Sri D. Srinivasulu

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU

Present:- Sri D.Srinivasulu

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru

Monday, this the 3rd day of April, 2023

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 486/2015

Between :

Vellanki Sasikala, W/o.Vellanki Satya Swaroop, Hindu, Male, 46 years, Business, R/o.D.No.2-1-23b, Tangellamudi, Eluru, West Godavari District. ---Plaintiff.

And

1. M/s.Dwaraka Real Estates @ Developers, represented by its Managing Partner Vellanki Bala Bhaskararao, S/o.Leela Prasad, Hindu, Male, 45 years, Business, R/o.Flat No.405, Sri Harsha Apartments, Ashoknagar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

2. Goli Kanthamma, W/o.Goli Apparao, Hindu, Female, 50 years, Properties, R/o.D.No.1-32, Pangidigudem village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, West Godavari District.

3. Sammeta Vasudevarao, S/o.Nageswararao, Hindu, Male, 26 years, Koutharam village, High School Road, D.No.7-115, Gudlavalleru Mandal.

4. Nimmakayala Pushpalatha, W/o.Ramanamurthy, Hindu, Male, 41 years, Properties, R/o.D.No.6-3-11, Penumaka Devadasu street, Tailorpet, Chittinagar, Vijayawada.

5. Parasa Prabhakararao, S/o.Chintayya, Hindu, Male, 55 years, Employee, R/o.D.No.6-12-15, Thadikondavari street, Tailorpet, Chittinagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

6. Parimi Rajarao, S/o.Perayya, Hindu, Male, 55 years, Employee, R/o.D.No.6-12-15, Jayaram Street, Tailorpet, Chittinagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

7. Pagadala Varalakshmi, W/o.Venkata Krishnamohanrao, Hindu, Female, 24 years, Quarter No.B-7, Police quarters, Opp: Municipal Office, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

8. Gutta Umamaheswari, W/o.Rambabu, Hindu, Female, 23 years, R/o.D.No.3-18/1, Kovvali village, Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District.

9. Amere Parisuddharao, S/o.Manoharam, Hindu, Male, 52 years, Employee, R/o.D.No.1-2/3. Angalakuduru village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District.

2 10.Sripathi Krishna Padma, W/o.Sripathi Ramesh, Hindu, Female, 28 years, Employee, R/o.D.No.23b-2-16, Bendapudi vari street, R.R.Pet, Eluru.

11. Surampdi Bhaskerarao, S/o.Ananthapadmanabham, Hindu, Male, 66 years, Retd. Employee, R/o.D.No.23b-2-16, Bendapudi vari street, R.R.Pet, Eluru.

12. Mohammad Sulthana Begum, W/o.Ubedulla Begaum, Muslim, 62 years, R/o.D.No.6-5-40, T.Nagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

---Defendants.

This suit coming on 31.03.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for plaintiff; and of Sri G.V.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for defendant Nos.1,4,6,7,10 and 11; and of defendant Nos.2,3,8,9 and 12 having remained exparte and of defendant No.5 died pendent lite of the suit; and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit for specific performance to direct the 1st defendant to come to the Registrar Office, Eluru, to execute regular registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of the

Agreement of Sale dt.03.10.2007 or alternatively direct the defendant to pay the advance Sale consideration with interest from the date of the suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff as per the amended plaint, in brief is as follows:

(a) That the defendant No.1 is the Managing Partner of the registered firm M/s.Dwaraka Real Estates and Developers. The main business of the firm is to develop the land and selling of the same by dividing it into plots. The defendant No.1 had made a venture under 3 the name and style of Sai Swaroop Mega Town ship in Somavarappadu village, Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District and he being the absolute owner of 4924 sq.yds of site, out of Ac.2-03 cents covered by 159/8 and also some land was developed by the Dwaraka Real Estate

Developers and divided into house plots vide panchayat lay out PR

No.13, they were in three items Plot Nos.298 to 313 (4924 sq.yds) i.e., schedule property and when he offered to sell the schedule house plots, the plaintiff had accepted to purchase the same.

(b) It is submitted that the rate was fixed for a sum of

Rs.6,15,500/- for the entire land of 4924 sq.yds as proposed by the defendant No.1. The plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the defendant No.1 to purchase the said housing plots and on 03.10.2007 the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 towards part of the sale consideration. After receipt of said amount, defendant

No.1 executed a registered Sale Agreement in favour of plaintiff on 03.10.2007 that he had received Rs.6,00,000/- towards part of the sale consideration and executed registered Sale agreement on the same day itself with agreed terms that whenever the plaintiff get ready with the remaining sale consideration before 02.10.2008, he should execute regular sale deed at the costs of plaintiff in her name or in the name of anybody as required by the plaintiff.

(c) It is further submitted that the defendant No.1 specifically mentioned in the agreement of sale that the said housing plots are free from all encumbrances and it is an undisputed property and that he had not alienated the same to anybody. The defendant No.1 retained the 4 possession of the housing plots with him and he had undertaken that he would execute regular sale deed in terms of agreement of sale and would deliver possession of the property at the time of agreement of sale. The plaintiff was ready with the cash even before 02.10.2008 for payment of remaining sale consideration and to purchase stamps but the defendant No.1, who is a busy business man had been postponing the execution of sale deed, whenever the plaintiff asked. The defendant

No.1 is also a close relative of the plaintiff i.e., plaintiff’s husband

Swaroop and the defendant No.1 are cousins. The plaintiff, due to close relationship and having believed the words of defendant No.1 had been waited. Further, the defendant No.1 also represented to the plaintiff to not to worry about the time stipulation in the agreement. But as there is some time stipulation mentioned in the agreement of sale dt.03.10.2007, the plaintiff has to get ready with the remaining sale consideration of sum of Rs.15,500/- in cash within one year i.e., 02.10.2008.

(d) It is further submitted that the defendant No.1 has represented that whenever he finds time, he would come and execute the registered Sale deed as he had received almost entire sale consideration and he himself deviated the time stipulation and failed to get registered the regular sale deed even though the plaintiff was ready and willing to get the register sale deed by paying the remaining sale consideration even before 02.10.2008. The defendant No.1 committed default in executing the sale deed even after the plaintiff has been demanding the defendant No.1 to come and execute the registered sale 5 deed. The plaintiff is entitled to enforce the agreement of sale within three years from the date of default i.e., 02.10.2008 but the defendant

No.1 has been postponing the execution of sale deed on some pretext or the other.

(e) While so, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 had executed some collusive documents in the name of his close associates so as to deprive the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 with an intention to get much amount and to have wrongful gain kept the property in the name of his close associates and friends i.e., defendant

Nos.2 to 12. The said transactions are binami transactions and the documents alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 in the name of defendant Nos.2 to 12 are sham and nominal documents. The plaintiff who is having registered agreement of sale can ignore the said documents. The defendants 2 to 12 are only name lenders of plaintiff and they have no capacity to purchase the house sites and no consideration was passed under the documents. Due to increase of land values, the defendant No.1 kept the property in the name of defendant Nos.2 to 12 with a dishonest intention. The defendants 2 to 12 had full knowledge of agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff and the obligation of defendant No.1 to execute the regular sale deed. The defendant No.1 without cancelling the registered agreement of sale by following the procedure contemplated under the Registration Act cannot execute the documents. The defendant No.1 cannot cancel the registered document unilaterally without following procedure. The cancelation of registered document should be done by the competent 6

Civil Court. Unless the plaintiff is party for the cancellation deed, it is not valid under law. Thus, the cancellation of agreement of sale dt.03.10.2007 is declared to be null and void and not binds the plaintiff.

(f) The plaintiff got issued a registered notice dt.05.05.2011 to the defendants. The defendants 2, 4, 6,7, 10 and 11 received the said notice and the remaining defendants have intentionally evade to receive the notice. The defendants 2 to 12 kept quiet. The plaintiff demanded the defendant No.1 to come and execute registered sale deed by receiving remaining sale consideration and calling upon other defendants to co-operate for the cancellation of collusive documents.

The defendant No.1 got issued reply admitting the execution of sale agreement and his obligation to execute the regular sale deed. But he pleaded that the agreement is cancelled and he had refunded the money. The plaintiff got issued rejoinder Dt.23.06.2011 demanding him to produce the registered agreement of sale as the defendant No.1 out of friendship and relationship came to the house of plaintiff and committed theft of said document. The defendant No.1 neither issued any reply nor produced the document. Hence, the suit.

3. The 1st defendant filed written statement which was adopted by defendant Nos.4, 6, 7, 10 and 11, by denying the plaint averments and further submitted that;

(a) The suit is barred by limitation for the reason that time is essence of contract as per terms of alleged sale agreement

Dt.03.10.2007. As per the terms of agreement of sale, the plaintiff has 7 to be ready with the balance sale consideration on or before 02.10.2008 and obtain a registered sale deed, but the plaintiff never expressed her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract on or before 02.10.2008. The plaintiff suppressed the fact that the defendant No.1 got issued a reply notice dt.20.05.2011 to the notice dt.05.05.2011 and the same was acknowledged by counsel for plaintiff on 26.05.2011.

