.

C.M.A. No.06 of 2025 & C.M.A. No.09 of 2025

Cause Title in C.M.A. No.06 of 2025

Between:

N. Shivaprasad S/o Gopalreddy, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kondraopally Village, Kodair Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

... Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff

AND

N. Narender Reddy S/o Raghavareddy, Age: 67 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kondraopally Village, Kodair Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

…Respondent/Respondent/Defendant

Cause Title in C.M.A. No.09 of 2025

Between:

N. Narender Reddy S/o Raghavareddy, Age: 67 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kondraopally Village, Kodair Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

... Appellant/Respondent/Defendant

AND

N. Shivaprasad S/o Gopalreddy, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Kondraopally Village, Kodair Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

… Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff 2 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025

Both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. V.V. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and

Sri. S. Shyam Prasad Rao, Advocate for the Defendant and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court delivered the following:-

C O M M O N O R D E R

Aggrieved by the direction to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land, as passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur vide orders in I.A.

No.116/2024 in O.S. No.57/2024, dt: 16.07.2025, both the plaintiff and the defendant have preferred these separate Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

2.The parties to the present appeals are referred as they were arraigned

before the trial court in the main suit, for convenience.

3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :-

(a) The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit land i.e., Sy.No. 306 to an extent of Ac.2-33 Gts situated at Kondraopally Village, Kodair

Mandal. The grandfather of the plaintiff namely N. Raghava Reddy had gifted the suit land and other lands in Sy.Nos. 316, 310/A/2, 402/A/2 to the petitioner under a registered gift deed vide doc. No.2105/2009, dt.

15.06.2009 as they are his self acquired properties. The plaintiff accepted the gift and got mutated his name in respect of gifted lands in revenue records as owner and pattadar. The title deed and patta pass 3 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025 book were also issued to the plaintiff in respect of the suit land and other lands and the plaintiff is raising crops and cultivating the lands. The defendant who got no right of any kind, came over the suit land on 15.03.2024 with a plough and tried to destroy the standing crop and attempted to occupy the suit land. As such the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant along with the application for temporary injunction.

4. The case of the defendant is as follows :-

(a) The defendant denied the case of the plaintiff in toto.

(b) Late N. Raghava Reddy got three sons i.e., father of the plaintiff namely

Gopal Reddy, Venkatrama Reddy and the defendant and two daughters namely Varalaxmi and Sulochana. The suit land and lands in Sy.Nos.

310/A1 (Ac.2-12 Gts), 316 (Ac.0-35 Gts) situated at Kondraopally Village were kept for the maintenance of Raghava Reddy and they are not his self acquired properties and they are the ancestral properties of the defendant and his siblings and they all got 1/5th share each in said properties. Long back, the defendant and his brothers partitioned other properties, but the suit land and the aforesaid two survey numbers were kept for maintenance of Raghava Reddy and they have to be distributed after the life time of Raghava Reddy among his children. But the father of the plaintiff in collusion with Raghava Reddy, obtained the registered gift 4 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025 deed in favour of the plaintiff and said transaction took place without the knowledge of defendant. As such, said gift deed has no value in law.

(c) The defendant filed a suit for partition in respect of the aforesaid lands including the suit land against his four siblings, claiming 1/5th share vide

O.S. No.59/2024 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s court, Kollapur. In

said suit, the defendant herein obtained temporary injunction against the plaintiff herein from alienating the suit properties including the suit land herein. The defendant is the co-owner and co-parcener in the suit land with the father of plaintiff and other siblings. The suit for injunction is not maintainable against the defendant as suit land is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and the defendant. The registered gift deed as claimed by the plaintiff is a false and created document. Thus, the defendant sought to dismiss the petition.

5.After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the trial court has disposed off the injunction application in I.A. No.116/2024 vide orders dated:

16-07-2025 directing both parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of main suit. Aggrieved by such order, both the plaintiff and defendant preferred these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals separately.

