Sri D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE :: AT GUNTUR.

Present: Sri. D. Vijaya saradhi raju, LL.M., I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Thursday, this the 13th day of April, 2023

S.C. No. 110 of 2023

[P.R.C. No. 54 of 2020 on the file of VI A.J.M.F.C, Guntur] [Cr. No. 44 of 2020 of Pedakakani P.S.]

Between: The State, Through the S.I of Police, Pedakakani P.S. . . . Complainant.

And

Kalintha John Sudhakar, S/o. Ravi, A/o. 19 years, O/o. Not mentioned, Mala by caste, R/o. Takkellapadu cross road, Pedakakani mandal, Guntur district. . . . Accused.

* * *

This sessions case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned Additional P.P, for the State, and Sri M.S.N. Prasad, learned counsel for Accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

[1] This is a case emerged out of charge sheet filed by S.H.O of

Pedakakani P.S, in Cr. No. 44/2020 with a prayer to punish Accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 307 of I.P.C.

[2] Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is like this; Gandhi nagar bridge in Takkellapadu village of Pedakakani mandal is scene of offence in this case. The defacto complainant/P.W.1 Didla Ashok and Accused both are residents of Takkellapadu village and both are known persons to each others. There were misunderstandings in between Accused and

P.W.1. On 28/01/2020 in the evening hours the Accused and another 2 juvenile-in-conflict with law poured kerosene on P.W.1 and tried to lit fire.

[2-A] Basing on the written report of P.W.1 F.I.R was registered.

After registration of F.I.R, the statements of witnesses were recorded.

During the course of investigation, Investigating officer visited the scene of offence, prepared observation report, and drawn rough sketch. The presence of Accused was secured and his arrest was effected. Now the

Accused is on bail. After completion of investigation Investigating officer came to the conclusion that the Accused committed an offence punishable U/sec. 307 of I.P.C and filed charge sheet to that effect.

Hence the accusation.

[3] Basing on the charge sheet and available material on record, the case was taken on file for the offence U/sec. 307 of I.P.C by the VI

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Guntur, and from there the

case was committed to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Guntur, in compliance to section 209 of Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Sessions Court pleased to made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

[4] After appearance of Accused before this court, and after providing an opportunity of hearing, and upon considering the material on record a charge U/sec. 228 of Cr.P.C was framed for the offence

U/sec. 307 of I.P.C, and the substance of charge and accusation was read over and explained to Accused in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invitation for adducing evidence, the prosecution, in order to bring home the accusation leveled against

Accused has examined THREE witnesses as P.W’s.1 to 3, and exhibited as many as FOUR documents Ex’s. P.1 to P.4.

[5] After completion of prosecution side evidence, examination

U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with as there was no incriminating material available against Accused in prosecution evidence. The defence did not choose to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary on its 3 behalf, except availing the opportunity of cross examination of prosecution witnesses.

[6] Heard the arguments of both sides.

[7] Now the point that arises for determination is that; “Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to bring home the guilt of Accused for the offence U/sec. 307 of I.P.C, beyond reasonable doubt.?” [8]DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-

In a criminal trial, one has to start with the presumption of innocence in favour of the Accused which is also regarded as human right because no one can be convicted and punished merely on the ground of suspicion, however strong it may be. Every person has a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to “proof” is an exercise particular to each case. The prosecution is required to prove offence beyond reasonable doubt.

[8-A] The accusation of prosecution is that on 28/01/2020 the

Accused and another juvenile-in-conflict with law poured kerosene on

P.W.1 and tried to lit fire, and thereby attempted to kill him. To prove this accusation, prosecution has examined P.W’s.1 to 3, and exhibited

Ex’s. P.1 to P.4 documents. P.W.1 is defacto complainant -cum- victim,

P.W’s.2 and 3 are eye witnesses. The documents marked on behalf of prosecution are, Ex.P.1 is Signature of P.W.1 on report, and Ex’s. P.2 to

P.4 are 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.W’s.1 to 3.

[8-B] P.W.1 evidence is that he do not know the facts of this case.

P.W.1 denied the contents of his report. P.W’s. 2 and 3 evidence is that they too do not know the facts of this case. At the request of prosecution

P.W’s.1 to 3 were declared as hostile as they deviated from their earlier statements given to Investigating officer during the course of 4 investigation, and also that they did not supported the case of prosecution, and on that an opportunity was provided to the prosecution to cross-examine them. Nothing was elicited during the course of cross examination to suggest that P.W’s.1 to 3 are speaking falsehood. The learned defence counsel submitted that since the material witnesses exhibited hostile attitude, the Accused is entitled for acquittal.

