Sri.Damera Dheeraj Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT

SHADNAGAR.

Friday, the 29th day of November, 2024.

Present: Sri. Dheeraj Kumar Damera, I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

O.S.No. 233 of 2020

Between:

State Bank of India, Kothur (earlier S.B.H, Kothur) Branch,

Represented by its Branch Manager.

… Plaintiff.

AND

1.M. Nithish Kumar S/o. Late M. Ramulu, aged 23 years, R/o. H.No.

2-27/A, Goorakonda villager, Devarakonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar

District.

2.M. Jaya Sree D/o. Late M. Ramulu, aged 20 years, R/o. H.No.

2-27/A, Goorakonda village, Deverkadra Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

… Defendants

The suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.

A. Pardha Sarathi counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri. M. Mohan Rao counsel for the defendants and having stood for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount of

Rs. 9,30,266/- with future interest @ 12.35% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization with costs from the defendants.

The brief averments mentioned in the plaint are as follows:

1.The defendant No.1 and 2 are legal heirs of deceased borrower M.

Ramulu who died on 06.02.2019. The decesed borrower M. Ramulu has approached to the plaintiff bank for financial assistance for his family necessities. Subsequently, the plaintiff bank has sanctioned loan an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- on 12.01.2018 to the deceased borrower vide loan A/c No. 37468204352 under Xpress Credi Loan. Further the 2OS No.233 of 2020 2 deceased borrower has exeucted person loan agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank on 12.01.2018. The said document is filed herewith to prove said facts. The deceased borrower has agreed to repay the loan amount in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs. 19,952/- each along with interest @ 11.85% per annum (rate of interest may be changed whenever there is change in S.B.A.R/S.B.M.T.L.R).

2.The plaintiff further submitted that the deceased borrower has vailed the loan amount and committed breach of terms of loan by not paying the loan amount as agreed upon. The payments made by the deceased borrower was clearly shown in the statement of account filed along with the plaint. The deceased borrower has failed to pay the loan amount to plaintiff bank in spite of several oral and written demands and he always postponed the same on one or other pretext. The deceased borrower has paid some installments only except the said payments, the plaintiff bank has not received regular installments from the deceased borrower. On 24.08.2020 the plaintiff bank issued a legal notice to the legal heirs of deceased to repay the outstanding amount, but the defendant No.1 and 2 have not paid the loan amount so far. The plaintiff further submitted that the loan account of deceased was showing an outstanding balance of Rs. 9,30,266/- as on 01.09.2020. The Defendant

No.1 and 2 are legal heirs of the deceased and they jointly liable to pay the said amount to the plaintiff bank with future interest @ 12.35% P.A.

Therefore the plaintiff bank has filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of amount along with interest.

3. The Defendants craves the leave of this Hon’ble court to take the entire averments of the plaint are created as the plaintiff is not entitled for any sort of relief against the defendants. The defendants had no knowledge about the borrowed amount took by their deceased father M.

Ramulu. The documents of the plaintiff is categorical and specifically 3OS No.233 of 2020 3 established. The defendants filed their written statements and denied all the allegations made against them. The defendants further submitted that they admitted they are the legal heirs of the deceased borrower M.

Ramulu who died on 06.02.2019. The defendants further submitted that the Defendant No.1 is working as an office sub-ordinate at ZPHS,

Kollapur and the Defendant No.2 is pursuing her degree from

Mahabubnagar town. These defendnats were not aware of the personal loan taken by their father. After the death of their father they did not receive any monetary beenfits on the demise of their deceased father.

The legal heirs are only accountable to the extentof assets received by them from the deceased borrower. These defendants neither succeeded any estate from their father nor have received any monetory benefits on his death, as such the plaintiff bank cannot file the present suit to recover outstanding balance amount merely on the ground of being legal heirs. The defendants further submitted that the plaintiff bank also failed to show whether any assets if any was devolved into these defendants basing on which the present suit has been filed. The plaintiff bank without actually showing the estate devolved onto these defendants from the deceased borrower, simply filed the present suit against them solely stating that the defendants being legal heirs are jointly liable to pay the outstanding amount. The defendant No.1 is working as an attender and

Defendant No.2 is a student and the defendant No.1 is the sole earner of the family to maintain himself as well as his sister. The plaintiff bank has an option to recover the outstanding amount on the estate of the deceased borrower, but they cannot comple the defendants to repay the outstanding loan amount on their personal income. Moreover the address of the defendants mentioned by the plaintiff bank in the plaint is incorrect, these defendants are presently residing in Mahabubnagar. As such the present suit for recovery against the defendants i.e., legal heirs 4OS No.233 of 2020 4 of the deceased borrower is not maintainable on the above stated grounds and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4.The following issues were settled for trial :-

1. Whether the defendants may be directed to pay suit

amount of Rs.9,30,266/- with future interest

@12.35% PA to the plaintiff as prayed for ?