The plaintiff never expressed her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract on or before 02.10.2008 as agreed by both the parties and the plaintiff is not entitled to enforce the terms of agreement after the stipulated time.

(b) It is further submitted that if the defendant failed to perform his part of contract within three years of the stipulated date, the plaintiff would have file the suit within three years from the date of default. As the plaintiff failed to seek enforcement of agreement within three years from the date of default, the suit is barred by time and the plaintiff is not entitled to seek any relief. There is no recital in the agreement of sale that the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the terms of contract even after stipulated time. When the plaintiff intentionally failed to perform her part of contract before the stipulated date 02.10.2008, the defendant No.1 returned the advance amount under receipt duly executed by plaintiff and informed her that the agreement of sale dt.03.10.2007 was canceled and executed a registered cancellation deed dt.28.07.2008 vide doct.No.4954/2008 on the file of

SRO, Eluru by cancelling the terms of agreement dt.03.10.2007. The plaintiff knew very well about the return of advance amount under receipt and execution of cancellation of deed dt.28.07.2008.

8

(c) It is further submitted that since the plaintiff did not file any suit for declaration about the cancellation of registered cancellation deed dt.28.07.2008, the plaintiff is not entitled to plead that the said document is a nominal document and she can ignore the same. The said registered cancellation deed is valid and the same is binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.91 of 2012 on the file of Additional

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru on the same cause of action and

hence, the present suit is not maintainable.

(d) It is further submitted that as per the terms of agreement of sale Dt.03.10.2007, the time stipulated in the agreement i.e., 02.10.2008 was the essence of contract. He further submitted that the plaintiff expressed her unwillingness to get sale deed and requested the defendant No.1 to refund the advance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and the defendant No.1 refunded the said amount under a cheque dt.28.07.2009 vide cheque No.683493 and the plaintiff encashed the same but the plaintiff suppressed the said facts in the plaint. The defendant No.1 after cancelling the registered agreement of sale sold the plaint schedule property to defendant Nos.2 to 12 under registered sale deeds and the defendants 2 to 12 are bonafide purchasers for valid consideration and they are entitled to protect their right. Hence the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial.

1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of Specific Performance of agreement of sale, as prayed for or not?

9

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for alternative relief of refund of advance amount from the 1st defendant with subsequent interest or not?

3)Whether the sale agreement is true, valid and binding on the 1st defendant or not?

4)To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the Plaintiff, she herself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A21. On behalf of defendants, the Managing Partner of the 1stdefendant company/Vellanki Bala Bhaskara Rao is examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3 on their behalf.

6. Heard both sides. During the course of hearing, the learned counsels for both sides reiterated their respective case.

7. Issue Nos.1 to 3:

The Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that D.W.1 who represents the 1st defendant firm, in the written statement filed by him has categorically admitted the execution of the suit document i.e.,

Ex.A.1 agreement of sale and receiving advance amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- also. The Learned Counsel for the 1st defendant admitted said fact that there is no dispute from the 1st defendant relating to execution of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale and receipt of consideration of

Rs.6,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration. This Court perused the written statement and found that execution of Ex.A.1-Agreement of sale and passing of consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- towards advance amount is admitted by 1st defendant. Hence, it is clear that Ex.A.1 is undisputed document.

8. The Learned Counsel for defendant No.1 contends that

D.W.1-V.Bala Bhaskara Rao has refunded the advance amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- to the plaintiff by way of Cheque bearing No.683493 from 10 the bank account maintained by 1st defendant firm and cancelled Ex.A.1 agreement by executing the original of Ex.A.2 i.e., registered deed of cancellation; that hence the suit based Ex.A.1 is liable to be dismissed.

He further contends that the plaintiff encashed the said cheque which is evidenced by Ex.B.2 statement of bank account of the 1st defendant, but in spite of encashing the said cheque and thereby getting back the advance amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, the plaintiff filed this false suit and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

9. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff contends that advance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was never refunded to the plaintiff and that without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, cancellation of Ex.A.1 –Agreement of sale unilaterally by D.W.1 –V.Bala

Bhaskara Rao on behalf of 1st defendant firm by way of a self styled registered deed of cancellation i.e., original of Ex.A.2, is illegal under law; and that the perusal of Ex.A.2 registered deed of cancellation of

Ex.A.1, shows the fact that the plaintiff is not party to the said deed (Ex.A.2) and the said cancellation deed does not contain the signature of the plaintiff. Further, as since from the record it is clear that D.W.1 admitted the said fact during his cross examination on behalf of the plaintiff that the said registered cancellation deed (Original of Ex.A.2) is not signed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not party to the said deed.

Hence, in the considered of view this Court, in view of the above said admission of D.W.1, original of Ex.A.2 i.e, deed of cancellation of Ex.A.1 is null and void.

10. The learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 contents that suit is barred by limitation in view of first schedule of Limitation

Act. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of the

Honourable Apex Court reported in 2022 (6) ALD 37 (SC) i.e., a case

11

“Katta Sujata Reddy and another Vs. Infra Projects Private

Limited and other.”

11. The Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submit that the suit is well within the limitation. According to the contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the suit agreement was 03.10.2007 and that 1st defendant agreed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on or before 02.10.2008 and that suit is filed well within the limitation from the date 02.10.2008 and hence, the suit is not barred by limitation. Further, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff is that time is not essence of the contract in case of agreement to purchase immovable property and hence the suit is well within the limitation.

12. The learned Counsel for 1st defendant contents that if time is not fixed for performance of the contract, undoubtedly time is not essence of the contract, but where time is fixed for performance of the contract, the limitation to file this suit is 3 years only from the next date so fixed, according to Article 54, first schedule of the Limitation Act and that the same is observed of the Apex Court relied by him.

13. As seen from the plaint, it is found that the plaintiff herself has pleaded that the defendant No.1 agreed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of balance of sale consideration on or before 02.10.2008. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that for performance of contract herein i.e., Ex.A1, time is fixed till 02.10.2008. Hence, the plaintiff should have filed this suit on or before 01.10.2011 but she filed the suit on 10.10.2011.

14. To decide whether the present suit is within the Limitation or not, looking at Article 54, first schedule the Limitation Act is sufficient. Article 54 is clear that Limitation to file the suit is three years 12 from the date fixed for performance of the contract, where any time is fixed, but if no time limit is fixed for performance of the contract, then within three years when the plaintiff comes to know that performance of the contract is refused by opposite party.

15. Here, in the case of hand 02.10.2008 is fixed for performance of the contract. Hence, this suit should have been filed on or before 01.10.2011. But as seen from the record it is clear that this suit is filed on 10.10.2011 i.e., on the 9th day after expiry of limitation.

Hence, this Court does not have any hesitation to hold that the suit is barred by Limitation and is thereby liable for dismissed.

16. ISSUE No.4:

In the result, suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 3 rd day of April, 2023.

Sd/-D.Srinivasulu

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Vellanki Sasikala DW1: Vellanki Bala Bhaskara Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of Agreement of Sale dt.03.10.2007 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties; Ex.A2 : Certified copy of Cancellation deed dated 28.07.2008 executed by the 1st defendant by cancelling agreement of Sale Dt.03.10.2007 stands in the name of the plaintiff; (Ex.A.1 agreement of sale) Ex.A3 : Office copy of the legal notice Dt.05.05.2011 issued by the plaintiff to the defendants; Ex.A4 : Postal receipt dt.13.05.2011; 13

Ex.A5 : Copy of Reply notice dt.20.05.2011 issued by the 1st defendant; Ex.A6 : Office copy of rejoinder notice dt.25.06.2011 issued by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant; Ex.A7 : Postal acknowledgement from 2nddefendant dt.16.05.2011; Ex.A8 : Unserved return notice cover from the 3rd defendant; Ex.A9 : Postal acknowledgement from the 4th defendant; Ex.A10 : Unserved return notice cover from the 5th defendant; Ex.A11 : Postal acknowledgement from the 6th defendant; Ex.A12 : Postal acknowledgement from the 7th defendant; Ex.A13 : Postal receipt dt.14.05.2011; Ex.A14 : Unserved return notice cover regard to 9th defendant; Ex.A15 : Postal acknowledgement from the 10th defendant; Ex.A16 : Postal acknowledgement from the 11h defendant; Ex.A17 : Unserved return notice cover regard 12th defendant; Ex.A18 : Certified copy of reply notice dt.30.06.2011 issued by the defendant to the husband of the plaintiff; Ex.A19 : Certified copy of the reply notice dt.09.08.2011 issued by the defendant to the husband of the plaintiff; Ex.A20 : Certified copy of receipt dt.08.04.2009 filed by the defendant in O.S.No.95/2012 on the file of Hon’ble Prl. District Court, Eluru; Ex.A21 : Certified copy of registered notice dt.05.05.2011 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1;

FOR DEFENDANTS :

Ex.B1 : Print out of computerized ledge account for the period 01.04.208 to 31.03.2009 maintained by 1st defendant firm; Ex.B2 : Certified copy of statement of account of 1st defendant firm maintained its Banker, SBI, R.R.Pet, Eluru; Ex.B3 : Certified copy of agreement of sale cum GPA dt.31.03.2007;

Id/-D.S

P.S.C.J, ELURU.

