Smt G.Anupama Chakravarthy

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool

PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool · Kurnool · Andhra Pradesh

Smt G.Anupama Chakravarthy, Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, is posted at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,299 court orders on record since 2016. 24 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles MVOP, EP, T cases.

1,299

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

AS/49/2014

V.Krishnaiah alias Krishna Murthy vs Chakali Somanna

31 Dec 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

PRESENT: Smt. G.Anupama Chakravarthy,

Principal District Judge, Kurnool.

Monday, the 31st day of December, 2018

APPEAL SUIT No.49 of 2014

V.Krishnaiah @ Krishna Murthy … Appellant/Plaintiff -Versus- 1.Chakali Somanna 2.Vadla Sivanna … Respondents/Defendants

On appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05-11-2014 that is rendered in Original Suit No.213 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Dhone.

Between

V.Krishnaiah @ Krishna Murthy .. Plaintiff

-and- 1.Chakali Somanna, 2.Vadla Sivanna … Defendants

This appeal suit coming on 07-12-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Rama Subba

Reddy, Sri.A.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocates for the appellant;

Sri.H.K.Jalandhar Rao, Sri.C.V.Srinivasulu, Advocates for the

PDJ A.S. 49 2 of 2014 respondents; having heard on both sides; upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under

Order XLI Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05-11-2014 in Original Suit

No.213 of 2011, where-under the learned Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Dhone, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff

seeking the relief of specific performance and consequential injunction directing the defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaint in respect of the plaint schedule property.

2.The points of dis-agreement, as urged in the grounds of appeal, are as follows:

1)The judgment and decree of the trial Court are against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2)The trial Court erred in doubting the existence of agreement of sale i.e, Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff when it is not an issue. The defendants admitted in the written statement that the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property under agreement of sale dated 04-05-1989 for

Rs.3,250/-. The trial Court getting doubt about the

PDJ A.S. 49 3 of 2014 notarizing the agreement when the defendants did not deny it, is not based on principles of appreciation of evidence.

When there is admission, the plaintiff need not give explanation.

3)The trial Court erred in finding fault with the plaintiff for keeping quiet for 22 years without getting registration. When the recital permits to get the registration of sale deed on demand of the vendor, limitation runs from the date of demand or refusal of defendant to execute the registered sale deed. In the case on hand, the refusal is on the date of execution of sale deed in favour of the second defendant by the first defendant i.e, on 26-02-2011. Till then limitation does not run as there is no evidence that the defendants refused to execute registered sale deed.

4)The trial Court failed to note that the burden of proof lies with the defendants to prove their plea that there was resale of plaint schedule property by the plaintiff to the father of second defendant. When the defendants failed to prove the same, the agreement of sale and rights accrued therein, continues in favour of the plaintiff.

5)The trial Court though framed the issue relating to limitation, failed to conclude about the issue of limitation.

But in Para 11 at Page 9, while deciding Issue No.3, gave finding that the suit is within limitation.

PDJ A.S. 49 4 of 2014

6)The trial Court also erred in not deciding Issue

No.2. The Tahsildar has no authority to give any permission for construction of house. The competent authority is the

Gram Panchayat. Therefore, Ex.B4 is issued without any authority and it cannot be relied upon for any purpose.

7)The trial Court’s finding that seeking alternative relief is compulsory in a suit for specific performance and seeking direction to the defendant to execute regular sale deed alone is bad, is not based on any legal provision.

8)The trial Court’s finding that the plaintiff sold away the suit schedule property to the second defendant and the second defendant has been in continuous possession of the same, is not based on the evidence that is adduced by the defendants.

9)The lower Court having given a finding that time is not essence of the contract, came to wrong conclusion stating that the plaintiff is supposed to get the sale deed within reasonable time and also erred in saying that the plaintiff is not coming with clean hands because of the abnormal delay in filing the suit and that the plaintiff has to explain the delay.

PDJ A.S. 49 5 of 2014

10)The trial Court erred in saying that non- examination of attestors and scribe is material and Ex.A1 is a weak evidence and it must be supported by the oral evidence.

When Ex.A1 is admitted, it cannot be said that it is a weak evidence and the examination of attestors is necessary.

11)The trial Court failed to note the ignorance of DW1 about the resale of the plaint schedule property orally by the plaintiff to the father of the second defendant and the father of the second defendant obtaining original agreement of sale

dated 04-05-1989.

Ultimately, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and to pass a decree against the defendants.