[8-C] As seen from the evidence of P.W’s.1 to 3 they turned hostile and denied the contents of their statements recorded by Investigating officer. Further, P.W.1 also denied the contents of his report. Though the prosecution exhibited the statements of P.W’s.1 to 3 recorded by

Investigating officer, it has its own limitation as the said statements were recorded U/sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. It is well settled law that the statement recorded U/sec. 161 of Cr.P.C shall not be used for any purpose except to contradict a witness in the manner prescribed in the proviso to section 162(1) of Cr.P.C. A statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C is not a substantive piece of evidence. In view of the proviso to section 162(1) of

Cr.P.C, the said statement can be used only for the limited purpose of contradicting the maker thereof. Accordingly, the contents of statement

U/sec. 161 of Cr.P.C can be used for contradicting a witness by the defence, but the contents of same statement cannot be relied upon by the prosecution. Thus Ex’s. P.2 to P.4/statements are of no helpful to the prosecution case. The reason for hostility of P.W’s.1 to 3 is not known, but the fact is that no incriminating material forthcoming from their testimonies.

[8-D] It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that

Accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proven beyond doubt. Burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of Accused beyond reasonable doubt. This general burden never shifts, and it always rests on the prosecution. Under the circumstances of present case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the Accused beyond doubt. In view of the above discussed infirmities and shortcomings in 5 the prosecution case, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to believe the complicity of Accused in the commission of the offence. The material produced by the prosecution is hardly sufficient to bring home the guilt of Accused beyond doubt. Thereby, the point is decided in negative.

[9] In the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.307 of I.P.C, and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.

235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused and surety bonds of his sureties shall stands cancelled, after six (6) months period, as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no order as to property.

Directly typed to my dictation by stenographer (Gr-1), and corrected by me. The judgment is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 13 th day of April, 2022, under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju

I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: P.W.1: Didla Ashok. P.W.2: Didla Somaiah. P.W.3: Bonaasi Pratap.

For defence: -None-

Documents marked:

For prosecution: Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on Report. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

For defence: -Nil- 6

Material objects marked:

For prosecution: -Nil-

For defence: -Nil-

Sd/- D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju

I Addl. A.S.J,

Guntur.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE: GUNTUR

1) Number of Sessions Case : S.C.No.110 of 2023

2) Name of the complainant and its Cr.No : Sub-Inspector of police, Pedakakani P.S. Crime No. 44 of 2020

3) Name of Committal Officer and PRC : Kum. K. Srutha Vinda, VI Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Guntur. PRC No.54 of 2020

4) Description of the accused :

Kalintha John Sudhakar, S/o. Ravi, A/o. 19 years, O/o. Not mentioned, Mala by caste, R/o. Takkellapadu cross road, Pedakakani mandal, Guntur district.

5) Date of:

a) Offence : 28-01-2020

b) Committal : 20-12-2022

c) Receipt of record : 15-02-2023

d) Accused arrested on : 30-01-2020

e) Commencement of Trial : 03-04-2023

f) Closure of Trail : 06-04-2023

g) Sentence or Order : 13-04-2023

6) Offences :u/s.307 of IPC

7) Plea of accused : Not guilty.

8) Finding of Court : Accused found not guilty

9) Sentence or Order :

Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.307 of

I.P.C, and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused and surety bonds of his sureties shall stands cancelled, after six (6) months period, as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no order as to property.

10) EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY:

This case was made over by Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, for disposal on 15-02-2023. On 24-03-2023 charge under Sec. 307 of IPC was framed against the accused. On 03-04-2023 PWs1 to 8 3 were examined, Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. Prosecution side evidence was closed. As there is no incriminating material available against accused in prosecution evidence, examination U/S.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with and heard both sides. On 13-04-2023 Judgment

pronounced. Hence, there is no avoidable delay in this case.

Sd/- D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju

I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Copy to: 1.The Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of A.P. Hyderabad through The District & Sessions Judge, Guntur

2. The Hon'ble District Judge, Guntur.

3. The Secretary, D.L.S.A., Guntur.

4. The Director of Prosecution, Hyderabad.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban.

6. The VI Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Guntur.

7. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, I Addl. Asst. Sessions Court, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT GUNTUR

Present: Sri.D.Vijaya saradhi raju, LL.M., I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. F.A.C // Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 20th day of April, 2022

S.O .P. No. 59/2020

Between:- (1) Ch. Padmavathi, W/o Adinarayana rao, A/o. 50 years, O/o. Household, R/o. D. No. 3/19/38, 3/1, Old Pattabhipuram, Guntur, Guntur district.

(2) Konakandla Rama Tulasi, W/o Malleswara rao, A/o. 44 years, O/o. Household, R/o. 10-115/B, Old SBI Bazar, Piduguralla, Guntur district.

(3) Aravapalli Surya Prakasa Rao, S/o. Rama rao, 47 years, O/o. Employee, R/o. 24C-63, Flat No. 202, Varamanjari Apartment, R.R. Pet, Eluru, W.G. district.