14

Plaint presented on: 10.10.2011

Plaint filed on: 22.12.2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ELURU

Present:- Sri D.Srinivasulu

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru

Monday, this the 3rd day of April, 2023

ORIGINAL SUIT No.486/2015

Between :

Vellanki Sasikala, W/o.Vellanki Satya Swaroop, Hindu, Male, 46 years, Business, R/o.D.No.2-1-23b, Tangellamudi, Eluru, West Godavari District. ---Plaintiff.

And

1. M/s.Dwaraka Real Estates @ Developers, represented by its Managing Partner Vellanki Bala Bhaskararao, S/o.Leela Prasad, Hindu, Male, 45 years, Business, R/o.Flat No.405, Sri Harsha Apartments, Ashoknagar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

2. Goli Kanthamma, W/o.Goli Apparao, Hindu, Female, 50 years, Properties, R/o.D.No.1-32, Pangidigudem village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, West Godavari District.

3. Sammeta Vasudevarao, S/o.Nageswararao, Hindu, Male, 26 years, Koutharam village, High School Road, D.No.7-115, Gudlavalleru Mandal.

4. Nimmakayala Pushpalatha, W/o.Ramanamurthy, Hindu, Male, 41 years, Properties, R/o.D.No.6-3-11, Penumaka Devadasu street, Tailorpet, Chittinagar, Vijayawada.

5. Parasa Prabhakararao, S/o.Chintayya, Hindu, Male, 55 years, Employee, R/o.D.No.6-12-15, Thadikondavari street, Tailorpet, Chittinagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

6. Parimi Rajarao, S/o.Perayya, Hindu, Male, 55 years, Employee, R/o.D.No.6-12-15, Jayaram Street, Tailorpet, Chittinagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

7. Pagadala Varalakshmi, W/o.Venkata Krishnamohanrao, Hindu, Female, 24 years, Quarter No.B-7, Police quarters, Opp: Municipal Office, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

8. Gutta Umamaheswari, W/o.Rambabu, Hindu, Female, 23 years, R/o.D.No.3-18/1, Kovvali village, Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District.

15

9. Amere Parisuddharao, S/o.Manoharam, Hindu, Male, 52 years, Employee, R/o.D.No.1-2/3. Angalakuduru village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District.

10.Sripathi Krishna Padma, W/o.Sripathi Ramesh, Hindu, Female, 28 years, Employee, R/o.D.No.23b-2-16, Bendapudi vari street, R.R.Pet, Eluru.

11. Surampdi Bhaskerarao, S/o.Ananthapadmanabham, Hindu, Male, 66 years, Retd. Employee, R/o.D.No.23b-2-16, Bendapudi vari street, R.R.Pet, Eluru.

12. Mohammad Sulthana Begum, W/o.Ubedulla Begaum, Muslim, 62 years, R/o.D.No.6-5-40, T.Nagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ---Defendants.

This is a suit for specific performance to direct the 1st defendant to come to the Registrar Office, Eluru, to execute regular registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of the Agreement of Sale dt.03.10.2007 or alternatively direct the defendant to pay the advance Sale consideration with interest from the date of the suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit. CAUSE OF ACTION for the suit arose on 03.10.2007 when the defendant No.1 executed registered agreement of sale after receipt of advance sale consideration and on 02.10.2008 which is a stipulated time for execution of sale deed and during the time when the plaintiff has been ready and willing to get registration of sale deed with ready cash and during the time when the defendant No.1 postponed and executed collusive documents and on 05.05.2011 when the plaintiff got issued notice and on 08.05.2011 when the defendant No.1 received the same and on 23.06.2011 when the plaintiff issued rejoinder and during the time when the defendants No.2,4,6,7,10 and 11 are received the said notices remaining defendants have intentionally evaded to receive the said notices and the defendants No.2 to 12 kept quiet and in Somavarapadu Village where the suit schedule property is situated and in Eluru where the plaintiff and the defendants are ordinarily resides or with in the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

VALUE OF THE SUIT:

The suit is filed for the specific performance of contract of sale dated 03.10.2007 computed on the entire sale consideration U/s.39(a) of APCF Act The sale consideration of the agreement is Rs.6,15,500-00 ---------------------- Total Rs.6,15,500-00 16 ---------------------- On which a sum of Rs.8,576/- is here with paid towards Court fees U/s.39 Article I c schedule I of A.P Court fees and suits valuation Act. Alternative relief is valued for the advance sale consideration at Rs.6,00,000-00 ------------------ Total Rs.6,00,000-00 ------------------ On which a sum of Rs.8,526/- is payable but the plaintiff paid the Court fees on main relief which is more than the value of alternative relief. No Court fees need be paid on alternative relief. The Court fees a sum of Rs.8,576/- is here with paid towards Court fees in to the bank Account No.10616170753 of this Hon’ble Court with the state Bank of India, Eluru.

This suit coming on 31.03.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for plaintiff; and of Sri G.V.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for defendant Nos.1,4,6,7,10 and 11; and defendant Nos.2,3,8,9 and 12 having remained exparte and of Defendant No.5 died pendent lite of the suit and stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:-

1.that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; and

2.that the defendant No.1 bear his own cost of Rs.42,000/- towards costs of the suit and the defendant Nos.2 to 12 do bear their own costs of Rs.Nil(No cost memo filed) (Copy of plaint schedule is herewith appended)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 3 rd day of April, 2023.

Sd/-D.Srinivasulu

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ELURU.

17

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANT

No.2

1. Stamp on Vakalat :

2. Plaint Fee :

3. Process :

4. Advocate Fee : 42,000-00

Total Costs taxed 42,000-00

Id/-D.S

P.S.C.J, ELURU.

(Note: the parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order.)

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ELURU

Present: Sri D.Srinivasulu, Prl. Senior Civil Judge.

Wednesday, this the 19th day of April, 2024.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 342/2015

Between:

Eluru Go-Samrakshana Samithi, Eluru rep. by its Secretary K.Pandu Ranga Rao, son of late Krishnayya, Hindu, Male, 60 years, resident of Eluru. …Plaintiff

And

Yerramsetti Mehar Mohana Rao, son of Rama Mohana Rao, Hindu, Male, 58 years, Pro.Vikranth Furnitures, r/o Door No.22B-4-5, Powerpet, r/o Powerpet, Eluru-I, West Godavari District. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Badari Narayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri M.Suryanarayana, Advocate for defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed for eviction directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff, direct the defendant to pay arrears of rent and damages of Rs.7,23,050/-, for future damages of Rs.12,500/- per month on item No.1 and at Rs.6,600/- for item No.2 from September, 2015 till delivery possession of plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2. The case of the Plaintiff as per the plaint, in brief, is as follows:

P a g e | 2

O.S.342 of 2015

(a) The plaintiff submits that it is a society in registration No.10/1936-1937 registered under Societies

Registration Act XXI of 1860 and has been carrying its activities from its office situated in N.R.Pet, Eluru. The defendant leased out the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property to run furniture shop under the name and style of

Vikrant Furnitures through a registered lease deed dated 24.08.1995 vide document No.5834/1995 S.R.O., Eluru for the period from 01.08.1995 to 31-07-1998 agreed to pay rent per month with a condition to pay the same payable on or before 3rd day of every succeeding month. As per the terms of agreement the defendant has to utilize the property for his own business only and he should not sub let any part of whole of the building and should not alter, change or remove the schedule property without obtaining written consent from the plaintiff, and if the defendant violates any terms and condition of the lease, then the lease stands cancelled and the plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the property.

(b) And that since the date of lease, the defendant has been running furniture shop in the said premises, but the defendant is paying rents irregularly to the plaintiff for which a legal notices were issued to the defendant demanding him to pay the rents and if the defendant is not responded, legal action will be taken for appropriate relief and after receiving the notices, the defendant used to approach the plaintiff and pay the rents.