Grounds raised by plaintiff in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.6/2025:

a) The trial court failed to take into consideration the well established principles of law and also failed to appreciate the Exs.P1 to P7 as filed 5 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025 by the plaintiff which establishes his prima facie title and possession over the suit land as on the date of filing the suit.

b) The said documents clearly shows that the suit land is the self acquired property of the donor and as such, he gifted the same to the plaintiff more than 15 years back.

c) The trial court failed to take into consideration the revenue records such as ROR, title deed and patta pass book of the plaintiff.

d) The trial court erroneously considered the documents of the defendant about filing of O.S. No.59/2024 for partition by the defendant and wrongly converted the temporary injunction order into status quo without seeing into the prima facie case and balance of convenience which are in favour of the plaintiff.

e) None of the documents filed by the defendant shows that the suit land is the ancestral property. As such, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Thus, the plaintiff sought to allow the appeal and to modify the order passed by the trial court.

Grounds raised by defendant in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 9/2025: :

a) The trial court failed to hold that the plaintiff got no prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. As such, the injunction application as filed by the plaintiff ought to have been dismissed.

6 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025

b) The trial court ought to have held that the temporary injunction as sought by the plaintiff against co-owner/co-sharer is not maintainable, that too in the light of the pendency of suit for partition filed by the defendant and granting Ad-interim injunction in I.A. No.43/2024 in O.S. No.59/2024 against the plaintiff from alienating the suit land. As such, the trial court ought to have dismissed the injunction application of the plaintiff and instead of doing so, the trial court has erroneously directed both parties to maintain status quo over the suit land.

c) Since the suit land is the ancestral property of the parties and unless the property is partitioned by metes and bounds, the plaintiff cannot claim any exclusive right over the suit land. The trial court has failed to look into this aspect. Thus, the defendant sought to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the injunction application filed by the plaintiff.

6.Heard both sides at length. I have given my anxious consideration as to the pleadings, documents and contentions of both sides.

7.Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the impugned order dated: 16-07-2025 in I.A. No.116/2024 in O.S. No.57/2024 passed by the trial court, suffers from any

irregularity or illegality and require any interference by this Court ?

7 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025

8. Point: According to the plaintiff, the suit land herein was gifted to him by his grandfather Raghava Reddy under a registered gift deed vide doc. No.

2501/2009, dt. 15.06.2009, he accepted the gift and got mutated his name in revenue records and obtained patta pass book, title deed and cultivating the suit land and that the defendant got no concern of any kind over the suit land and interfered with his possession on 15.03.2024.

9.On the other hand, it is contended by the defendant that the suit land and other lands were kept for life time maintenance of his father N. Raghava Reddy and except these lands, remaining joint family properties were partitioned between himself and his brothers. It is further contended that the father of the plaintiff in collusion with N. Raghava Reddy, have created the registered gift deed and as the suit land is the ancestral property, he filed a suit for partition

before the same court in O.S.No.59/2024.

10.During the course of hearing before the trial court, Exs.P1 to P7 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant got marked Exs. R1 to R7.

11. Plaintiff’s Documents:

(a) Ex.P1 is the registered gift deed vide doc. No. 2501/2009, dt.

15.06.2009. Its contents are showing that N. Raghava Reddy, who is the grandfather of the plaintiff had gifted the suit land herein and other lands 8 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025 to the plaintiff out of love and affection and also handed over the possession of the gifted properties to the plaintiff on the date of gift itself.

(b) Ex.P2 is the patta pass book cum title deed of the plaintiff. It shows the name of plaintiff as owner and pattadar of the suit land other lands.

(c) Exs.P3 and P4 are the specimen copies of patta pass book and 1-B

Form/ROR. They are containing the same entries as in Ex.P2.

(d) Ex.P5 is the registered sale deed doc. No.843/1995, dt. 07.06.1995. It shows that N. Raghava Reddy had purchased Ac.0-38 Gts in Sy.No.