(4) Aravapalli Rambabu, S/o. Rama rao, A/o. 52 years, O/o. Employee, R/o. Flat No. 202, Yaganti perfect apartment, Sangadigunta, Guntur, Guntur district.

(5) Aravapalli Srinivasa rao, S/o. Rama rao, A/o. 55 years, O/o. Employee, R/o. Flat No. 301, GK Enclave, Miyapur, Rangareddy district, (6) Kakaraparthi Leelavathi, W/o. Seetha Ramaiah, A/o. 59 years, O/o. Household, R/o. Bhrugubanda village, Sattenapalli mandal, Guntur district.

. . . Petitioners.

2

And

(1) The Sub Post master, Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Temple Branch, Guntur, Guntur district.

(2) Sub Post Master, Guntur bazar branch, Guntur, Guntur district.

(3) The Superintendent, Postal department, Head Post office, Guntur, Guntur district. . . . Respondents no.1 to 3. -o0o- This Succession original petition came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. K.V. Satyanarayana rao, Learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri B. Chandra Sekhar, Learned standing counsel for respondents no.1 to 3, and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

O R D E R

[1] This is a petition filed under section 372 of The Indian

Succession Act seeking the relief for issuance of succession certificate in favour of petitioners authorising them to receive the petition schedule amounts i.e., (1) amount of Rs.10,000/- lying in National Saving

Certificate vide No. 65/EE 826531 along with accrued interest, (2) amount of Rs.5,000/- lying in National Saving Certificate vide No.

6NS/36DD 385022 along with accrued interest, and (3) amount of

Rs.7,00,478/- lying in postal sb A/c. No. 2100852 along with accrued interest, stands in the name of deceased Late Aravapalli Rama rao, and to award costs.

[2] The brief averments of petition are like this; the petitioners are children of Late Aravapalli Rama rao. During his lifetime Late Aravapalli

Rama rao purchased two National saving certificates 65/EE 826531 for

Rs.10,000/- and 6NS/36DD 385022 for Rs.5,000/- respectively in his name, so also he maintained postal savings A/c. 2100852 wherein an amount of Rs.7,00,478/- is lying. Whereas, the said Late Aravapalli

Rama rao died intestate on 21/07/2020 leaving behind the petitioners to 3 succeed his estate as legal heirs. Wife of Late Aravapalli Rama rao was already predeceased to him. Except the petitioners there are no other persons to claim the petition schedule amounts. That the petitioners approached respondents for releasing of petition schedule amounts but the authorities insisted for production of succession certificate. Hence the petition.

[3] The respondent no.3 contested the petition by filing counter, and other respondents adopted the same. It is averred in the counter that Late Aravapalli Rama rao and Late Aravapalli Annapurnamma jointly opened savings A/c. 2100852 but they did not nominated any person as nominee to receive the amounts. Similarly Late Aravapalli

Rama rao purchased two National saving certificates 65/EE 826531 for

Rs.10,000/- and 6NS/36DD 385022 for Rs.5,000/- respectively in his name during his lifetime and he too not nominated any person to receive matured amounts. It is also averred in the counter that since Late

Aravapalli Rama rao and Late Aravapalli Annapurnamma not nominated any persons to receive amounts/matured amounts succession certificate is necessary to process the amounts.

[4] At the event of enquiry, petitioner no.4 got examined himself as

P.W.1 and exhibited Ex’s.P.1 to P.6 documents and those are; Ex.P.1 is

Death certificate of Late Aravapalli Rama rao, and Ex.P.2 is Death certificate of Late Aravapalli Annapurnamma, Ex.P.3 is Family member certificate of Late Aravapalli Rama rao, Ex.P.4 is Postal savings account passbook, Ex.P.5 is National saving certificates (2) in number, and

Ex.P.6 is Letters (2) in number issued by respondents. On the other hand, the respondents did not choose to adduce either oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

[5] It is relavent to mention here that at the stage of registering the petition, notice to general public was ordered by way of paper publication, and in response to that none has put forth any objection regarding the claim of petitioners for petition schedule amounts.

4 [6] Heard the Learned counsels for the parties.

[7] Now, the points that arises for determination are that; (1) “Whether the petitioners are entitled for issuance of

succession certificate in their favour, as prayed for.?”

(2) “To what relief.?” [8] POINT No.1:- In his chief affidavit as P.W.1, petitioner no.4 reiterated the version in petition. According to the petitioners, they are the only legal heirs to receive petition schedule amounts from respondents. Ex.P.1 death certificate of Late Aravapalli Rama rao showing the death of that person, and similarly Ex.P.3 family member certificate proving that the petitioners are his family members. The oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with documents marked proving the fact that petition schedule amounts of deceased Late Aravapalli Rama rao are lying with respondents. The respondents did not choose to put forth any objections and they left the petition to be decided on its merits. As the respondents did not objected the case of petitioners, the version claimed by petitioners remains unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence the petitioners are entitled for issuance of succession certificate in their favour for the petition schedule amounts. The point no.1 is decided in affirmative.