P a g e | 3

O.S.342 of 2015

c) The plaintiff further submits that while the matter stood thus, the defendant has removed the slab of the schedule property without consent and permission of the plaintiff, when it is questioned the defendant has negotiated the said matter by confessing his illegal acts and accepted to reconstruct the slab and other damages caused by him to the schedule properties. It is further submitted that in view of the raising in prices and enhancement of municipal taxes, the defendant has accepted to enhance he rent to Rs.5,000/- per month from 1.4.2008 and it will be in force from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2011 and has given written consent with the above said terms and conditions on 1.4.2008 itself; after 1.4.2008 the lease was renewed orally for a further period of 3 years i.e., from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2014 and the rent is enhanced to Rs.6,250/- per month and the defendant has paid rents for the months of July and August, 2013 on 31.10.2013 and from September, 2013 onwards the defendant committed default in payment of rents for item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and the lease period for the item

No.1 of the plaint schedule also not yet renewed and hence the occupation of the defendant in item No.1 is an un-authorized one and he is liable to pay the damages to the plaintiff ; and that the management of the Eluru Go-Sarkashana Samithi was under the control of Endowments departments for some time and the defendant herein has obtainedlicense from the Deputy

Commissioner, Endowments Department Kakinada for construction of upstair on the item No.1 of the schedule property and

P a g e | 4

O.S.342 of 2015

constructed a shed in an extent of 2,625 square y feet and the same is clearly described in item No.2 of the schedule here and utilizing the same for the purpose of his godown and the defendant has given a written letter of acceptance with regard to lease period and rent was fixed at Rs.6,600/-per month which was commenced from 1.6.2010 to a period of 3 years i.e., from 1.6.010 to 31.5.2013, after the said period, the lease is not yet renewed and his possession of item No.2of the plaint schedule property is an unauthorized and illegal, hence since 31.5.2013 the defendant has to pay damages for his unauthorized and wrongful use of item No.2of the plaint schedule property.

(d) The plaintiff further submits that the defendant has to pay the rents for item No.2 of the schedule property from 1.6.2010. It is further submitted that the management of the

Eluru Go- Samrakshana samithy was handed over to the plaintiff by the Endowment department on 7.12.2010 and after take over the management by th Committee, the plaintiff requested the defendant number of times for payment of rent which is due from 1.6.2010 and to execute a registered lease deed in favour of the

Eluru Go Samrakshana Samithi, Eluru, but the defendant has not paid rents for the item no.2 of the schedule property and the defendant has not come forward to execute the register lease deed in favour of the plaintiff and hence, the defendant committed default in payment of rent and damage for item No.2 of the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 23.06.2015 to the defendant for eviction from item No.1 and 2 of

P a g e | 5

O.S.342 of 2015

the plaint schedule properties and for recovery of rents and damages, but the defendant has not complied with the demands of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant submits that all the material allegations mentioned in the plaint are neither true nor untenable under law. He submits that the present suit is filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable, since the relief sought by the plaintiff’s society is misconceived. It is s submitted that the present suit is nothing but counter blast of suit filed by the defendant’s son against the society, vide O.S.No.248 of 2015.

It is submitted that as per the alleged version of the plaintiff with regard to quantum of rent and default of rent is utterly false and the present suit is not maintainable since the plaintiff’s society is registered one under the societies

Act, hence this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

4. The defendant further submitted that the alleged claim made by the plaintiff with regard to the alleged damages is nothing but creating panic in the mind of the defendant and the alleged lease deeds which were filed by the plaintiff’s society

dated 24.08.1995 is bald limitation and not valid before eye of

law, and the alleged registered notice dated 23.06.2015 got issued by the plaintiff’s society is not proper one under

Section 106 of T.P.Act. It is humbly submitted by the defendant that plaintiff’s society got filed another document dated 1.4.2008 said to have executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, with regard to the enhancement of rent is baseless

P a g e | 6

O.S.342 of 2015

and utterly false,. The defendant further submitted that the schedule property items Nos. 1 and 2 shown by the plaintiff’s society is with a view to get unlawful gain for themselves and other allegations mentioned in the plaint are oral transaction, godown purpose and further alleged default of rent and irregularly and alleged demand made by the plaintiff’s society are utterly false, and they are invented for the purpose of present suit only and with a view to counter blast the suit which was filed by the defendant’s son, vide O.S.248of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, West Godavari,

Eluru and the other allegations which are not specifically traversed herein are hereby denied by the defendant and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. Hence, prays the

Hon’ble court maybe pleased to dismiss the suit.

5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:-

1. Whether the defendant is liable to vacate item Nos 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property or not ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit claim amount of Rs.4,93,850/- with subsequent interest at 24% per annum on the principal amount from the date of suit till the date of payment as prayed for or not ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any future damages for use and occupation of items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule property, as prayed for or not ?

4. To what relief?

P a g e | 7

O.S.342 of 2015

6. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A.3 on his behalf.

7. During the trial, the defendant has not come forward to cross-examine P.W.1 inspite of giving opportunity. Hence cross-examination of P.W.1 on behalf of the defendant stood closed by this court. As such, there is no cross-examination at all of P.W.1. Later, when the suit was posted to the evidence on behalf of the defendant, then also the defendant did not choose to step into the witness box and has not examined any one on his behalf. Finally, the evidence on behalf of the defendant was closed as nil.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

9. Issues No.1 to 3:- To substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is nothing but a replica of his plaint pleadings and the same is corroborated by the documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A3. As P.W.1 has not been cross-examined by defendant or by his counsel, the evidence of P.W.1 has remained unshaken. For the reasons stated above it can be said that the plaintiff has proved his case.

Accordingly the issues 1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

10. Issue No.4:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to vacate and deliver over vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from

P a g e | 8

O.S.342 of 2015

the date of this judgment. The defendant is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,93,850/- (Rupees Four Lakh Ninety Three Thousand

Eight Hudnred and Fifty only) together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation.

The defendant is further directed to pay damages at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per month in respect of item No.1 and

Rs.6,600/- per month in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property from September, 2015 till deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff.

The defendant is directed to pay the amounts mentioned above within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the said amounts from the defendant and for recovery of the plaint schedule property as mentioned supra by filing Execution Proceedings in accordance with law.

Dictated to the typist directly on computer system,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-D.Srinivasulu,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Mungala Naga Venkata Murali Krishna -- None –

P a g e | 9

O.S.342 of 2015

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original registered lease deed dated 24.08.1995 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A-2 is the original acceptance letter dated 1.4.2008 for enhancement of rent executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff samithi

Ex.A-3 is the office copy of legal notice date 23.06.2015 got issued to the defendant.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

Ild/-D.S.L.

P.S.C.J

Eluru.

P a g e | 10

O.S.342 of 2015

Plaint presented on : 04-09-2015 Plaint filed on : 04-09-2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ELURU

Present: Sri D.Srinivasulu, Prl. Senior Civil Judge.

Wednesday, this the 19th day of April, 2023

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 342/2015

Between:

Eluru Go-Samrakshana Samithi, Eluru rep. by its Secretary K.Pandu Ranga Rao, son of late Krishnayya, Hindu, Male, 60 years, resident of Eluru. …Plaintiff

And

Yerramsetti Suman, son of Mehar Mohan Rao, Hindu, Male, 30 years, Business, r/o Powerpet, Eluru-I, West Godavari District. … Defendant.

This suit is filed for eviction directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff, direct the defendant to pay arrears of rent and damages of

Rs.7,23,050/-, for future damages of Rs.12,500/- per month on item No.1 and at Rs.6,600/- for item No.2 from September, 2015 till delivery possession of plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

VALUE OF THE SUIT:

This being a suit of eviction of the tenant, the suit is valued under Section 40 of the A.P.C.F. and S.v.Act.

For Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property

Rental value is Rs.12,500/- x 12) …. Rs.1,50,000-00

On which a C.F. of Rs.3,926/- is paid.

P a g e | 11

O.S.342 of 2015

For Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property (Rental Value is Rs.6,600/- x 12 … Rs. 79,200-00

On which a Court fee of Rs.3,026/- is paid.

For arrears of rent and damages:

For Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property

The defendant has to pay the rent from September, 2013 to 30-03-2014 i.e,., for 7 months at Rs.6,250/- per month … Rs.43,750-00

On which a C.F. of Rs.4,626/- is paid.

The plaintiff is calculated the damages from 1.4.2014 to 1.9.2015 at Rs.12,500/- per month (Rs.12,500/- x 17) …. Rs.2,12,500-00

On which a C.F. of Rs.4,626/- is paid.