2. If so to what relief ?

5. In support of his claim, the plaintiff bank examined its Branch

Manager D. Amrutha as PW1 and marked Ex A.1 to Ex.A.7 on her behalf.

The Defendant No.2 filed her chief examinationm affidavit as Dw1.

6.The Pw1 affirmed on oath, by submitting an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and deposed on the same lines as that of Plaintiff submitted in her chief examination affidavit and in support of her case, she got marked the following documents:

Ex.A1 : Xpress credit loan application

Ex.A2 : Personal loan agreement

Ex.A3 : Arrangement letter

Ex.A4 : office copy of legal notice

Ex.A5 : Postal acknowledgment of D-1

Ex.A6 : Postal acknowledgment of D-2

Ex.A7 : Statement of loan account.

During her cross examination she stated that she was not the branch manager at the time of issuance of loan and it is a personal loan.

The father of the defendant died in 2019. She further stated that she does not know what are the properties left by the deceased borrower.

She further stated that she does not know whether the death benefits of estate are received by the late wife of deceased borrower or not. Further she denied the several suggestions put forth by the counsel for defendants.

5OS No.233 of 2020 5

7.One Jaya Sree got examined as Dw1 and during her cross examination she stated that she does not know whether her father late

Ramulu obtained loan amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- on 12.01.2018. She does not know whether her father had paid an EMI of Rs. 21,000/- for 13 or not. She also further stated that her brother approached bank manager and obtained bank statement or not. She stated that she does not know after demise of her father was got any retirement benefits or not as her mother took care of that. She admitted that after demise of her father her mother is getting family pension.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Point No.1: The contention of the plaintiff bank is that the bank sanctioned an amount of Rs.9,00,000 on 12.01.2018 to the father of the defendants i.e., M. Ramulu and agreed to repay the loan amount in 60 monthly installments of Rs.19,952/- with an interest @ 11.85% PA. The deceased borrower was died on 06-02-2019. On 24-08-2020 plaintiff bank has issued a legal notice to the legal heirs i.e., the defendant No.1 and 2 to repay the loan amount borrowed by the deceased M. Ramulu.

The plaintiff has not filed any other documents otherthan the loan application and statement of loan account.

The contention of the defendant No.1 & 2 is that they did not receive any estate or benefits from their father. The monetary benefits of thedeceased father were also given to the mother of defendants and she utilized the entire benefits on her medical expenses. The defendants further submitted that the plaintiff bank has to claim recovery of outstanding loan amount on the assests of the deceased borrower, but not personally on the defendants.

10. To prove the contention of the plaintiff bank, the branch Manager of the plaintiff bank is examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A7 are marked in support of bank’s claim. In his chief examination, PW1 reiterated the 6OS No.233 of 2020 6 facts mentioned in the plaint. On perusal of Ex.A1 to A.7 couple with the oral evidence of PW1 it is evident that the plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.9,00,000/- to the father of defendant M. Ramulu.

11. This court is relied upon “The Hon’ble Andhra High Court (Pre Telangana)” of Bandaru Srinivassa Rao Vs Sreyobhilashi Chit

Funds And Ors., on 3rd October, 2007 held as follows:

“ Where the decree is executed against such legal representative, he shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and has not been duly disposed of, and, for the purpose of ascertaining such liability, the

Court executing the decree may, of its own motion or on the application of the decree-holder, compel such legal representative to produce such accounts as it thinks fit.

Clause (2) of Section 50 of C.P.C. makes it very clear that the legal representative is liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased, which has come to his hands and there is a duty cast on the hands to examine whether the fourth Judgment debtor inherited any property or whether the property of the deceased is in the hands of the legal representative and then only pass appropriate orders for attachment.

In the present case, the trial Court extracting the contentions raised by both parties allowed the application by finding that except denying that he did not succeed to the estate of his father, the fourth respondent has not put forth any evidence.