[9] POINT No.2:- The point no.2 framed by this court is ‘to what relief.?’. In view of the specific fact that the issue no.1 is decided in affirmative, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for the relief prayed.

The point no.2 is decided accordingly.

[10] In the result, petition is allowed and issue succession certificate in favour of petitioners authorising them to receive the petition schedule amounts i.e., (1) amount of Rs.10,000/- lying in

National Saving Certificate vide No. 65/EE 826531 along with accrued interest, (2) amount of Rs.5,000/- lying in National Saving Certificate vide No. 6NS/36DD 385022 along with accrued interest, and (3) amount 5 of Rs.7,00,478/- lying in postal sb A/c. No. 2100852 along with accrued interest, stands in the name of deceased Late Aravapalli Rama rao. The petitioners are entitled for petition schedule amounts subject to their eligibility and compliance of other conditions. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Engross succession certificate on depositing of stamps.

Directly typed to my dictation by stenographer, and the order is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 20 th day of April, 2022, under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju,

F.A.C // Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:-

For petitioners:

P.W.1: Aravapalli Rambabu.

For respondents:

-None-

Documents marked:-

For petitioners:

Ex.P.1: Death certificate of Late Aravapalli Rama rao. Ex.P.2: Death certificate of Late Aravapalli Annapurnamma. Ex.P.3: Family member certificate of Late Aravapalli Rama rao. Ex.P.4: Postal savings account passbook. Ex.P.5: National saving certificates (2) in number. Ex.P.6: Letters (2) in number issued by respondents.

For respondents:

-Nil-

Sd/-D.V.S.R.,

F.A.C / Prl. S.C.J, Guntur.

//True Copy//

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.

6

Succession Certificate issued in accordance with Schedule VIII & Section 372 of Indian Succession Act. The requisite Succession Duty of Rs.42,950/- (Rupees Fourty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty only) is paid by the Petitioners by way of Challan in reference No.CPAANFWCZ3,Dt.31-12-2020 at State Bank of India, Treasury Branch, Guntur and the said Challan is affixed to this Certificate.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT GUNTUR

Present: Sri.D.Vijaya saradhi raju, LL.M., I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. F.A.C // Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 20th day of April, 2022

S.O .P. No.59/2020

Between:- (1) Ch. Padmavathi, W/o Adinarayana rao, A/o. 50 years, O/o. Household, R/o. D. No. 3/19/38, 3/1, Old Pattabhipuram, Guntur, Guntur district.

(2) Konakandla Rama Tulasi, W/o Malleswara rao, A/o. 44 years, O/o. Household, R/o. 10-115/B, Old SBI Bazar, Piduguralla, Guntur district.

(3) Aravapalli Surya Prakasa Rao, S/o. Rama rao, 47 years, O/o. Employee, R/o. 24C-63, Flat No. 202, Varamanjari Apartment, R.R. Pet, Eluru, W.G. district.

(4) Aravapalli Rambabu, S/o. Rama rao, A/o. 52 years, O/o. Employee, R/o. Flat No. 202, Yaganti perfect apartment, Sangadigunta, Guntur, Guntur district.

(5) Aravapalli Srinivasa rao, S/o. Rama rao, A/o. 55 years, O/o. Employee, R/o. Flat No. 301, GK Enclave, Miyapur, Rangareddy district, (6) Kakaraparthi Leelavathi, W/o. Seetha Ramaiah, A/o. 59 years, O/o. Household, R/o. Bhrugubanda village, Sattenapalli mandal, Guntur district.

. . . Petitioners.

And

(1) The Sub Post master, 7

Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Temple Branch, Guntur, Guntur district.

(2) Sub Post Master, Guntur bazar branch, Guntur, Guntur district.

(3) The Superintendent, Postal department, Head Post office, Guntur, Guntur district. . . . Respondents no.1 to 3.

This is a petition filed under section 372 of The Indian Succession Act seeking the relief for issuance of succession certificate in favour of petitioners authorising them to receive the petition schedule amounts i.e., (1) amount of Rs.10,000/- lying in National Saving Certificate vide No. 65/EE 826531 along with accrued interest, (2) amount of Rs.5,000/- lying in National Saving Certificate vide No. 6NS/36DD 385022 along with accrued interest, and (3) amount of Rs.7,00,478/- lying in postal sb A/c. No. 2100852 along with accrued interest, stands in the name of deceased Late Aravapalli Rama rao, and to award costs.

SCHEDULE

Separate copy of schedule is herewith attached.