306/A and Ac.0-12 Gts in Sy.No. 316/A from N. Balaswamy for Rs.

20,000/- and obtained possession from the vendor on date of sale itself.

(e) Ex.P6 is the registered sale deed doc. No. 1385/1995, dt. 21.12.1995. It shows that N. Raghava Reddy had purchased Ac.0-38 Gts in Sy.No.

306/AA and Ac.0-12 Gts in Sy.No. 316/AA from Pedda Sayamma and N.

Pedda Balaiah for Rs.16,800/- and obtained possession from the vendors on the date of sale itself.

(f) Ex.P7 is the registered sale deed doc. No. 1046/1996, dt. 14.05.1996. It shows that N. Raghava Reddy has purchased Ac.0-37 Gts in Sy.No.

306/E and Ac.0-11 Gts in Sy.No. 316/E of from Chinna Sayamma and A.

Balamma for Rs.16,000/- and obtained possession from the vendors on the date of sale itself.

9 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025

12. Defendant’s Documents:

(a) Ex.R1 is the copy of plaint in O.S. No.59/2024 on the file of Junior Civil

Judge, Kollapur. It shows that the defendant herein has filed a suit for

partition against the father of the plaintiff herein and four others, seeking partition of the suit land herein and other lands.

(b) Ex.R2 is the injunction application in I.A. No.43/2024 in O.S. No.59/2024 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur. It shows that the defendant herein filed application for temporary injunction and sought to restrain the plaintiff herein from alienating the suit land herein and other lands.

(c) Exs.R3 and R4 are the pahanies for the years 1995-96 and 2006-09 respectively. They are showing the name of Raghava Reddy as pattadar and possessor of the suit survey number apart from other lands.

(d) Ex.R5 is the pahani for the year 2017. It shows the name of the plaintiff as pattadar and possessor of the suit land herein.

(e) Exs.R6 and R7 are the third party affidavits of N. Ramakrishna Reddy, N.

Rajavardhan Reddy respectively. These deponents have deposed that

N. Raghava Reddy sold his house No.2-31 to their father Venkatswamy

Reddy for Rs.37,500 /- and that Raghava Reddy died on 21.03.2019.

13.The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 116/2024 for temporary injunction and sought to restrain the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit land. The documents as filed by the plaintiff are showing that his 10 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025 grandfather Raghava Reddy purchased the suit land and other lands under separate sale deeds as in Exs.P5 to P7 and later gifted the suit land and other lands to plaintiff under a registered gift deed (Ex.P1) vide doc. No.2501/2009

dt. 15.06.2009. Exs.P2 to P4 are showing that the patta pass book and title

deed were issued in favour of the plaintiff after incorporating his name in revenue records basing on the said gift deed.

14.Even, the pahani i.e., Ex.R5 filed by defendant is showing possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land. Other documents filed by the defendant are showing that the suit land was previously stood patta and possession in the name of Raghava Reddy, which fact is not in dispute. They show that the defendant filed O.S.No.59/2024 for partition. It is stated that in said suit, on the application filed by the defendant herein, the trial court granted temporary injunction against the plaintiff herein from alienating the suit land.

15.From all these facts it is clear that Raghava Reddy had gifted the suit land to the plaintiff and the plaintiff got implemented the same in revenue records. Even, Ex.R5 as filed by the defendant is establishing the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The defendant has no where pleaded that he is in possession of the suit land or that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. However, his main contention is that the suit land is their ancestral property and as it was kept for the maintenance of Raghava Reddy, it was not 11 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025 partitioned and as such, he filed O.S. No.59/2024 for partition. It is contended by the defendant that the suit land is the ancestral property of both the parties and that Raghava Reddy got no exclusive right to execute the gift deed.