3.Notice served upon the respondents.

4.Heard the learned Counsel for both parties. Perused the entire material available on record, including the written arguments filed on behalf of both sides.

5.The parties in this appeal are referred, as they stood

before the Trial Court.

PDJ A.S. 49 6 of 2014

6.Upon perusing the available record with the grounds of appeal, judgment and decree of the trial Court, the point that arose for determination is:-

Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment rendered by the trial Court, as contended by the appellant, and if so, whether the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside?

7.P O I N T:

It is urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the trial Court failed to notice that the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration under Ex.A1 and did all the requirements of the contract except obtaining registered sale deed irrespective of the question whether time is essence of the suit contract and completed all his obligations. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the second defendant who claimed that he purchased the property from the plaintiff, did not prove the said sale transaction and the date of purchase and the consideration paid is not specified.

He further argued that when the recital in Ex.A1 permits to get the registration of sale deed on demand of the vendor, limitation runs from the date of demand or refusal of the defendant to execute registered sale deed and the finding of trial court that the plaintiff kept quiet for 22 years without getting registration, is not correct. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Mandal Revenue

PDJ A.S. 49 7 of 2014

Officer has no authority to issue Ex.B4 and as such, it cannot be relied upon for any purpose. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that DWs.1 and 2 admitted that the original of Ex.A1 is with them and they did not dispute the correctness of Ex.A1 and further its contents are admitted and hence, the finding of the trial court that Ex.A1 is a Xerox copy, has no relevance in view of the admission. Since the second defendant admittedly got knowledge about the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff, the second defendant is not a bonafide purchaser for consideration and therefore, the second defendant is also liable to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per Section 19 of the Specific

Relief Act. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and to pass a decree in favour of the appellant/plaintiff.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents/defendants contended that the relief of specific performance is an equitable relief and the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish his case right from the date of execution of the agreement of sale till the date of decree and he must prove that he has always been willing to perform his part of contract and the plaintiff has to prove his case on his own strength by adducing sufficient evidence. He also submitted that the suit for specific performance of contract of sale has to be filed within three years from the date fixed for contract and

PDJ A.S. 49 8 of 2014 if no such date is fixed, it shall be filed within three years from the date when the defendant refuse his part of contract on a notice given by plaintiff, but in the present case the plaintiff failed to show that he demanded the first respondent for execution of sale deed and the refusal of the first defendant to execute the sale deed. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the plaintiff did not issue any notice to the first defendant prior to filing of the suit and as such, the suit is not maintainable under Specific

Relief Act and bad under law. He further argued that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof and a document is required to be proved in accordance with law and that as Ex.A1 is not a primary or secondary evidence as per Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, it cannot be looked into and the Court has an obligation to decide the question of admissibility of a document. The learned counsel also submitted that payment of house tax by the plaintiff under Ex.A2 when the property was not transferred in his favour, shows that the plaintiff created

Ex.A2 house tax receipts for the purpose of the suit. He further argued that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit after considering the entire material available on record and therefore prayed to dismiss the appeal, as it is devoid of merits.

PDJ A.S. 49 9 of 2014

8.The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that on 04-05-1989 the first defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule house to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,250/- and executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the sale consideration and agreed to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff whenever called upon and the same was incorporated in Ex.A1 agreement. The plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration and the execution of registered sale deed alone remained due.

Though there is a recital in the agreement regarding delivery of possession, the second defendant who is the elder brother’s son of the plaintiff, is in possession of the same. As the plaintiff was not in the village due to his employment, he permitted the second defendant to reside in the house on a condition to vacate the premises whenever demanded. The defendants 1 and 2 colluded with each other and the second defendant obtained a registered sale deed by playing fraud on the plaintiff. The second defendant obtained registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule house by showing it as open place instead of a house, in order to avoid registration expenses. The plaintiff further submitted that the possession of original agreement of sale with the second defendant is an

additional ground to obtain registered sale deed from the first

defendant illegally and the said sale deed is null and void and non-est in the eye of law. In the month of January 2011 the

PDJ A.S. 49 10 of 2014 plaintiff requested the first defendant to execute a registered sale deed, but the first defendant postponed the same under some pretext or the other and finally in the month of May 2011, refused to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of the agreement of sale, as such, the plaintiff filed the suit.