This Certificate is accordingly granted in favour of petitioners authorising them to receive the petition schedule amounts i.e., (1) amount of Rs.10,000/- lying in National Saving Certificate vide No. 65/EE 826531 along with accrued interest, (2) amount of Rs.5,000/- lying in National Saving Certificate vide No. 6NS/36DD 385022 along with accrued interest, and (3) amount of Rs.7,00,478/- lying in postal sb A/c. No. 2100852 along with accrued interest, stands in the name of deceased

Late Aravapalli Rama rao. The petitioners are entitled for petition schedule amounts subject to their eligibility and compliance of other conditions.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 20th day of April, 2022.

Sd/-D.V.S.R.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Guntur. Encl:

Schedule is herewith enclosed.

//True Copy//

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT GUNTUR

Present: Sri.D.Vijaya saradhi raju, LL.M., I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. F.A.C // Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of April, 2022

S.O .P. No. 36/2020

Between:-

Bonthu Ragini Devi, D/o. Late Bonthu Jaya Rami Reddy, W/o. Nimmala Vara Prasad, A/o. 36 years, R/o. Flat No. 105, JRR Towers, 7th lane, Srinagar colony, Guntur, Guntur district. . . . Petitioner.

And

(1) Bonthu Venkata Ratnam@ Hemalatha, W/o. Late Bonthu Jaya Rami Reddy, A/o. 51 years, R/o. D. No. 12-7-80/a, Ganeshvari street, Kothapet, Guntur, Guntur district.

(2) The Tahasildar, Phirangipuram mandal, Guntur district. . . . Respondents no.1 & 2. -o0o- This Succession original petition came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. P.V. Ramana, Learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri. U. Krishna rao, Learned counsel for respondents no.1, and Learned Government Pleader, on behalf of respondent no.2, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

O R D E R

[1] This is a petition filed under section 372 of The Indian

Succession Act seeking the relief for issuance of succession certificate in favour of petitioner authorising her to receive item no.1 & 2 of petition schedule amounts i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- 2 (Rupees Two lakhs only) towards compensation amount under

Chandranna Bheema scheme, and Rs.612.64/- (Rupees Six hundred and twelve rupees sixty four paisa only) which is lying in the bank A/c. No. 04311001101911 of Late Bonthu Jaya

Rami Reddy who is father of petitioner, and to award costs.

[2] The brief averments of petition are like this; the petitioner no.1 is daughter, and respondent no.1 is wife of Late

Bonthu Jaya Rami Reddy. During his lifetime Late Bonthu Jaya

Rami Reddy maintained account in Andhra Bank of

Phirangipuram branch, so also the Government authorities has issued ‘Chandranna Bheema’ insurance scheme to Late

Bonthu Jaya Rami Reddy for which he nominated the petitioner to receive benefits. Whereas, the said Late Bonthu

Jaya Rami Reddy died intestate on 20/06/2019 leaving behind the petitioner and respondent no.1 to succeed his estate as legal heirs. Except the petitioner and respondent no.1 there are no other persons to claim the petition schedule amounts.

That the petitioner approached authorities for releasing of petition schedule amounts but the authorities insisted for production of succession certificate. Hence the petition.

[3] Respondent no.1 filed her counter, and it is averred in the counter that Late Bonthu Jaya Rami Reddy has nominated the petitioner to receive petition schedule amounts, and that she has no objection for the same. The Learned Government

Pleader who is appearing for respondent no.2 reported no counter by way of memo.

[4] At the event of enquiry, petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Ex’s.P.1 to P.16 documents and those are; Ex.P.1 is S.S.C certificate of petitioner, Ex.P.2 is

Copy of Pancard of petitioner, Ex.P.3 is Marriage certificate of 3 petitioner, Ex.P.4 is Aadhar card of petitioner, Ex.P.5 is

Employees state insurance corporation family id card, Ex.P.6 is

Ration card of respondent no.1, Ex.P.7 is Marriage photos of petitioner, Ex.P.8 is Marriage invitation card of petitioner,

Ex.P.9 is PMJJBT – Chandranna Bheema policy bearing number

GUN116948054, Ex.P.10 is Patient booklet issued by G.G.H,

Guntur, Ex.P.11 is Dead body issuance certificate, Ex.P.12 is

Aadhar card of Late Bonthu Jaya Rami Reddy, Ex.P.13 is Death certificate of Late Bonthu Jaya Rami Reddy, Ex.P.14 is Office copy of notice issued by petitioner to Commissioner of Labour,

Ex.P.15 is Postal receipt, and Ex.P.16 is Postal acknowledgment. On the other hand, respondent no.1 got examined herself as R.W.1, and however no documents were marked on her behalf. Respondent no.2 did not choose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

[5] It is relavent to mention here that at the stage of registering the petition, notice to general public was ordered by way of paper publication, and in response to that none has put forth any objection regarding the claim of petitioner for petition schedule amounts.