For item No.2 of the plaint schedule property

The defendant has to pay the rent and damages from 1.9.2012 to 31.08.2015 i.e., for 36 months at Rs.6,600/-per month (Rs.6,600/- x 36) …. Rs. 2,37,600/-

On which a C.F. of Rs.4826/- is paid

Total court fee of Rs.18,610/- is herewith paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

Cause of Action:

Cause of action for the suit arose on 24-08-1995 when the defendant has taken item No.1 of the schedule property on lease from the plaintiff and has been running business and on the date when the defendant has removed the slab of item No.1 of plaint schedule property and all the dates when the defendant fails to pay the rents of the schedule property and on when the defendant failed to pay rents and damages for item 1 and 2 of the schedule property and on when the defendant has taken item

No. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property on lease and on 7.12.2010 hen the endowment department handover management of the Eluru Go-Samrakshana Samithi to its committee and on the dates when the lease period was expired and where the schedule

P a g e | 12

O.S.342 of 2015

property is situated within the Eluru Town which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Badari Narayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri M.Suryanarayana, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court

DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows.

i). that the defendant be and hereby directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of the judgment; 2] that the defendant do pay the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.4,93,850-00 together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realisation; 3] that the defendant do also pay the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.12,500/- per month in respect of item No.1 of plaint schedule property towards damages and do pay a sum of Rs.6,6000/- per month in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property towards damages from September, 2015 till deliver vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff; 4] that the defendant do pay the plaintiff the amount as specified in clause-1 supra and the arrears of the amounts as specified in clause-3 supra within two months from the date of the judgment; 5] that if the defendant fails to comply the clauses 1 to 4 supra, the plaintiff be at liberty to file Execution Proceedings for recovery of the amounts specified in clauses 2 and 3 above and for recovery of delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property in accordance with law.

P a g e | 13

O.S.342 of 2015

6] that the defendant do pay a sum of Rs.31,314-00 towards costs of the suit bearing his own costs of Rs.Nil.

Copy of plaint schedule is attached herewith.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court on this 19th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-D.Srinivasulu,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Eluru.

COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: Stamp on Vakalat. Rs. 4-00 No costs memo filed. Stamp on plaint. Rs. 7,426-00 Stamp on petitions. Rs. 20-00 Stamp on process. Rs. 80-00 Advocate Fee. Sr. Rs.17,538-00 Advocate Fee. Jr. Rs. 6,246-00 ---------------- Total: Rs.31,314-00 ----------------

Ild/-D.S.L. P.S.C.J.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ELURU

Present: Sri D.Srinivasulu, Prl. Senior Civil Judge.

Wednesday, this the 19th day of April, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 248/2015

Between:

Eluru Go-Samrakshana Samithi, Eluru rep. by its Secretary K.Pandu Ranga Rao, son of late Krishnayya, Hindu, Male, 60 years, resident of Eluru. …Plaintiff

And

Yerramsetti Suman, son of Mehar Mohana Rao, Hindu, Male, 30 years, Business, r/o Powerpet, Eluru-I, West Godavari District. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Badari Narayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Nagendra Babu, Advocate for defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed for eviction directing the defendant to deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff, direct the defendant to pay arrears of rent and damages of Rs.5,67,965/-, for future damages of Rs.25,000/- per month on item No.1 and at Rs.5,000/- for item No.2 from June, 2015 till delivery possession of plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2. The case of the Plaintiff as per the plaint, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The plaintiff submits that it is a society in registration No.10/1936-1937 registered under Societies

Registration Act XXI of 1860 and has been carrying its

P a g e | 2

O.S.248of 2015

activities from its office situated in N.R.Pet, Eluru. The father of the defendant leased out the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in open auction held by the plaintiff for the purpose of running furniture shop for the period from 3.9.2006 to 31.03.2009 agreed to pay rent of Rs.9,100/- per month with a condition to pay the same on or before 3rd day of every succeeding month, which will be returned to the plaintiff in good condition after completion of the lease period without issuing any notice by the plaintiff, if the defendant wants to continue in schedule property, he has to sent his requisition in writing by registered post to the plaintiff two months prior to the completion of the lease, if the lessor/plaintiff agrred for the same, then the rent has to be enhanced 35% on the existing rent and the defendant should obtain registered lease deed from the plaintiff.

(b) The plaintiff submits that on 03.09.2006 the defendant took possession for item No.1 of the plaint schedule and doing his business and after expiry of lease period , the lease period is extended for three years i.e., from 1.4.2009 to 31.03.2012 and rent has enhanced toRs.12,285/- per month and thereafter the defendant did not renew the said lease, but continuing in the item No.1of the plaint schedule property, but he is paying rents irregularly inspite of repeated demands; and that the management of the Eluru Go-Samrakshana Samithi was under the control of Endowments Department for some time and the defendant herein has obtained license from the Deputy Commissioner,

Endowments Department, Kakinada for the item No.2 of the

P a g e | 3

O.S.248of 2015

schedule property and as per the order dated 31.08.2010 issued by he deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department the license fee is Rs.1500/- per month and the period is from 20.07.2010 to10.07.2013. The management of Eluru Go Samrakshana Samithy was handed over to its Committee by the Endowments Department on 07-12-2010 and that the license for the item No.2of the p[lint schedule was expired by 20-07-2013, the defendant used to pay the amounts towards license fee irregularly during the period when the license was in force and that since 19.07.2013, the possession of the defendant in item No.2 of the plaint schedule is an unauthorized and wrongful and hence he is liable to pay the damages for his wrongful use and occupation of the same.

c) The plaintiff further submits that the item No.1of the plaint schedule property was leased out to the father of the defendant in the year 1995 and the defendant and his father have colluded with each other and removed walls and made illegal constructions in the plaint schedule property without obtaining any permission from the Go Samrakshana Samithy and in such a way caused damage to the property and on question by Go-

Samrakshana Samithi, the defendant and his father admitted their guilt and have a given a letter dt.1.4.2008 agreeing to reconstruction of the same and other demolished walls as it is

before demolition, but they have constructed slab only but not

constructed wall and there is a path way on North East of the entire building and the defendant colluded with his father occupied the same and extended the show room over it without obtaining any permission from the plaintiff, inspite of

P a g e | 4

O.S.248of 2015

repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant and his father did not reconstruct the walls and did not restore the path way.

d) The plaintiff humbly submits that lease and license of the defendant for the item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties are not renewed and the occupation of the defendant in the plaint schedule properties are illegal and unauthorized only and for that the defendant has to pay double for the existing rent i.e., Rs.16,585/-, as damages to the plaintiff; and that things are like that the defendant suppressed all the real facts and filed O.S.381/2004 on the file of I Additional

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru, for injunction with false and untenable allegations. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for eviction by delivering the vacant possession of the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff and for future damages.

3. On service of summons, the defendant made his appearance through his advocate an got filed his written statement in brief as follows:

a) The defendant submits that all the material allegations mentioned in the plaint are neither true nor untenable under law. He submits that the present suit is filed by the plaintiff is only as a counter blast for the suit in O.S.381/2014 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, West Godavari,

Eluru with a false and untenable allegations. He submits that for the sake of business convenience and to avoid spoiling the stock on hand, made some arrangements long back i.e., about

P a g e | 5

O.S.248of 2015

more than five years and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain any decree for eviction and or claiming of vacant possession and also the suit amount for alleged arrears and damages as claimed in the petition;

b) The defendant submits that the plaintiff is not entitle obtain any decree for eviction and or claiming of vacant possession and also the suit amount for alleged arrears and damages as claimed in the petition as the defendant never committed any default in payment of rents. He submits that when the defendant offered rent to the plaintiff earlier the plaintiff refused the same, for which he sent the rent through money order and which was also refused with an illegal and fraudulent view to somehow to evict the defendant by hook or crook by filing some false ad frivolous case and to setup some third parties who are their close associates in the plaint schedule property and trying to taking highhanded actions to evict this defendant, then the defendant got filed O.S.381/2014 on the file of I Additional junior Civil Judge’s court, Eluru.

C) The defendant denied that he has to pay double to the existing rent as damages to the plaintiff ad that now the plaintiff is receiving Rs.16,585/- per month for item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and Rs.3,000/- per month for the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property without prejudice to its right and contentions and that the defendant has committed default on payment of damages for the schedule properties from the month of February, 2014 onward and that the plaintiff has been demanding the same from time to time but the

P a g e | 6

O.S.248of 2015

defendant has been postponing the payment on the some or reason or other.

4. Based on the pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:-

1.Whether the defendant is liable to vacate item Nos 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property or not ?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit claim amount of Rs.5,67,965/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on the principal amount of

Rs.5,67,965/- from the date of suit till the date of payment as prayed for or not ?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any future damages for use and occupation of items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule property, as prayed for or not ?

4. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A.4 on his behalf.

6. During the trial, the defendant has not come forward to cross-examine P.W.1 inspite of giving opportunity. Hence cross-examination of P.W.1 on behalf of the defendant stood closed by this court. As such, there is no cross-examination at all of P.W.1. Later, when the suit was posted to the evidence on behalf of the defendant, then also the defendant did not choose to step into the witness box and has not examined any one on his behalf. Finally, the evidence on behalf of the defendant was closed as nil.

P a g e | 7

O.S.248of 2015

7. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

8. Issues No.1 to 3:- To substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is nothing but a replica of his plaint pleadings and the same is corroborated by the documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A4. As P.W.1 has not been cross-examined by defendant or by his counsel, the evidence of P.W.1 has remained unshaken. For the reasons stated above it can be said that the plaintiff has proved his case.