16.However, the Exs.P5 to P7 discloses that Raghava Reddy alone purchased the suit land and other lands. Whether Raghava Reddy has purchased the suit land and other lands in in his own capacity and whether he got exclusive right to gift the suit land in favour of the plaintiff, are serious issues which are required to be answered by trial court in the comprehensive suit in O.S. No.59/2024 while deciding the claim of the defendant herein for partition. However, the fact remains that the suit land was gifted to the plaintiff by Raghava Reddy and the possession was also given to the plaintiff and he got implemented his name in revenue records. When the documents of plaintiff and Ex.R5 are showing the prima facie title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and as the contentions of defendant can be adjudicated only after recording the evidence at length and examining the rival contentions in detail during the course of trial in O.S. No.59/2024, this Court is of the view that for the limited enquiry in the injunction application, the court is only bound to look into the possession of parties over the suit land and nothing else.

17.When the documents of the plaintiff are substantiating his prima facie possession over the suit land and in view of the apprehension as expressed by 12 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025 him, this Court is of the view that plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. Since the defendant has filed O.S. No.

59/2024 for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit land and other lands and if said suit is decreed as sought for, the defendant is entitled to claim mesne profits in respect of the land allotted to him and he can be compensated in that manner. Therefore, at this juncture, it is not correct to hold that the defendant is a co-sharer or co-owner of the suit land, at least for the limited purpose of deciding the injunction application. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of temporary injunction in his favour.

18.The trial court has not considered the above aspects in the impugned order and has erroneously directed both parties to maintain status quo over the suit land. The trial court has failed to apply its judicial mind while passing the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside. In such circumstances, the

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as preferred by the plaintiff is to be allowed and the

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as preferred by the defendant is to be dismissed.

Point is answered accordingly.

19. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6/2025 as filed by the plaintiff is allowed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 9/2025 as filed by 13 of 13 Common Order in C.M.A.6/2025 & 9/2025 the defendant is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Kollapur in I.A. No.116/2024 in O.S. No.57/2024, dt. 16.07.2025 is

set aside. Consequently, the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff in I.A. No.116/2024 in O.S. No.57/2024 on the file of Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Kollapur stands allowed, granting temporary injunction in favour of

the plaintiff and against the defendant. There is no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court, this the 4th day of May, 2026.

Principal District Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

-Nil-

Principal District Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

1 of 13 Crl.A. 13 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :

NAGARKURNOOL.

PRESENT : SRI. D. RAMAKANTH,

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

NAGARKURNOOL.

Monday, this the 18 th day of May, 2026.

Crl. Appeal No. 13 of 2025

From which court this Appeal is I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First preferredClass, Kollapur.

Case Number in that CourtDVC No. 7 of 2022

Criminal Appeal NumberCrl. Appeal No. 13 of 2025

Name and Description of the 1. Katamoni Balakrishna S/o Nagendram,

Appellants/RespondentsAge: 33 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Gounikadi Swapna W/o Katamoni

Balakrishna, Age: 25 years, Occ: Housewife,

Both R/o Anjanagiri Village, Kollapur

Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

3. Gounikadi Gangamma W/o Ramulu, Age:

43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Dhararam

Village, Lingal Mandal, Nagarkurnool Dist.

Name and Description of the Katamoni Laxmi Sowmya W/o Katamoni

Respondent/PetitionerBalakrishna, Age: 30 years, Occ:

Household, R/o Anjanagiri, H/o Yellur

Village, Kollapur Mandal. Presently R/o

Janumpally Village, Kodair Mandal,

Nagarkurnool District.

Petition Allowed or DismissedPetition is partly allowed by the trail court.

2 of 13 Crl.A. 13 of 2025

Whether Confirmed, modified or The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed setting reversedaside the order in DVC No.7/2022, dt.

16.07.2025 passed by the I-Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur., to the

extent of directing the respondent No.1 to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner. The appeal in respect of the remaining reliefs as granted by the trial court is dismissed. Thus, the impugned order as passed by trial court, except the payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is confirmed.

No costs.