[6] Heard the Learned counsels for the parties.

[7] Now, the points that arises for determination are that; (1) “Whether the petitioner is entitled for issuance of succession certificate in her favour, as prayed for.?” (2) “To what relief.?” [8] POINT No.1:- In her chief affidavit as P.W.1, petitioner reiterated the version in petition. In her chief affidavit R.W.1 supported the version of petitioner. According to the petitioner, her father Late Bonthu Jaya Rami Reddy has 4 nominated her to receive item no.1 and 2 petition schedule amounts. Ex.P.13 death certificate of Late Bonthu Jaya Rami

Reddy showing the death of that person, and similarly other documents proving that the petitioner is daughter of Late

Bonthu Jaya Rami Reddy. The oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with documents marked proving the fact that petition schedule amounts of deceased Late Bonthu Jaya Rami Reddy are lying with authorities. The respondents did not choose to put forth any objections and they left the petition to be decided on its merits. As the respondents did not objected the case of petitioner, the version claimed by petitioner remains unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence the petitioner is entitled for issuance of succession certificate in her favour for the petition schedule amounts. The point no.1 is decided in affirmative.

[9] POINT No.2:- The point no.2 framed by this court is ‘to what relief.?’. In view of the specific fact that the issue no.1 is decided in affirmative, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for the relief prayed. The point no.2 is decided accordingly.

[10] In the result, petition is allowed and issue succession certificate in favour of petitioner authorising her to receive item no.1 & 2 of petition schedule amounts i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) towards compensation amount under

Chandranna Bheema scheme, and Rs.612.64/- (Rupees Six hundred and twelve rupees sixty four paisa only) which is lying in the bank A/c. No. 04311001101911 of Late Bonthu Jaya

Rami Reddy. The petitioner is entitled for the amounts subject to her eligibility and compliance of other conditions. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Engross succession certificate on depositing of stamps.

5

Directly typed to my dictation by stenographer, and the order is delivered and operative part of the same is

pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 12 th day of

April, 2022, under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju,

F.A.C // Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:-

For petitioner:

P.W.1: Bonthu Ragini Devi.

For respondent no.1:

R.W.1: Bonthu Venkata Ratnam@ Hemalatha

For respondent no.2:

-None-

Documents marked:-

For petitioner:

Ex.P.1: S.S.C certificate of petitioner. Ex.P.2: Copy of Pancard of petitioner. Ex.P.3: Marriage certificate of petitioner. Ex.P.4: Aadhar card of petitioner. Ex.P.5: Employees state insurance corporation family id card. Ex.P.6: Ration card of respondent no.1. Ex.P.7: Marriage photos of petitioner. Ex.P.8: Marriage invitation card of petitioner. Ex.P.9: PMJJBT – Chandranna Bheema policy bearing number GUN116948054. Ex.P.10: Patient booklet issued by G.G.H, Guntur. Ex.P.11: Dead body issuance certificate. Ex.P.12: Aadhar card of Late Bonthu Jaya Rami Reddy. Ex.P.13: Death certificate of Late Bonthu Jaya Rami Reddy. Ex.P.14: Office copy of notice issued by petitioner to Commissioner of Labour. Ex.P.15: Postal receipt. Ex.P.16: Postal acknowledgment.

For respondents:

-Nil- Sd/-D.V.S.R., F.A.C // Prl. S.C.J, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT GUNTUR

Present: Sri.D.Vijaya saradhi raju, LL.M., I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. F.A.C // Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of April, 2022

S.O .P. No. 4/2019

Between:- (1) Kodali Swarna Kumari, W/o Late Kodali Sudhakar Babu, A/o. 65 years, O/o. Not mentioned, R/o. D. No. 4-5-32/50, 1st lane, Vidya nagar, Guntur, Guntur district.

(2) Boppanna Geetha, W/o Srinivas kumar, A/o. 45 years, O/o. Not mentioned, R/o. (Same as for petitioner no.1) (3) Yalavarthi Haritha, W/o. Venkateswara rao, A/o. 43 years, O/o. Not mentioned, R/o. (Same as for petitioner no.1) . . . Petitioners.

And

(1) Hero Moto Corp Ltd., Rep., by its Company Secretary, Regd. Office 34, Community center, Basant Lok, Vasanth Vihar, New Delhi.

(2) Karvy Computer Share Pvt. Ltd., Unit: Hero Moto Corp Ltd., Karvy Selenium Tower, B. Plot No. 31-32, Gachibowli, Financial District, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad, Telangana State. . . . Respondents no.1 & 2. -o0o- This Succession original petition came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. Pothuri Phani Raju, Learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri. P. Venkata 2

Subbaiah, Learned counsel for respondents no.1, and Sri. T. Nagaraju, Learned counsel for respondent no.2, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

O R D E R

[1] This is a petition filed under section 372 of The Indian

Succession Act seeking the relief for issuance of succession certificate in favour of petitioner no.1 authorising her to transfer the petition schedule shares stands in the name of her deceased husband Late Kodali Sudhakar Babu, in her name and to get unclaimed dividends and future dividends if any, and to award costs.