9.The second defendant filed written statement and the first defendant file a memo adopting the written statement of the second defendant. The contention of the defendants as seen from the written statement is that originally the plaint schedule house belongs to one Dasari Chinna Nagamma, wife of Dasari Naganna and she gifted the same to one Ramakka, wife of Dasari Ramaiah, on 28-07-1973 under a gift deed. In turn, the said Ramakka sold out the same to the father of second defendant on 12-01-1976 under an unregistered sale deed. The father of the second defendant sold it to the first defendant on 12-09-1985 and at the request of the second defendant’s father, the said Ramakka executed regular sale deed in favour of the first defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff purchased the same under agreement of sale dated 04-05-1989 for Rs.3,250/- from the first defendant. But immediately within one year, the father of second defendant who was fond of the property, purchased the same from the plaintiff. Since the father of second defendant has been in

PDJ A.S. 49 11 of 2014 possession and enjoyment of the house, after his death, the second defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption. The second defendant’s father did not obtain agreement of sale or registered sale agreement or any other document from the plaintiff as the plaintiff is none other than his brother. The father of second defendant had been in possession and enjoyment of the house from the date of purchase by paying taxes. The plaintiff filed a suit with an intention to grab the plaint schedule property and to have unlawful gain and he obtained house tax receipts by managing the Panchayat Secretary of

Ramallakota and the house tax receipts are created one. The second defendant had been in adverse possession and the agreement of sale dated 04-05-1989 is void and barred by limitation. The first defendant is well aware of the facts and about the purchase of the plaint schedule property from the plaintiff by the father of second defendant. Since the father of second defendant died, the plaintiff filed the suit with a malafide intention. The defendants further submitted that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Veldurthy issued Anubandham

Patta in favour of the second defendant for construction of a house. It is further submitted that as the house is very old one and it was dilapidated, the open place was there and the second defendant registered the same as an open place in his

PDJ A.S. 49 12 of 2014 favour, from the first defendant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

10.The trial Court framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the alleged agreement of sale dated 04-05-1989 is barred by limitation?

2) Whether the M.R.O Veldurthy has issued

Anubandham Patta in favour of D.2 for construction of a house?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

11.On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and

Exs.A1 to A3 were marked in the trial Court.

On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

12.After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit without costs.

Aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial Court, the appellant/plaintiff preferred the present appeal.

PDJ A.S. 49 13 of 2014

13.It is the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant executed Ex.A1 agreement of sale in his favour on 04-05-1989 after receiving the entire sale consideration of

Rs.3,250/- agreeing to sell the suit schedule house, but failed to execute the registered sale deed in his favour and on the other hand, sold the suit schedule house to the second defendant under Ex.A3 and as such, he is entitled for the relief of specific performance. In support of his case, the plaintiff is examined as PW1 and also examined PWs.2 to 4.

It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that during the life time of his brother i.e, the father of second defendant, he never claimed the property. PW1 admitted in his cross- examination that he purchased the suit schedule property form the first defendant on 04-05-1989 for Rs.3,250/- under agreement of sale, then after one year as D2’s father was fond of this property, then he purchased from him (PW1). PWs.2 to 4 filed their chief examination affidavits in support of the case of the plaintiff. It is elicited in the cross-examination of

PWs.3 to 4 that the suit schedule house is open place and D2 is running a saw machine in the said house by making a shed in the open place.

14.Apart from the oral evidence, the crucial document on which the plaintiff is relying and basing on which he filed the suit, is Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the agreement of sale dated 04-05-1989 said to have been executed by the first defendant

PDJ A.S. 49 14 of 2014 in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A1 is a Xerox copy attested by the Notary Sri.D.Narayan Rao of Adoni, on 15-06-1989. It is the pleading and evidence of plaintiff that the second defendant took the original of Ex.A1from him by representing that a suit was instituted against him by one Kammari

Padmavathamma of Ramallakota village in O.S.No.333/2007 in respect of the same house and to defend the said suit, he obtained the original agreement from the plaintiff and the plaintiff came to know that the second defendant did not file the said original agreement along with the written statement in the said suit. It is also the evidence of PW1 that the said suit ended in compromise. However, the plaintiff did not file any proof to show that the suit in O.S.No.333/2007 was filed against the second defendant or that the said suit ended in compromise. The plaintiff did not examine any witness to show that the second defendant took the original of Ex.A1 from him for the purpose of using it as a defence in any suit.