Accordingly the issues 1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9.Issue No.4:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to vacate and deliver over vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of this judgment. The defendant is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,32,945-00 (Three Lakh Thirty Two Thousand Nine

Hundred and Forty Five only) together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation.

The defendant is further directed to pay damages at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month in respect of item No.1 and

Rs.3,000/- per month in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property from June, 2015 till deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff.

P a g e | 8

O.S.248of 2015

The defendant is directed to pay the amounts mentioned above within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the said amounts from the defendant and for recovery of the plaint schedule property as mentioned supra by filing Execution Proceedings in accordance with law.

Dictated to the typist directly on computer system,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-D.Srinivasulu,

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Mungala Naga Venkata Murali Krishna -- None –

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original registered lease deed dated 24.08.1995 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A-2 is the original acceptance letter dated 1.4.2008 for enhancement of rent executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff samithi.

Ex.A-3 is the office copy of legal notice date 23.06.2015 got issued to the defendant.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

Ild/- D.S.L.

P.S.C.J.

P a g e | 9

O.S.248of 2015

Plaint presented on:23-06-2015 Plaint filed on :23-06-2015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ELURU.

PRESENT: SRI D. SREENIASULU,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Wednesday, the 19th day of April, 2023

O.S.NO. 248 OF 2015.

Between:

Eluru Go – SamrakshanaSamithi, Eluru, Represented by its Secretary, K. Pandu Ranga Rao, son of late Krishnayya, Hindu, Male, aged 60 years, Eluru, Eluru J.C.J.C. … Plaintiff.

And

YerramsettiSuman, son of Mehar Mohan Rao, Hindu, Male, aged about 36 years, Business, Powerpet, Eluru, Eluru J.C.J.C. … Defendant.

Suit to direct the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff; directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,67,965/- together with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on the said sum from the date of suit till realisation; directing the defendant to pay the future damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month for item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and at Rs.5,000/- per month for item No.2 of the plaint schedule property from June, 2015 till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit:

1] The relief of eviction of the Defendant from item-1 of the Plaint schedule property is Valued u/s.40 of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act on the annual rentals i.e. Rs.16,585/- x 12 = Rs.1,99,020/-- Rs.1,99,020-00

P a g e | 10

O.S.248of 2015

Upon which a Court fee of Rs.4,426/- is paid under Sec.40, Sch.I, Art.1[c] of A.P. Court Fees Act.

2] The relief of eviction of the Defendant from item-2 of the Plaint schedule property is Valued u/s.40 of A.P. Court Fees And Suits Valuation Act on the annual rentals i.e. Rs.3,000/- x 12 = Rs.36,000-00

Upon which a Court fee of Rs.1,966/- is paid under Sec.40, Sch.I, Art.1[c] of A.P. Court Fees Act.

3] For recovery of arrears of Damages in respect of item-1 of plaint schedule property at Rs.16,585/- per month from 01-02-2014 to 01-06-2015 i.e. Rs.16,585x 17 = Rs.2,81,945/- Rs.2,81,945-00

Upon which a Court fee of Rs.5,326/- is paid under Sec.20, Sch.I, Art.1[c] of A.P. Court Fees Act.

4] For recovery of arrears of Damages in respect of item-2 Of plaint schedule property at Rs.3,000/- per month from 01-02-2014 to 01-06-2015 i.e. Rs.3,000/- x 17 = Rs.51,000/- Rs.51,000-00

Upon which a Court fee of Rs.2,466/- is paid under Sec.20, Sch.I, Art.1[c] of A.P. Court Fees ACt.

Total value of the suit: Rs.5,67,965-00 Total Court fee paid: Rs. 14,184-00

Cause of action for the suit arose on 01-09-2006 when item No.1 of the plaint schedule property was taken on lease, on 20-07-2010 when the period of license for item No.2 was started, on all dates when the defendant started running business, on the date when the defendant removed the slab of item No.1 of the schedule property, on all dates when the defendant failed to pay damages on the dates when the defendant, when the defendant removed the partition wall between two shops and caused damages to the Northern wall of item No.2 of the schedule property, on 07-12-2010 when the Endowments Department has taken the

P a g e | 11

O.S.248of 2015

management of the plaintiff, when the lease and license for the plaint schedule property was expired, on all the dates when the defendant committed default in payment of damages to the plaintiff and at Eluru, where the schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit came before me for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.V.Badari Narayana, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri K.Nagendra Babu, Advocate for Defendant and though the defendant filed Written Statement, but did not cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiff and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff this Court

Doth Order and Decree as follows:

1] that the defendant be and hereby directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of the judgment; 2] that the defendant do pay the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.3,32,945-00 together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realisation; 3] that the defendant do also pay the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.20,000/- per month in respect of item No.1 of plaint schedule property towards damages and do pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property towards damages from June, 2015 till deliver vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff; 4] that the defendant do pay the plaintiff the amount as specified in clause-1 supra and the arrears of the amounts as specified in clause-3 supra within two months from the date of the judgment;

P a g e | 12

O.S.248of 2015

5] that if the defendant fails to comply the clauses 1 to 4 supra, the plaintiff be at liberty to file Execution Proceedings for recovery of the amounts specified in clauses 2 and 3 above and for recovery of delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property in accordance with law.

6] that the defendant do pay a sum of Rs.33,214-00 towards costs of the suit bearing his own costs of Rs.Nil.

Copy of plaint schedule is attached herewith.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court on this 19th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-D.Srinivasulu,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Eluru.

COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: Stamp on Vakalat. Rs. 4-00 No costs memo filed. Stamp on plaint. Rs.8,126-00 Stamp on petitions. Rs. 20-00 Stamp on process. Rs. 80-00 Advocate Fee. Sr. Rs.18,738-00 Advocate Fee. Jr. Rs. 6,246-00 ---------------- Total: Rs.33,214-00 ----------------

Ild/- D.S.L. P.S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ELURU

Present: Sri D.Srinivasulu,

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Eluru

Thursday, this the 25th day of February, 2021

SESSIONS CASE NO.66/2019

Name of the : Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town L & O Police complainant Station.

Name of the Accused : Bandham Venkata Lokanadha Phani Bhushan Rao, and particulars S/o.Sheshagiri Rao, 32 years, Yadava, R/o.D.No. 28-01-6, 1st floor, Prakasharao Nagar, Daba Gardens, Vishakhapatnam-2.

Charge : Under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.

Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the judge : Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the charge under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. Further, the surety bonds of surety persons and bail bonds of accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months and shall stand canceled after the expiry of six months period as contemplated under Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town L&O Police

Station, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable Under Sections 498(A) and 306 of IPC in Crime No.186/2016 of Eluru II town (L&O) Police Station.

2.Case of the prosecution, in brief, as follows:

The accused is the husband of deceased Bandham Anuradha, whose marriage is a love marriage taken place about three years prior to FIR.

Prior to their marriage, the deceased Bandham Anuradha had worked in a 2

Country Vocation Company Marketing, Hyderabad for a period of seven years and during that period, she got acquaintance with the accused who was her colleague and later they loved each other and got married on 02.10.2013 at Arya Samajam, Hyderabad; and after marriage, the accused sent the deceased Anuradha to her parents house at Eluru by promising her that he will take her to their house for conjugal life after taking consent of his parents ; that later , as the parents of the accused were not convinced for the said marriage, the accused intended to get rid of his marital bond with the deceased Anuradha and filed a Divorce petition in the Hounourable Family Court, Hyderabad, in the month of

January,2014. That three months prior to the death of deceased

Anuradha, the accused put pressure on her by harassing mentally to give divorce to him; and that even though the mother of the deceased

Ventrapragada Vijaya Lakshmi (L.W.2) and her brother Ventrapragada

Kasthuri Murali Krishna @ Murali Krishna (P.W.1) offered to give

Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry to the accused, the accused denied to lead conjugal life with the deceased Anuradha and on that the deceased

Anuradha got vexed with her life and as she is not willing to give divorce to the accused, she decided to commit suicide. That on the intervening night of 10/11-04-2016, she stated to her family members to not to disturb her and went into her room, locked from inside the room and committed suicide by hanging with a saree and died. That her brother

Murali Krishna (P.W.1) and her mother Vijaya Lakshmi (L.W.2) broke opened the doors of the room of the deceased and noticed the incident.

(b) Basing on the report of the Murali Krishna (P.W.1) a case in Cr.No.186/2016 under Sections 498 (A) and 306 of IPC of Eluru II town (L&O) Police station was registered against the accused by L.W.15

SSR Gangadhar, Sub-Inspector of Police on 11.04.2016 and took up the 3 investigation in this case.