[2] The brief averments of petition are like this; the petitioner no.1 is wife, and petitioners no.2 and 3 are children of Late Kodali Sudhakar Babu. During his lifetime Late Kodali

Sudhakar Babu has purchased 1250 equity shares from respondent no.1 which was more fully described in the schedule, and obtained share certificate in his name.

Whereas, the said Late Kodali Sudhakar Babu died intestate on 16/02/2016 leaving behind the petitioners to succeed his estate as legal heirs. Except the petitioners there are no other persons to claim the petition schedule amounts. The petitioner no.2 and 3 has no objection for transfer of petition schedule shares in the name of petitioner no.1. That the petitioners approached respondents for releasing of petition schedule shares but they insisted for production of succession certificate. Hence the petition.

[3] The respondent no.1 filed counter. While admitting the petition schedule shares in the name of Late Kodali Sudhakar

Babu it is averred in the counter that as on today there are no claims pending for transfer of shares and the petitioners has 3 to apply for transfer of shares along with succession certificate. The Learned counsel for respondent no.2 reported no counter.

[4] At the event of enquiry, petitioner no.1 got examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Ex’s.P.1 to P.5 documents and those are; Ex.P.1 is Death certificate of Late Kodali Sudhakar

Babu, Ex.P.2 is Family member certificate dated 30/07/2016 issued by Tahasildar, Ex.P.3 is Share certificate issued by respondent no.1 in the name of Late Kodali Sudhakar Babu,

Ex.P.4 is Notice dated 14/08/2020 issued by respondent no.1 to

Late Kodali Sudhakar Babu, and Ex.P.5 is Reply notice dated 15/10/2018 issued by petitioner no.1 to respondent no.1. On the other hand, respondents did not choose to adduce either oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

[5] It is relavent to mention here that at the stage of registering the petition, notice to general public was ordered by way of paper publication, and in response to that none has put forth any objection regarding the claim of petitioners for petition schedule shares.

[6] Heard the Learned counsels for the parties.

[7] Now, the points that arises for determination are that; (1) “Whether the petitioner no.1 is entitled for issuance of succession certificate in her favour, as prayed for.?” (2) “To what relief.?” [8] POINT No.1:- In her chief affidavit as P.W.1, petitioner no.1 reiterated the version in petition. According to the petitioners, they are the only legal heirs to receive petition schedule shares from respondents. Ex.P.1 death certificate of 4

Late Kodali Sudhakar Babu showing the death of that person, and similarly Ex.P.2 family member certificate proving that the petitioners are his family members. The oral evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with documents marked proving the fact that petition schedule shares of deceased Late Kodali Sudhakar

Babu are lying with respondents. The respondents did not choose to put forth any objections and they left the petition to be decided on its merits. As the respondents did not contested the case of petitioners, the version claimed by petitioners remains unchallenged and unrebutted. It is specific case of petitioners that the petitioner no.2 & 3 has no objection for issuance of succession certificate in the name of petitioner no.1. Hence the petitioner no.1 is entitled for issuance of succession certificate in her favour for the petition schedule shares. The point no.1 is decided in affirmative.

[9] POINT No.2:- The point no.2 framed by this court is ‘to what relief.?’. In view of the specific fact that the issue no.1 is decided in affirmative, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for the relief prayed. The point no.2 is decided accordingly.

[10] In the result, petition is allowed and issue succession certificate in favour of petitioner no.1 authorising her to transfer the petition schedule shares stands in the name of her deceased husband Late Kodali Sudhakar Babu, in her name and to get unclaimed dividends and future dividends if any.

The petitioner no.1 is entitled for transfer of shares subject to her eligibility and compliance of other conditions. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Engross succession certificate on depositing of stamps.

Directly typed to my dictation by stenographer, and the 5 order is delivered and operative part of the same is

pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 13 th day of

April, 2022, under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- D. Vijaya Saradhi Raju,

F.A.C // Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:-

For petitioners:

P.W.1: Kodali Swarna Kumari.

For respondents:

-None-

Documents marked:-

For petitioners:

Ex.P.1: Death certificate of Late Kodali Sudhakar Babu. Ex.P.2: Family member certificate dated 30/07/2016 issued by Tahasildar. Ex.P.3: Share certificate issued by respondent no.1 in the name of Late Kodali Sudhakar Babu. Ex.P.4: Notice dated 14/08/2020 issued by respondent no.1 to Late Kodali Sudhakar Babu. Ex.P.5: Reply notice dated 15/10/2018 issued by petitioner no.1 to respondent no.1.