Thus, in view of Section 50(2) of C.P.C., the fourth respondent is liable to pay the amount to the extent of the property of the deceased third judgment debtor. When the attachment of the salary of the legal representative is sought for, the initial burden is on the decree holder to prove that he Inherited to 7OS No.233 of 2020 7 any property of his father, in the absence of that, the attachment cannot be ordered. ”

During the course of trial, plaintiff did not file any document showing that the defendans have obtained the properties or have gained monetary benefits from their deceased father. In the absence of any documents showing that the defendants received any properties, this court is not inclined to grant the relief.

In view of the above said pleadings the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of claiming sum of Rs.9,30,260/- against the defendant with future interest @12.35% per annum.

In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of November, 2024.

Sd/-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

8OS No.233 of 2020 8

PPENDIX OF EVIDENCE A

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1: D. Amrutha DW.1: Jaya Sree

EXHIBITS MARKED

Plaintiff: Defendants:

Ex.A1 : Xpress credit loan application--Nil--

Ex.A2 : Personal loan agreement

Ex.A3 : Arrangement letter

Ex.A4 : office copy of legal notice

Ex.A5 : Postal acknowledgment of D-1

Ex.A6 : Postal acknowledgment of D-2

Ex.A7 : Statement of loan account.

Sd/-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

1 OS.No. 324 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT SHADNAGAR, RANGA REDDY

DISTRICT.

Dated on this the 18 th day of October, 2024

Present : Sri.JEEVAN SURAJ SINGH,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

O.S. No. 324 of 2023

Between:

1.Gosu Anil Kumar Reddy, S/o. Gosu Sreenivasulu Redddy, aged about 41 years, Occ: Pvt, Job, R/o. Flat No.402, Dhanalakshmi Residency, Near S.R.Nagar Community Hall, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad-500038. Temporarily R/o. #5080, Olive LN, Plymouth, Minesota-55446, U.S.A.

2.Gosu Adarsh Kumar, S/o. Gosu Sreenivasulu Reddy, aged about 43 years, Occ: Private Job, Permanent R/o. Flat No. 402, Dhanalakshmi Residency, Near S.R.Nagar Community Hall, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad-500038. Temporarily R/o. #447, Somerset Dr, Flower Mound, TX-75028, U.S.A.

3.Gosu Sreenivasulu Reddy, S/o. Ramapitchi Reddy, aged about 69 years, Occ: Retd. Service, R/o. Flat No.402, Dhanalakshmi Residency, Near S.R.Nagar Community Hall, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad-500038. …Plaintiffs

AND

1. Sri.Suresh Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Late Sri.Chimnlal Agarwal, aged about 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o.401, US Residency, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

2. M/s.CSK Developers India Pvt Ltd., R/o. 5-9-30/1/17, Ground Floor, Palace Colony, Lake Hill Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500029. …Defendants

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.Raja Sekhar Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are set ex-parte; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

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

[1].The plaintiffs filed this suit for grant of perpetual Injunction, restraining the Defendants 1 and 2, their respectives, employees, agents, legal heirs and all other persons claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession 2 OS.No. 324 of 2023 and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to award costs of the suit.

[2]. The gist of the contents of the plaint is as follows:-

a) That, the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 are the absolute owner and possessor of an open plot No. 11 and 12 admeasuring 800 square yards, in survey No.

272/UU, 272/E & 192/A/1 for total extent of land admeasuring Ac.3-20 gts, within the limits of J.P.Township, Inmulnarva Village and Grampanchayat, Kothur

Mandal, Mahaboob Nagar District, presently Ranga Reddy District, (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule A & B Properties), having purchased the same through registered sale deed document bearing No. 9616 of 2008 dated 11-09- 2008 and document No. 9617 of 2008 dated 11-09-2008 from M/s. Syndicate

Real Estates Pvt. Ltd, who is the vendee of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 herein for a valid consideration.

b) That, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have purchased the suit schedule properties from original landlords vide registered sale deeds bearing document