(c) During the course of investigation, L.W.15 Sub-

Inspector of Police, visited the scene of offence, got drafted scene observation report in the presence of mediators viz Kurmani Durgarao (L.W.10) and Gullapudi Durga (L.W.11) and seized white and red with green colored design sari which was used by the deceased for hanging to a beam, prepared rough sketch of the scene, shifted the dead body of the deceased to the Government General Hospital, Eluru; and basing on the letter sent by L.W.15 SI of Police, L.W.14 Ch.S.R.V.K.Prasad, Tahsildar – cum- Mandal Executive Magistrate, Eluru visited the Government General

Hospital, Eluru and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of their blood relatives and inquest panchayatdars

Kallepalli Srinivasa Rao (L.W.9), Kurmani Durgarao (L.W.10) and

Gullapudi Durga (L.W.11), examined their blood relatives and recorded their statements and got photographed the dead body of the deceased through L.W.8 Valuri Rajesh.

(d) The team of Doctors viz Dr T.Ram Mohanrao, Civil

Assistant Surgeon (L.W.12) and Dr.V.Vijaya Nirmala, Civil Assistant

Surgeon (L.W.13) who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased issued Post Mortem Certificate opining that the deceased died due to Ante-mortem hanging. After completion of investigation, the investigation officer filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 498 (A) and 306 IPC. Hence the charge.

3. The said case was taken into cognizance by the learned II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru for the offence punishable

under Section 498 (A) and 306 of I.P.C against the accused.

4. After appearance of accused, copies of the documents were 4 furnished as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and since the offence under Section 498 (A) and 306 of IPC., is exclusively triable by Sessions

Court, the said case is committed to the Honorable District and Sessions

Court, West Godavari District at Eluru and the same was made over to this Court for disposal of the same according to law.

5. After receipt of the case, this Court has issued summons to the accused and on his appearance before this Court, he engaged his

Counsel and upon perusing the material on record and after having heard both sides, charges under Section 498 (A) and 306 of IPC against the accused have been framed and were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case against the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to

P.4. As the material witnesses Pws.1 to 3 have not supported the prosecution and turned hostile, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of other material witnesses.

7. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with as no incriminating evidence is there in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides.

9. During the course of arguments, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submitted that as the close blood relatives of the deceased

Anuradha i.e., P.W1 V.Murali Krishna (brother), P.W.2 Akula Devi (Paternal

Aunt) and P.W.3 Akula Nagendra Rao (Maternal Uncle) have not supported prosecution, he has given up the other witnesses to save the precious 5 time of the court. Further the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that there is no material against the accused to convict him for the offence punishable under Section 498 (A), 306 of I.P.C.

10. Now, the point that arises for consideration is

Whether the prosecution could prove the charges under

Section 498 (A), 306 of IPC against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. POINT: The case of the prosecution is that the accused is the husband of the deceased Anuradha and there was a love affair between himself and the said Anuradha prior to their marriage and their marriage was against to the wish of parents of both sides and subsequent to the marriage, gradually, the accused started to harass his wife deceased Anuradha demanding for dowry and as the deceased Anuradha was not capable to meet the said demands made by the accused, the accused filed a petition for divorce in the Court concerned at Hyderabad.

12. The substance of the prosecution’s case is, apart from mentally and physically harassing his wife deceased Anuradha and as a result thereof the deceased Anuradha disliked her fate and committed suicide, thereby the accused apart from committing offence punishable under Section 498(A), abated suicide committed by his wife Anuradha and as such liable for punishment for the offence punishable under

Section 498 (A) and 306 of IPC.

13. The case in Crime No.186/2016 came to be registered on report in writing by P.W.1 V.Murali Krishna to the police and during the investigation, the investigation officer examined as many as L.Ws.2,5 to 15 including P.Ws.2 and 3 namely Akula Devi and Akula Nagendra Rao, who are Paternal Aunt and Maternal Uncle of the deceased Anuradha.

6

14. P.W.1 V.Murali Krishna, who is said to have given report to the police making allegations against the accused, himself is not supported the prosecution’s case, so also P.Ws.2 and 3 named above have also not supported the prosecution’s case. As there is no iota of incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, this Court has dispensed with the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also. As the material witnesses namely Ventrapradaga Kasthuri Murali Krishna @

Murali Krishna, Akula Devi and Akula Nagendra Rao, P.Ws.1 to 3 respectively, who are the close blood relatives of the deceased Anuradha themselves turned hostile, the learned Public Prosecutor has fairly given up the examination of the other witnesses cited in the charge sheet.

15. In view of the above said circumstances, this Court finds that the accused is not found guilty for the offences under Section 498-A and 306 of I.P.C and the accused is entitled to acquittal for the alleged charges under Section 498-A and 306 of I.P.C., from this case.

In the result, accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the charges under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. Further, the surety bonds of surety persons and bail bonds of accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months and shall stand canceled after the expiry of six months period as contemplated under Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court hall through Blue Jeans App video

conferencing, on this the 25 th day of February, 2021.

Sd/- D.Srinivasulu

PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ELURU.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 - V.Murali Krishna P.W.2 - Akula Devi P.W.3 - Akula Nagendra Rao

FOR DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 -- Admitted signature of P.W.1 V.Murali Krishna;

Ex.P.2 -- 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1/ V.Murali Krishna;

Ex.P.3 -- 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2/ Akula Devi;

Ex.P.4 -- 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3/Akula Nagendra Rao;

FOR DEFENCE: -- Nil --

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: -- NIL— Id/-D.Srinivasulu P.A.S.J. Eluru.

8

TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN S.C.No.66/2019

ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, ELURU

UNDER RULE 354 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE.

1 Sessions Case No. and : S.C.No.66/2019and PRC 5/2018 of II P.R.C.No. with name of Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, the committal Court Eluru.

2 Name of the Police : Eluru II town Police station and Station and Crime No. Cr.No.186/2016 of Eluru II Town Police station. 3 Description of the : Bandham Venkata Lokanadha Phani Bhushan Accused: Rao, S/o.Sheshagiri Rao, 32 years, Yadava, R/o.D.No.28-01-6, 1stfloor, Prakasharao Nagar, Daba Gardens, Vishakhapatnam-2. 4 Date of Offence : 10/11.04.2016 Complaint : 11.04.2016 Apprehension : 14.06.2016 Release on bail : 14.06.2016 Committal : 28.01.2019 Commencement of trial : 25.02.2021 Close of Trial : 25.02.2021 Sentence or Order : 25.02.2021 5 Explanation for the delay : No avoidable delay

ORDER: In the result, accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the charge under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. Further, the surety bonds of surety persons and bail bonds of accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months and shall stand canceled after the expiry of six months period as contemplated under Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- D.Srinivasulu

Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru. Copies submitted to:

1.The Honorable Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District (through C.D)

2.The Honorable District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

3.The Honorable Director of Prosecution, D.No.24-19-12/A, Durgapuram, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. Copies to:

1. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Eluru.

2. The Addl. P.P., Principal Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Eluru.

3. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ELURU

Present: Sri D.Srinivasulu,

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Eluru

Thursday, this the 4th day of February, 2021

SESSIONS CASE NO.170/2019

Name of the : Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town L & O Police complainant Station.

Name of the Accused : A-1 Bheemavarapu Suresh Kumar, S/o.Rangapothuraju, and particulars 37 years, Koppula Velama, Ganugulapet, Bheemavarapu street, Kothapet, now at D.No.21- 1-182, 4throad, Santhinagar, C/o.K.Seetharamaiah, Eluru.

A-2 Meesala Durga Rao, S/o.Bangarayya, 35 years, Dokalavari street, Kapu, Chepalathumu Center, D.No.20D-7-50, Kothapet, Eluru. (in District Jail, Eluru.)

A-3 Nethala Kitthu @ Nethala Raja Rammohan, S/o.Vijaya Kumar, 23 years, Mala,D.No.20C-18/8, Chepalathumu Center, Kothapet, Eluru. A-4 Chippada Sai Kumar, S/o.Anjibabu @ Anjibabu, 28 years, Turupu Kapu, RTA Agent, C/o.Chippada Yellaiah, R/o.Doakala street, Kothapet, Eluru.

A-5 Baviri Nagadeesh @ Karammilli Jagadesh, S/o.Madhava Charulu, 28 years, Viswabrahmin, Coolie, Chepalathumu center, Kothapet, Eluru. A-6 Kolli Sankara Reddy, S/o.Krishna Reddy, 26 years, Reddy, Auto Driver, R/o.Ramamahal Ladies gate, Kunapalli street, R.R.Pet, Eluru.

A-7 Mohammad Syed Baji @ Nani @ Babu, S/o.late Sardhar, 28 years, Muslim, Autodriver, R/o.near Dongalamandapam, Eluru now at Pichukagunta, Eluru. Charge : Under Sections 307 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A7.

Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the judge : Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :

In the result, the A-1 to A-7 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the charge under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC.

Further, the surety bonds of surety persons and bail bonds of A1 to A7, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months and shall stand canceled after the expiry of six months period as contemplated under Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

2

The unmarked case property, if any, shall be confiscated to State after expiry of appeal time.

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town L&O Police

Station, filed charge sheet against A1 to A7 for the offences punishable

Under Sections 307 r/w 34 of IPC in Crime No.24/2016 of Eluru II town (L&O) Police Station.