Date or on which

Presentation of Appeal28.08.2025

Filing of Appeal29.08.2025

Notice issued to respondent to 29.08.2026 appear

Whether on bail, if so, bail bond- respondent ordered to appear15.09.2025

Hearing of Appeal12.03.2026

Judgment18.05.2026

This Criminal Appeal is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Md. Pasha,Counsel for the Appellants/Respondent Nos.1, 5 and 7 and

Sri. P. Govind, Advocate for the Respondent/Petitioner and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 3 of 13 Crl.A. 13 of 2025

J U D G M E N T

The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants, who are the respondent Nos.1, 5 and 7 in DVC No.7/2022 aggrieved by the order, dt.

16.07.2025 passed by the I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur.

2.The appellants are the respondent Nos.1, 5 and 7 and the respondent herein is the petitioner before the trial court and they will be referred as such in the present appeal.

The case facts are as follows:

3.The petitioner filed the application under Sec. 12 of Protection of Women

From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred as the ‘Act’ for brevity) against the respondent Nos.1 to 7 and sought for protection order, compensation, residence order, return of Sridhanam, maintenance etc.,

(a)The petitioner is the wife of respondent No.1. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of respondent No.1. The respondent Nos.4 and 6 are the siblings of respondent No.1. The respondent No.5 is the second wife of respondent No.1 and the respondent No.7 is the mother of respondent No.5.

(b)The marriage of the petitioner with respondent No.1 was performed on 15.05.2014 and at the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner presented a cash of Rs.3,00,000/-, 1 tula gold to the respondent No.1, 5 tulas gold to the petitioner apart from house hold articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/-. The couple lived 4 of 13 Crl.A. 13 of 2025 happily for about 6 to 7 years and blessed with two children. Afterwards, the respondent No.1 started beating and harassing the petitioner with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- to set up a petrol bunk and she got arranged that amount, but the respondent No.1 failed to return that amount and when she asked for that amount, the respondent Nos.2 to 7 beat her.

(c)The respondent No.1 started leading adulterous life with respondent No.5 and later married her. Six months prior to fling the petition, all the respondents beat and driven out the petitioner and though the matter was referred to elders, the respondents failed to hear their words. As such, the petitioner started living at her parental home at Janumpally village, Kodair mandal along with children.

The respondent No.1 refused to maintain the petitioner and the children and he is an agriculturist having Ac.12-00 Gts of land, got petrol bunk and doing money lending business and earning Rs.1,00,000/- p.m., and got sufficient means to maintain the petitioner.

(d)Thus, the petitioner sought to grant protection order, Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation, to direct the respondent No.1 to provide shelter, to direct him to return dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-, loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- 6 tulas gold ornaments, house hold articles of Rs.1,00,000/-, clothes worth of Rs.60,000/-.

4.The respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed counter with following defence. They admitted the relationship and denied the material averments in the petition.

5 of 13 Crl.A. 13 of 2025

(a)The respondent No.1 is paying school fee of his children and there are civil disputes between the mother of the petitioner and respondent No.1 vide

O.S. Nos.8/2022 and 241/2022 in the Junior Civil Judge’s Courts, Kollapur. By suppressing these facts, the petitioner has filed the case. The petitioner is having landed properties shown in said suits and suppressed the same in the petition and she filed this case to get those suits compromised. The petitioner is having sufficient income from the landed properties and the respondent No.1 never neglected the petitioner. The other respondents are living separately from the respondent No.1 and the petitioner falsely implicated the respondent Nos.2 to 7 in the case without any ground. Thus, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 sought to dismiss the petition.

5.Before the trial court, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. She further examined P.Ws.2 and 3 in support of her case. On the other hand, the respondents examined respondent No.1 as R.W.1 and further examined R.W.2, but no documents were marked on their behalf.