Nos. 4255, 4256 & 4257 of 2008, dated 25.04.2008 and in turn sold entire extent of Ac.3-20 guntas in survey Nos. 272/UU, 272/E & 192/A/1 i.e., suit schedule property to M/s. Syndicate Real Estate Pvt. Ltc. Vide registered sale deed bearing document Nos. 9431, 9432 & 9433 of 2008, dated 04.09.2008 who is vendor of plaintiffs herein and there is no disputes between original vendor of plaintiff herein. On 15.10.2020, the plaintiff No.3 plaid layout regulatization scheme vide application No. G/RKIA/002599/2020, G/RKIA/002607 and since the date of purchase of the suit schedule property the plaintiff No. 1 to 3 without interruption enjoying the possession by receiving original registered sale deed bearing document No. 9616 and 9617of 2008, dated 11.09.2008 in respect of the suit schedule A and B properties.

c) That, on 08.04.2023 the plaintiff came to know through phone call by neighbour plot owners that some unknown people came to the suit schedule A and B properties and removed the boundaries stones. Again on 20.04.2023, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 along with henchmen came with sticks and threatened to 3 OS.No. 324 of 2023 plaintiff not to construct compound wall and stopped work and tried to destroy the compound wall on 09.05.2023 and trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of suit schedule propety belongs to plaintiff No. 1 to 3. That, the plaintiff immediately went to local police station and tried to lodge complaint to the S.H.O, Shadnagar PS against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, but the police advised the plaintiff to obtain injunction order from the Civil Court. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are not having any right and authority over the suit schedule property. But, wontedly causing nuisance continuously and harassing the plaintiffs simply creating permanent nuisance to plaintiff without any right and authority over the suit schedule A and B properties. So that, to stop the nuisance of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 forever, the plaintiff is filing this suit. Hence, the suit.

[3].Despite service of summons, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed to appear

before the court and contest the suit, as such they were set ex-parte vide docket

order, dated 16.10.2023.

[4].Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

[5].On behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and

Exs.A1 to A12 are marked.

[6].Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for Permanent Injunction against

the defendants as prayed for or not?

POINT:

[7]. To prove his case, PW.1 filed chief-examination affidavit, wherein he deposed in support of all contents of the plaint and he reiterated the contents of plaint. Coming to the documentary evidence, Ex.A1 is certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 9616/2008, dated 11.09.2008. Ex.A2 is certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 9617/2008, dated 11.09.2008. Ex.A3 is certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 9431/2008, dated 04.09.2008. Ex.A4 is 4 OS.No. 324 of 2023 certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 9432/2008, dated 04.09.2008.

Ex.A5 is certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 9433/2008, dated 04.09.2008. Ex.A6 is certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.

4255/2008, dated 25.04.2008. Ex.A7 is certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 4256/2008, dated 25.04.2008. Ex.A8 is certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 4257/2008, dated 25.04.2008. Ex.A9 is encumbrance

Certificate from 01.01.1994 to 07.09.2023, dated 07.09.2023. Ex. A10 is market value certificate of schedule property A & B. Ex.A11 is certified copy of GPA of plaintiff No. 1 file No. 6375/E/2021, dated 20.04.2021 obtained through RTI Act.

Ex.A12 is certified copy of GPA of plaintiff No.2 file No. 6374/E/2021, dated 20.04.2021 obtained through RTI Act.

[8].Perused the entire material on record, it shows that the plaintiff/PW.1 is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of suit schedule A and B properties, having purchased the same under Ex.A1 from M/s. Syndicate Real Estates

Private Limited, who are the defendant Nos, 1 and 2 for valid sale consideration and occupied the physical possession of the same on the date of execution of registered sale and ever since from the date of purchase, the plaintiff/PW1 is in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any sort of interference or obstruction from anybody else as absolute owner and bonafide purchaser and in proof of the same Ex. A2 to A12 are filed. The testimony of PW1 coupled with the Exs. A1 to A12 supported the version of the plaintiff/PW1 in respect of the relief claimed.

[9].The un-challanged evidence of the plaintiff/PW1 both oral and documentary evidence established the claim of the plaintiff/PW1 and prima facie the case is in favour of plaintiff/PW1. However, there is denial from defendants side, since they remained absent during proceedings. There is no contest or denial the claim of plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 remained set exparte. Therefore, PW1 entitled the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for.

5 OS.No. 324 of 2023 [10]. This Court placed reliance on judicial precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court decided in Vidyadhar Vs. Manik Rao and Others reported in 1993 (3)

ALT 1 (SC) held that “ where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct”. Whereas, in the case on hand the defendants remained ex- parte and un-challenged the testimony of plaintiff/PW1.

[11]. RESULT: In the result,the suit is decreed exparte with costs.