PWs.2 to 4 also did not speak anything in this regard. Even if it is believed that the second defendant took the original of

Ex.A1 from the plaintiff to use it as a defence in some suit, it is not explained why the plaintiff did not make any efforts to get it back from the second defendant. It is also not explained by the plaintiff as to how the original of Ex.A1 is useful to the second defendant, when the second defendant is not at all a party to the agreement under Ex.A1. As such, it

PDJ A.S. 49 15 of 2014 is clear that the plaintiff only to form a basis for filing the suit on the foot of a xerox copy, took such a plea.

15.Admittedly Ex.A1 is marked subject to objection. As seen from Ex.A1, it is attested by a Notary on 15-06-1989.

The plaintiff has not given any reason as to what was the necessity for him to get Ex.A1 attested through the Notary on 15-06-1989, i.e., within one and a half month from the date of its execution. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the second defendant asked him to give the original of Ex.A1 in the year 1989 and as such, he kept a Xerox copy with him duly attested by a Notary. PW1 deposed that the second defendant took the original of Ex.A1 from him in the year 2007 and not in the year 1989. When it is his case that the original of Ex.A1 itself was with him in the year 1989, it is not known why the plaintiff got it attested through a Notary on 15-06-1999. It is settled law that Xerox copy of a document is not admissible in evidence and Ex.A1 was marked subject to objection. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a decision in H.Siddiqui (dead) by L.Rs .Versus.

A.Ramalingam reported in 2011 (2) Supreme 427, wherein it is held that

Parties can adduce secondary evidence subject to large number of limitations – The documentary evidence is required to be proved in accordance with law –

Secondary evidence relating to the contents of a

PDJ A.S. 49 16 of 2014 document is inadmissible, until the non production of original is accounted for – Court has an obligation to decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon.”

In the present case on hand, except putting a suggestion that the second defendant took the original of

Ex.A1 from him, which was denied by DW2, the plaintiff did not place any oral or documentary evidence to show that the original of Ex.A2 was with the second defendant. In such case, the original of Ex.A1 is expected to be with the plaintiff.

No proof is placed before the Court to show that the original of Ex.A1 is not in the possession of the plaintiff and as such, it can be safely said that the non-production of the original of

Ex.A1 is not accounted for by the plaintiff. It is also not properly explained by the plaintiff as to what made him to get the Xerox copy of agreement, attested through a Notary in the year 1989 itself. The plaintiff has also not examined the

Notary who attested the agreement of sale, to ascertain whether the said Notary was having licence to act as a Notary in the year 1989 and to speak whether he had correctly compared the contents of Ex.A1 with its original. Since the non production of the original of Ex.A1 is not accounted for by the plaintiff properly, this Court is of the considered view that Ex.A1 is not inadmissible as secondary evidence and the contents of Ex.A1 cannot be looked into.

PDJ A.S. 49 17 of 2014

16.It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that when Ex.A1 is admitted by the defendant, it cannot be doubted by the Court. As seen from the written statement, the defendants stated that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule house under the agreement of sale dated 04-05-1989 for Rs.3,250/- from the first defendant, but immediately within one year, the father of the second defendant who was fond of the property, purchased the same from the plaintiff and the father of second defendant did not obtain the agreement of sale or registered sale agreement or any to her document from the plaintiff as the plaintiff is none other than his brother. It is pertinent to note here that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof and the document is required to be proved in accordance with law. PW2 who is the witness of the plaintiff, admitted in his cross-examination that the father of second defendant purchased the suit schedule house and as the plantiff has no regular registered sale deed, he simply handed over the original agreement of sale and possession to D2’s father. PW2 also admitted that since the date of purchase by

D2’s father, he was residing and was in possession of the house and after him, his son is residing and is in possession of the said house. This admission of PW2 lends support to the case of the defendants that the father of second defendant

PDJ A.S. 49 18 of 2014 purchased the suit schedule house from the plaintiff, as pleaded in the written statement. As such, even if the execution of Ex.A1 is admitted by the defendants, the above admission of PW2 nullifies Ex.A1 and renders it useless.

Admittedly, the plaintiff did not issue any notice to the first defendant to execute registered sale deed in his favour even by the year 2011. This shows that the plaintiff has kept quiet only because he has already sold the house to the father of second defendant and he knows quite well that he has no right to ask for execution of a registered sale deed. Since the father of the second defendant purchased the suit schedule house from the plaintiff as per the admission of PW2, Ex.A1 is of no use to the case of the plaintiff to claim specific performance of contract.