2.Case of the prosecution, in brief, as follows:

About three months prior to the date of incident i.e., 08.01.2016,

Kanchi Murali Krishna @ Chinni Krishna (P.W.4), who is defacto complainant cum alleged victim in this case, had an altercation with the

A1 Bheemavarapu Suresh, who is the husband of Bheemavarapu

Hemasundari, Corporater of 37th Division, while participating in a week end ‘Ammavari Jathara” and on that A1-Suresh foisted false cases against

Chinni Krishna (P.W.4) and his elder brother L.W.6 Kanchi Narendra

Krishna Kumar @ Pedda Krishna, with false allegations and since then A1

Suresh is trying to kill Chinni Krishna (P.W.4).

(a) And on 08.01.2016, while Chinni Krishna (P.W.4) was proceeding on his bullet motor cycle and reached near Chepalathumu

Center at about 2.30 p.m., saw L.W.3 Moturi Narayana, an Auditor, who is coming on his scooty, on that Chinni Krishna (P.W.4) stopped his motor cycle and while they were taking with each other, meanwhile one Auto bearing No.AP 37 TB 0778 came behind Chinni Krishna (P.W.4) and stopped and that L.W.3 Moturi Narayana, who stood just beside Chinni

Krishna (P.W.4), shouted on noticing the accused persons 1 to 7; and on that Chinni Krishna (P.W.4) turned back and noticed that A1 Suresh and

A2 Meesala Durgarao stood behind him instructing A3 to A7 who are in 3

Auto, to kill A1; and on that A3-Neethala Kittu, A4-Chippada Sai,

A5-Bhaviri Jagadeesh @ Karamillu Jagadeesh, A6-Kolli Sankara Reddy and

A7-Mohammad Syed Baji, attacked Chinni Krishna (P.W.4) with knives and rods i.e., A3-hacked over his right jaw; A4-Sai pocked him with knife over his right palm; A5-Jagadeesh pocked with knife in between right side buttocks and thigh; A6-Sankara Reddy pocked him over is abdomen and

A7-Syed Baji beat him with an iron rod over his right palm; and on that

Chinni Krishna (P.W.4) left his motor cycle over there by throwing it and flew away with injuries from there and went to his house which is nearer to that place; and that his wife Kanchi Urmila (P.W.1) and his elder brother Kanchi Narendra Krishna Kumar (L.W.6) shifted him to

Government Head Quarters Hospital, Eluru, for treatment and from there on the advice of doctors he was shifted to Ayush Hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment.

(b) Basing on the statement of the victim and intimation from the Hospital, L.W.15- A.Durga Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru II

Town Police station, registered the same as a case in Cr.No.24/2016 under

Sections 307 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused numbers 1 to 7 and took up the investigation in this case.

(c) During the course of investigation, L.W.15 Sub-

Inspector of Police, visited the scene of offence, got drafted scene observation report in the presence of mediators viz Kallepalli Srinivasa

Rao (L.W.8) and Keerthi Nagababu (L.W.9), prepared rough sketch of the scene, examined P.W.1 Urmila and eye witnesses, recorded their statements, seized blood stained jeans pant, belt and shoes of the injured/ P.W.4 Chinni Krishna which was produced by P.W.1 Urmila and thereafter he visited Ayush Hospital, Vijayawada and there he examined 4 and recorded the statements of the victim/P.W.4 Chinni Krishna and his brother L.W.6 Krishna Kumar and from there he went to the scene of offence and there he seized one Royal Enfield Bullet motor cycle having no registration number, one Pulsar motor cycle No.AP37AH4345 and two pairs of Chappals in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report and also examined the neighbouring eye witness L.W.7

Valtheti Rajesh @ Patchakaki and recorded his statement.

(d) On receipt of credible information, on 26.01.2016,

L.W.14 G.Madhu Babu, Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town Police station, arrested A3, A4, A5 and A6 at 3.00 p.m., near Electrical Sub-Station,

Tangellamudi, J.R.Gudem Road, Eluru and recorded their confessional statements and L.W.15-A.Durga Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, seized crime weapons i.e., four knives, one iron rod from the possession of the accused and also seized one auto bearing No.AP37TB0778, Engine

No.BAMBSG19876, Chaisis No.MD2AAVAZZSWG52093 belong to A6 Kolli

Shankar Reddy in the presence of mediators L.Ws.8 and 9; and sent the material objects to the RFSL, Vijayawada and obtained Chemical Analysis report vide VJA/SER64/2016 dt.10.06.2016; and on 27.01.2016 at 2.30 p.m. he arrested A2 at Chepalathumu center, Eluru, in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report; and on 24.02.2016, A1

Suresh obtained anticipatory bail vide Crl.M.P.No.1608/2016 dt.24.02.2016 and released on bail with sufficient sureties and bail bonds; and on 14.06.2017 L.W.14 G.Madhu Babu, arrested A7 Syed Baji at 4.00 p.m., at Ambica Cinema Hall center, Eluru, in the presence of mediators

L.W.10 Margani Venkata Rama Rao and L.W.11 Korada Bala Krishna.

(e) L.W.12 Dr.MAV Prasad, Casualty Medical officer, Ayush

NRI LEPL Health Care Private Limited, Vijayawada who treated P.W.4 5

Chinna Krishna, issued wound certificate opining that the injuries sustained by him are grievous in nature. After completion of investigation, the investigation officer filed charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 307 r/w 34 IPC. Hence the charge.

3. The said case was taken into cognizance by the learned II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru for the offence punishable

under Section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C against the accused.

4. After appearance of A1 to A7, copies of the documents were furnished as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and since the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC., is exclusively triable by Sessions Court, the said case is committed to the Honorable District and Sessions Court,

West Godavari District at Eluru and the same was made over to this Court for disposal of the same according to law.

5. After receipt of the case, this Court has issued summons to A1 to A7 and on their appearance before this Court, they engaged their

Counsel and upon perusing the material on record and after having heard both sides, charge under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC against A-1 to A-7 was framed. The contents of charge is read over and explained to A-1 to

A-7 in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case against A1 to A7, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to

P.5. As the material witnesses Pws.1 to 4 have not supported the prosecution and turned hostile, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of other material witnesses.

7. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the examination of all accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with as 6 no incriminating evidence is there in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides.

9. During the course of arguments, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submitted that as the material witnesses viz the victim P.W4

Murali Krishna, his wife K.Urmila (PW.1), the alleged eye witnesses viz

P.W.2 M.V.Narayana Rao and P.W.3 G. Satish have not supported prosecution, he has given up the other witnesses to save the precious time of the court. Further the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that there is no material against the accused persons 1 to 7 to convict them for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of

I.P.C.

10. Now, the point that arises for consideration is

Whether the prosecution could prove the charge under

Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC against A-1 to A-7, beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. POINT: P.W.4 Kanchi Murali Krishna, alleged victim, and he is said to have received stab injuries in the hands of accused has deposed that he does not know any of the accused 1 to 7 and he did not make any report to the police making any allegations against the accused 1 to 7 standing before the Court. P.Ws.2 and 3 M.Veera Venkata Narayana Rao @ Narayana and G.Sathish, the alleged eye witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution as they deposed that they do not know any of the accused 1 to 7 and never saw them attacking P.W.4

Murali Krishna with knife and police did not examine them. P.W.1

K.Urmila, though deposed the details of the injuries she noted on the body of her husband P.W.4 Murali Krishna when he came running to the 7 house with bleeding, she also deposed as if she does not know any of the accused and she never made any statement to the police making allegations against the accused.

12. As such, all the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution’s case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is testified in giving up all the other witnesses.

13. For the said reasons discussed above, in the considered view of this court, prosecution has failed to establish the guilty of accused

Nos.1 to 7 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C and the accused 1 to 7 are entitled to acquittal for the alleged charge under Section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C., from this case.

In the result, the A-1 to A-7 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the charge under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC. Further, the surety bonds of surety persons and bail bonds of A1 to A7, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months and shall stand canceled after the expiry of six months period as contemplated under Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

The unmarked case property, if any, shall be confiscated to State after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court hall through Blue Jeans App video

conferencing, on this the 4 th day of February, 2021.

Sd/- D.Srinivasulu

PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 - K.Urmila P.W.2 - M.Veera Venkata Narayana Rao @ Narayana P.W.3 - G.Sathish P.W.4 - Kanchi Murali Krishna 8

FOR DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 -- 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1/K.Urmila;

Ex.P.2 -- 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2/M.Veera Venkata Narayana Rao @ Narayana; Ex.P.3 -- 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3/ G.Sathish;

Ex.P.4 -- 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4/Kanchi Murali Krishna;

Ex.P.5 -- Signature of P.W.4 on his report dt.08.01.2016 given to the police;

FOR DEFENCE: -- Nil --

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: -- NIL— Id/- D.Srinivasulu P.A.S.J. Eluru.