6.After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, the trial court has partly allowed the petition against the respondent Nos.1, 5 and 7 and dismissed the petition in respect of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6. Under the impugned order, the trial court 6 of 13 Crl.A. 13 of 2025 granted protection order prohibiting the respondents Nos.1, 5 and 7 from ✸ committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner directed the respondent No.1 to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to ✸ the petitioner for the harassment suffered by her, which shall be paid within three months from the date of the order directed the respondent No.1 to provide alternate accommodation to the ✸ petitioner and her children within 30 days or else to pay a monthly rent of

Rs.4,000/- towards alternate accommodation, which shall be paid on or before 10th day of every calendar month directed the respondent No.1 to return Stridhana amount of Rs.3,00,000/- ✸ and 5 tulas of gold directed the respondent No.1 to pay Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner and ✸

Rs.5,000/- to each of the children towards monthly maintenance and for education and living expenses, which shall be paid on or before 10th day of every calendar month and from the date of the petition and to pay the arrears within three months from the date of the order.

7.Aggrieved by such order, the respondent Nos.1, 5 and 7 filed the present appeal stating that the impugned order is against the facts of the case, law and principles of natural justice and the trial court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and erroneously given much credence to the evidence of petitioners and ignored the evidence of 7 of 13 Crl.A. 13 of 2025 respondents. Thus, the appellants/respondent Nos.1, 5 and 7 sought to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order.

8.Heard both sides at length. I have given my careful consideration as to the oral and documentary evidence and also to the contentions of both sides.

9.The learned counsel for the appellants would maintain that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and has erred in partly allowing the petition and thus, sought to allow the appeal.

10.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner has contended that the trial court has rightly considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and therefore, there is no need to interfere and sought to dismiss the appeal.

11.On hearing both sides, the following points emerge for consideration:

(a) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the order passed in

DVC No.7 of 2022, dated: 16.07.2025 on the file of I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur ?

(b) To what result ?

8 of 13 Crl.A. 13 of 2025

12. Point Nos.1 and 2: On perusal of the record, it shows that the trial court has partly allowed the petition in respect of the respondent Nos.1, 5 and 7 only and dismissed against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has not preferred any appeal against the dismissal of her petition in respect of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6.

13.The trial court has granted protection order, compensation of Rs.

5,00,000/- for suffering domestic violence in the hands of respondent Nos.1, 5 and 7 and directed the respondent No.1 to provide alternate accommodation or to pay Rs.4,000/- p.m., to return the Stridhana amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and 5 tulas gold, to pay Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner and Rs.5,000/- to each to her both children towards their livelihood and maintenance.

14.I have given my anxious consideration to the oral and documentary evidence available on record and perused the same. During the evidence, the petitioner has reiterated the petition averments and her version is supported by

P.Ws.2 and 3, who are her mother and maternal uncle. The petitioner relied upon Exs.P1 to P3 and since the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 is not in dispute and it is fact that they got two children out of their wedlock, there is no dispute regarding the contents of Exs.P1 to P3.

9 of 13 Crl.A. 13 of 2025

15.It is pertinent note that for granting protection order within the scope of

Sec. 18 of the “Act,” the prima facie satisfaction as to the sufferance of domestic violence by the petitioner/aggrieved woman in the hands of the husband and his relatives is sufficient. Admittedly, the petitioner is living separately from the respondent No.1 since long prior to the filing of the petition and presently she is residing along with her children at her parental home which is not disputed by the respondent Nos.1, 5 and 7.

16.It is also proved from the evidence on record that there are not only matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.1, but there are civil cases pending between the respondent No.1 and the petitioner’s family.

The respondent No.1 in his evidence has clearly admitted that the respondent

No.5 is his second wife and he is presently living with her. There is no material to show that the respondent No.1 has obtained legal divorce from the petitioner and thus, contracted second marriage. Though the respondent No.1 contended that the petitioner is at fault and that he tried to bring back the petitioner into his company, no evidence could be produced by him to substantiate that he has made efforts to bring back the petitioner and the children into his company.