Accordingly, perpetual injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff, restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, their representatives, employees, agents, legal heirs and all other persons claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule A and B propeties i.e., open plot Nos. 11 and 12 admeasuring 800 square yards in survey

Nos. 272/UU, 272/E and 192/A/1, situated at J.P.Township, Inmulnarva Village and Grampanchayath, Kothur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, presently Ranga

Reddy District. IA’s pending if any stands closed.

Typed to my dictation on Computer by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge At Shadnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

PW-1: Sri.Gosu Anil Kumar Reddy

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 9616/2008, dated 11.09.2008. Ex.A2 : Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 9617/2008, dated 11.09.2008. Ex.A3 : Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 9431/2008, dated 04.09.2008.

6 OS.No. 324 of 2023

Ex.A4 : Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 9432/2008, dated 04.09.2008. Ex.A5 : Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 9433/2008, dated 04.09.2008. Ex.A6 : Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 4255/2008, dated 25.04.2008. Ex.A7 : Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 4256/2008, dated 25.04.2008. Ex.A8 : Certified copy of sale deed bearing document No. 4257/2008, dated 25.04.2008. Ex.A9 : Encumbrance Certificate from 01.01.1994 to 07.09.2023, dated 07.09.2023. Ex.A10 : Market Value Certificate of schedule property A & B. Ex.A11 : Certified copy of GPA of plaintiff No. 1 file No. 6375/E/2021, dated 20.04.2021 obtained through RTI Act. Ex.A12 : Certified copy of GPA of plaintiff No. 2 file No. 6374/E/2021, dated 20.04.2021 obtained through RTI Act.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

-NIL-

Sd/-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge At Shadnagar

1 of 6

CC. No.746 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JDUGE –CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SHADNAGAR,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shadnagar, R.R. District.

Dated: On this the 18 th day of October, 2024

C.C. No. 746 OF 2022

Between: The State of Telangana through I.O., of P.S. Kothur. …Complainant A N D

Sri. Pusala Chandu, S/o. Pusala Yadhaiah, aged about 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.6-44, Palamakula Village, Kothur Mandal, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT. …Accused This case was heard finally in the presence of APP for the prosecution and Sri. K. Sreenivas Goud, Counsel for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Investigation officer, PS. Kothur filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.190 of 2022 for the offences punishable Under

Sections 14 of Prohibition of Child Labour Act and sec.79 of Juvenile

Justice Act, 2000.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 12.07.2022 at about 1200 hours, while Defacto Complainant/LW1/Sri.Kata Praveen along with

Muskan Team-VIII were performing their legitimate duties at Kothur, they went to “Bhavani Ladies Corner” and found a minor boy along with some others was doing work. On enquiry it is revealed that said boy was working since one month under their owner/Chandu/Accused.

2 of 6

CC. No.746 of 2022

As such they rescued the victim boy. Based on the above report, the

LW.8/J. Balaraju, registered a case in Cr.No.190/2022, U/Sec.14 of

Prohibition of Child Labour Act and sec.79 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and entrusted the case file to Lw9 for further investigation.

3.During the course of investigation, the LW-9 examined and recorded the statements of Lws.1 to 5, visited the scene of offence which is located at Bhavani Ladies Corner at Kothur and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of Lws.6 and 7. Thereafter he collected Aadhar car of victim boy/Amith and sent to Vegbai Children Home, near Aramghar, Shivarampally,

Hyderabad. Further he served notice u/sec.41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused and after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

4. Upon filing of the above charge sheet, this court had taken

Cognizance for the offence punishable under U/Sec.14 of Prohibition of

Child Labour Act and sec.79 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were furnished to him as required u/s.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C and the substance of the accusation for the offence U/Sec.14 of Prohibition of Child Labour Act and sec.79 of

Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 was read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular, for which the accused denied the allegations and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined the Pws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the accused, neither any document was marked nor any evidence was adduced. Pw.1 is the complainant, Pws 2, 6 and 7 are the Eye witnesses and Child Line 3 of 6

CC. No.746 of 2022

members, Pw.5 is the victim minor boy, Pws.3 and 4 are the Panch witnesses for Crime Details Form and PW8 is the Investigating officer.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences

punishable U/Sec.14 of Prohibition of Child Labour Act

and sec.79 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000?