For respondents:

-Nil-

Sd/-D.V.S.R.,

F.A.C // Prl. S.C.J,

Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. U. Madhuri.,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet,

FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Friday, this the 27th day of December, 2019.

O.S. No. 99 of 2018.

Between:-

Sangam Prabhudasu . . . Plaintiff.

And

Sanikommu Pedaramakrishna Reddy . . . Defendant.

-o0o-

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri K.P. Krishna Murthy, Learned counsel for plaintiff, and none on behalf of defendant, as the defendant set exparte, and upon hearing the arguments of

Learned counsel for plaintiff, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

[1.] This is a suit filed U/sec. 26 r/w Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,10,311/- on the promissory note dated 28-05-2015, and to award interest and costs.

[2.] The brief averments of plaint are like this; that out of acquaintance with the plaintiff, the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,22,560/- from the plaintiff on 28-05-2015 for his family expenses, and executed promissory note agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% per annum, either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Thereafter the defendant failed to repay the promissory note amount and accrued interest thereon in-spite of oral demands of the plaintiff the defendant did not repay the due amount. Hence the plaint.

[3.] After receipt of summons though the defendant has appointed an advocate to represent his, thereafter she did not choose to file written statement and remained exparte.

2 [4]In order to prove his case the plaintiff examined himself as Pw1 and marked Ex.A1. Neither oral nor documentary evidence is adduced in support of the defendant.

[5.] Heard the Learned counsel for plaintiff.

[6.] Now, the point that arises for consideration is that; “ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount.?” [7.] POINT:- In his chief affidavit P.W.1 reiterated pleading in plaint.

The version of plaintiff is that defendant borrowed amount from him under

Ex.A.1 promissory note and later failed to repay the same. The defendant did not choose to contest the suit proceedings, and as such he was set exparte.

Since the defendant was set exparte, the version claimed by plaintiff remains unchallenged and unrebutted. Ex.A.1 promissory note showing us that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff. The plaintiff with his oral and documentary evidence proved his case against the defendant, and as such the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount along with interest and costs.

The point is decided in affirmative.

[8.] In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,10,311/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @6% per annum till the date of realization on Rs.1,22,560/-

Dictated to the personal Assistant transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on the 27th day of December, 2019.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1: S. Prabhudasu

For Defendant:

-None- 3

Documents marked:

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: is Original promissory note dated 28-05-2015, for Rs.1,22,560/-

For defendant:

-Nil-

I A J C J

FAC. P J C J,

Narasaraopet.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. U. Madhuri.,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet,

FAC. Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Friday, this the 27th day of December, 2019.

O.S. No. 99 of 2018.

Between:-

Sangam Prabhudasu, S/o. Hanumaiah, Hindu, A/o. 37 years,

Cultivation, Dr.No.3-1/1A, Inumetla Village, Rajupalem Mandal,

Narasraopet Mandal, Guntur District . . . Plaintiff.

And

Sanikommu Pedaramakrishna Reddy, S/o. Sitharamireddy,

Hindu, A/o. 55 years, Cultivation, Dr.No.9-10-8,

Nallagarlapadu Village, Rompicherla Mandal,

Guntur District. . . . Defendant.

This is a suit filed U/sec. 26 r/w Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,10,311/- on the promissory note dated 28-05-2015, and to award interest and costs.

Plaint presented on 23.05.2018.

CAUSE OF ACTION for the suit arose when the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.1,22,560/- from the plaintiff on 28-05-2015 for his family expenses and exeuted promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or his order on demand and that inspite of repetaed demand made by the plaintiff the defendant did nt choose to pay the amount and entire transaction has taken place at Narasaraopet within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION:-

Principal amountRs.1,22,560-00

Interest @ 24%p.a from 28-05-15 to 23-05-18Rs. 87,751-00 ---------------------

Rs.2,10,311-00 ---------------------

On which a total court fee of Rs.4,626/- is paid under Section 20 of

A.P.C.F., and S.V. Act.

Value of Jurisdiction is Rs.2,10,311/-

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of

Sri K.P. Krishna Murthy, Learned counsel for plaintiff, and none on behalf of defendant, as the defendant set exparte, and upon hearing the arguments of Learned counsel for plaintiff, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

i) That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,10,311/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @6% per annum till the date of realization on Rs.1,22,560/- ii) That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.9,992/- towards institution costs of the suit and defendant do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil/-

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 27th day of December, 2019.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARASARAAOPET.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Description For PlaintiffFor defendant

Vakala 2-00

Plaint fee4,626-00

Pleader fee 4,004-00(CM & FC not filed)

Process 60-00

Tying Charges 100-00

Publication charges12,00-00

Total9,992-00

I A J C J

FAC P J C J

NARASARAOPET