17.Admittedly, no petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed or no legal notice calling upon the petitioner to join his company, was issued by the respondent No.1. In view of these facts and as the respondent No.1 married the 10 of 13 Crl.A. 13 of 2025 respondent No.5 as his second wife during the subsistence of the marriage with petitioner, this Court is of the view that there is sufficient material to prove that the petitioner was subjected to domestic violence by the respondent No.1 and she was neglected by him. Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for protection order within the meaning of Sec. 18 of the “Act.”

18.The petitioner has sought to grant a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and the trial court has granted Rs.5,00,000/- under that head payable by the respondent No.1. Though it is established that petitioner is living separate from respondent No.1, no evidence could be adduced justifying the compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- by the petitioner. The petitioner could not produce any evidence to justify said claim for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner has suffered any injury and deprived any income due to the alleged acts by the respondent No.1. In the absence of any such evidence forthcoming on behalf of the petitioner, the very factum of living separate by the petitioner from respondent No.1 and his neglect to maintain the petitioner and her children, cannot be construed as basis to grant compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as ordered by the trial court.

19.Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the trial court awarding compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner payable by respondent 11 of 13 Crl.A. 13 of 2025

No.1 on the account of harassment and domestic violence is not justified and the said order is liable to be set aside to that effect.

20.Admittedly, the petitioner is living separately from the respondent No.1 and is presently residing with her parents. It is not the case of respondent No.1 that he is providing any amount either for the residence or for the food and clothing of the petitioner and her children. Though he contended that he is paying school fee for his children, that amount alone would not exempt him from paying any amounts to the petitioner and the children to secure residential accommodation, food and other necessities. The trial court has granted

Rs.4,000/- per month towards securing alternate accommodation. In the present day’s inflated rates, this amount of Rs.4,000/- per month cannot be held as excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that awarding

Rs.4,000/- towards alternate accommodation by the trial court is justified and the same is upheld.

21.There is ample evidence to show that the respondent No.1 got properties and sufficient income. He is an able bodied person, having properties to his credit. Thus, he got means to provide maintenance to the petitioner and her children. The trial court has granted Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner and Rs.5,000/- each to her children towards their living and educational expenditure. When the respondent No.1 is not providing any amounts to the petitioner and her children 12 of 13 Crl.A. 13 of 2025 either for their food, clothing or livelihood or for the education of the children, this Court is of the view that said amounts as ordered by the trial court cannot be treated as excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, the order passed by the trial court in that regard is also upheld and confirmed.

22.During his evidence, the respondent No.1 admitted that the parents of the petitioner presented a dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and 5 tulas gold to him. The trial court has ordered him to return said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and 5 tulas gold as sought by the petitioner. When the respondent No.1 himself admitted the receipt of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and 5 tulas gold from his in-laws, he is liable to return the same to the petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by the trial court in this regard is perfectly valid and justified and there is nothing to interfere with the said direction passed by the trial court.

23.In view of the above findings, as there is sufficient material to show that the petitioner was subjected to domestic violence by the respondent Nos.1, 5 and 7, this Court holds that she is entitled for protection order, payment of

Rs.4,000/- per month to secure alternate accommodation and herself and her children are entitled for a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each (Rs.15,000/- per month in total) and the respondent No.1 is liable to return the dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and 5 tulas gold and the impugned order as assailed in this appeal is to be confirmed to that extent. The direction to pay compensation of 13 of 13 Crl.A. 13 of 2025

Rs.5,00,000/- as passed by the trial court is not justified and the impugned order to that extent is to be set aside. Point is answered accordingly.

24. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed setting aside the order in DVC No.7/2022, dt. 16.07.2025 passed by the I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Kollapur., to the extent of directing the respondent No.1 to pay a

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner. The appeal in respect of the remaining reliefs as granted by the trial court is dismissed. Thus, the impugned order as passed by trial court, except the payment of compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- is confirmed. No costs.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court on this the 18thday of May, 2026.

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

NAGARKURNOOL.

APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

For Appellants:For respondent:

-None- -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Appellants:For respondent:

-NIL--NIL-

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

NAGARKURNOOL.