10. POINT:

To prove the alleged offences, the prosecution has examined Pws 1, 2 and 6, who are the complainant and members of Child helpline team and they deposed that on 12.07.2022 at about 12:00 PM, PW1 along with Pws 2, 3, 7 & LW5 Muskan Team-8 visited Kothur village and went to the bangle store of the accused and found the victim boy who is of 11 years hired and working for a salary of Rs.5,000/- and also verified the Aadhaar card of the victim boy. Thereupon, they went to

Kothur P.S. and lodged a report against the accused. But when cross- examined, they individually and categorically stated as hereunder.

(i) The testimony of Pw1 during his cross-examination categorically reveals that he has not mentioned in his statement as to upon whose instruction he assisted the officials of Muskan Team and he admitted that on the date of incident he was on leave, so he accompanied the

Muskan Team.

4 of 6

CC. No.746 of 2022

(ii) Similarly, the testimony of Pw2 during his cross-examination reveals that his statement was recorded on the same day at about 12.00 PM at the Police Station and that he do not know whether any

Grampanchayath permission or license issued to the accused to run his shop is filed before this court or not.

(iii) Similarly, the testimony of Pw6 during his cross-examination specifically reveals that no written orders were issued to them for conducting the search as and under the operation muskaan and that they reached the shop of the accused at about 12:00 noon and they left the place within five minutes by taking custody of the victim.

(iv) Likewise, the testimony of Pw7 during his cross-examination specifically reveals that no movement register is not filed before this court.

11. The prosecution in order to strengthen their case have examined

Pws 3 to 5. But to the dismay of the prosecution the Pws 3 to 5, who were then the victim himself and the Panch witnesses to the scene of offense have turned hostile and didn’t support the prosecution case.

the suggestion posed by the learned App with the permission of the court was also denied.

12. The prosecution in their efforts to bring home the guilt of the accused have examined PW.8, who was then the 2nd Investigating

Officer and he deposed about the process and procedure followed by him while investigating the case. But when cross-examined, he admitted that he did not file any document to show that the Lw8 was appointed by an order or G.O relating to the operation MUSKAAN and he adds that it is being carried on upon the directions of the

Commissioner of Police and that no document is filed to show that the 5 of 6

CC. No.746 of 2022

accused is running a bangle store and equally no license issued by the concerned Grampanchayath to the accused to run his shop is also not filed.

13.The prosecution examined the Pws.3 to 5, during the course of their evidence before this Court they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The suggestion posted by learned APP with the permission of the court was equally denied. The prosecution failed to examine LW.8 who 1st I.O. Pws.7 and 8, are the officials and members of the investigating agency and they deposed about the process and procedure followed by them pursuant to the registration of FIR, there is no other independent corroborative testimony supporting the evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 6 to 8. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused person had employed and extracting the work from victim boy as bonded labour and equally no age proof is filed to show that he is a minor. Further, it is also noticed that Pws.7 and 8 are the police officials and their testimonies of cannot be relied to believe the prosecution case and to connect the guilt to the accused persons.

Hence, there is no material and cogent evidence against the accused persons to connect him with the alleged commission of the offence punishable u/sec.14 of Prohibition of Child Labour Act and sec.79 of

Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, he is entitled for acquittal.

14.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Sections 14 of Prohibition of Child Labour Act and sec.79 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 Accordingly, he is acquitted 6 of 6

CC. No.746 of 2022

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall be inforce for a period of 3 months, u/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 18th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-

Prl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar, R.R. District.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution :Defence : PW1 :- Praveen -None- Pw2 :- Venkatesh Pw3 :- M. Naresh Pw4 :- D. Rajesh PW5:- Master Amith PW6:- Apurva PW7:- Mudavath Narsimha Naik PW8:- A. Vishnuvardhan Reddy

:: Exhibits Marked For ::

Prosecution :Defence : -nil- Ex.P1:- Report lodged by PW1, Ex.P2:- Signature of PW3 on scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P3:- Signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P4:- 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P5:- First Information Report Ex.P6:- Crime Details Form

:: Material objects marked for ::

-NIL-

Sd/-

Prl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar, R.R. District.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SHADNAGAR, RANGA

REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT : FAC Sri. D.Dheeraj Kumar, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

Dated: On this the 23 rd day of October, 2024.

O.S. No. 412 OF 20 22

Between:

1.Smt.Mangali Kistamma, W/o. Ramchandraiah, aged about 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kethireddypally village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.Smt.Mangali Ramulamma, W/o. Late Mallesham, aged about 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 26-67, Farooqnagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3.Smt. Pabba Shanthamma, W/o. Balraj, aged about 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 3-98, Balanagar Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

….plaintiffs

AND 1.Sri.Mangali Narsimlu, S/o. Late Ramaiah, aged about 65 years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o. Appareddyguda Village, Nandigama Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.Sri.Mangali Guruvaiah, S/o. Late Ramaiah, aged about 63 years,Occ; Agriculture, R/o. Appareddyguda Village, Nandigama Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3.Sri.Mangali Chennaiah, S/o. Late Ramaiah, aged about 61 years, R/o. Appareddyguda Village, Nandigama Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4.Sri.Mangali Anjaiah, S/o. Late Ramaiah, aged about 60 yers, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Prashanth Hills, Meerpet, Hyderabad.

5.Smt.Mangali Laxmamma, W/o. Late Ramchandraiah, aged about 54 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Veljerla Village-1, Farooqnagr Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

6.Smt.Mangali Laxmamma, W/o. Late Narayana, aged about 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 2-111, Dharmasagar Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7.Smt.Mangali Chandrakala, W/o. Ramesh, aged about 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Keshampet Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

8.Sri.kummari Sailu, S/o. Ramchandraiah, aged about 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Appareddyguda Village, Nandigama Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

9.Sri.Maddina Raghunath, S/o. Srinivasulu, aged about 49 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. 11/392, Santhapeta, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh Presently R/o. 16/2003, Bellandur Road, Next to Kristal Ruby Apartment, Banglore-560037.

10.Amsri Spire Constructions (P) Ltd., Office : D.No. 9-1-164, 5th Floor, Amsri Plaza, S,D. Road, Secunderabad.

11.M/s. Abhiru Industries Ltd., rep. By its Director, Regd. Office: 8-3-166/7/1/, Erragadda, Hyderabad-18. {{{ ….Defendants.

Claim: This Petition is filed U/O. VII Rule 1 r/w Sec.26 of CPC.

2

This suit is coming before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri.G. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri. M.A. Kareem, Advocate for the defendants; upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: DOCKET ORDER ::

Date: 23-10-2024

Petition filed U/Rule 109(2) CRP and petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and the same is allowed. Plaintiffs present reported compromise. Hence this case is dismissed as withdrawn.

Typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 23rd day of October, 2024.

Sd/-

FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Shadnagar.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SHADNAGAR, RANGA

REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT : FAC Sri. D.Dheeraj Kumar, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

Dated: On this the 26 th day of October, 2024.

O.S. No. 162 OF 20 24

Between:

1.Sabavath Devi, W/o. Hanya, aged about 50 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No. 4-116, Shapur Thanda, Peddashapur Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.Vadithyavath Gemini, S/o. Thavuya Nayak, aged about 56 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No. 2-75, Kollagutta Thanda, Gurukunta Village & Nawabpet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

3.Mudavath Jyothi, W/o. Kishore, aged about 44 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No. 9-56, Palguttanda, Shadnagar, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4.Sabavath Bujji, W/o. Chandar, aged about 32 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No. 9-23, Yerrabidusu Thanda, Kishangar, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

….plaintiffs

AND 1.Sabavath Shakri @ Chakri, W/o. Sabavath Isra, aged about 43 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No. 4-146, Shapur Thanda, Peddashapur Village, Shanshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.Nenavath Jyothi, W/o. Late Raju, aged about 40 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No. C-305, Kondaiah Gadda Thanda, Annaram village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3.Siddi Vinayaka Property Developers, Office at H.No. 17-1-386/S.N-9,plot No. 204, A.Block, Sai Tirumala Towers, Champet, Hyderabad.

(Represented by G.Balreddy, S/o. Sai Reddy, aged about 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No. 405, Manjeera Heights, Chitra Layout, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad).

4.k.Mahender Reddy, S/o. Madhava Reddy, R/o. H.No. 11-13-527/2/101, Yadavareddynagar Colony, Alkapuri, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. ….Defendants.

Claim: This Petition is filed U/O. VII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Sec.26 of CPC.

This suit is coming before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri.V. Raghavendra Chary, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri. Advocate for the defendants; upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2 :: DOCKET ORDER ::

Date: 26-10-2024:

Petition filed U/Rule 109(2) CRP and petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and the same is allowed. Plaintiffs present reported compromise. Hence this case is dismissed as withdrawn.

Typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 26th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-

FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Shadnagar.