17.The other document relied upon by the plaintiff is

Ex.A2, the house tax receipts. A perusal of Ex.A2 shows that one receipt is dated 20-05-1998 under which the plaintiff said to have paid a sum of Rs.72/- towards house tax for the house bearing No.2-25 for the period from 1998 to 2002. The other receipt is dated 12-01-2003 under which the plaintiff said to have paid a sum of Rs.85/- towards house tax for house number 2-25 for the period from 2003 to 2007. It is the case of the plaintiff that the second defendant has been in possession of the suit schedule house. It is an admitted fact

PDJ A.S. 49 19 of 2014 that the plaintiff has not obtained any registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule house. When the plaintiff has neither title nor possession over the suit schedule house, it is not known as to why the house tax was paid by the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule house. Moreover, when the plaintiff said to have purchased the house under Ex.A1 in the year 1989 itself, it is not known why he has not filed the house tax receipts relating to the years from 1989 to 1997.

The Panchayat Secretary who issued Ex.A2, receipts, is not examined to know whether the suit schedule house mutated in the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records. It is settled law that revenue receipts are not conclusive proof of title or possession. Ex.A1 cannot be considered as a title document and the plaintiff did not file any document to show that he has been in possession of the suit schedule house.

As such, Ex.A2 is not useful to the case of the plaintiff.

18.The relief of specific performance is an equitable relief and the plaintiff is expected to approach the Court with clean hands. In the present case on hand, the plaintiff failed to produce the original of Ex.A1 and also failed to establish the contents of Ex.A1 in view of the admissions of PW2 in the cross-examination. The plaintiff as PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that the father of second defendant purchased the suit schedule house from him. PW2 also

PDJ A.S. 49 20 of 2014 admitted in his cross-examination that the father of second defendant purchased the suit schedule house from plaintiff and he was in possession of the house and after him, his son, i.,e the first defendant is residing and is in possession of the said house. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not issued any notice to the first defendant demanding to execute the registered sale deed till the year 2011, nor issued any notice even to the second defendant when the first defendant executed Ex.A3 in favour of the second defendant. Instead, the plaintiff kept quiet for a period of 22 years i.e, from 1989 to 2011 and filed the suit claiming specific performance of

Ex.A1, agreement. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a decision between M.Sankar Nadar .Versus Deva

Krishnan reported in LAW (MAD) 2017 1 7 wherein it is held as follows:

In the case on hand, even assuming that Ex.A1 agreement is meant for sale of the property, when the plaintiff had paid the entire sale consideration on the date of alleged sale agreement itself, the question of readiness will not arise. However, when the plaintiff had filed the suit after a lapse of 14 years, absolutely there cannot be any willingness on his side to perform his part of contract. Therefore, the mandatory provisions of Section 176(c) of the Specific Relief Act has not been completely fulfilled by the plaintiff. On this ground also, the suit should have been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court.

PDJ A.S. 49 21 of 2014

In the instant case, the plaintiff filed the suit after a long period of 22 years from the date of Ex.A1, which itself indicates that he was not ready and willing to perform is part of contract, i.e, to obtain a registered sale deed. In view of the admissions of PWs.1 and 2 in their cross-examination that the father of the second defendant purchased the suit schedule house from the plaintiff, it appears that the plaintiff kept quiet for all these years and only after the death of the father of second defendant, he filed the suit claiming specific performance basing on Ex.A1. The admission of PWs.1 and 2 that the plaintiff did not claim the property during the life time of the father of second defendant, also supports the case of the defendants. Admittedly, the plaintiff worked in the police department and it cannot be said that he has no knowledge that he has to obtain registered sale deed within a reasonable time. Therefore, the silence on the part of the plaintiff for a long period of 22 years shows that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract and as such, the above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

19.On the other hand, the defendants 1 and 2 are examined as DWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B5 in support of their case. Ex.B2 (= Ex.A3) clearly shows the that the suit schedule house was purchased by the second

PDJ A.S. 49 22 of 2014 defendant from the first defendant on 26-02-2011 for a valid consideration of Rs.27,000/-. Exs.B1 and B3 are the link documents of Ex.B2 and Ex.B4 is the certificate of possession issued by the MRO in favour of the second defendant in respect of the suit schedule house. Ex.A5 also shows the name of the one Vadla Rangamma in respect of House

No.2/25 which the suit schedule house. As such, the evidence of DWs.1 and 2 and Exs.B1 to B5 categorically support the case of the defendants.

20.The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decisions

i) Tirumalasetty Santhamma and others .Versus. Yenuganti

Venkaiah reported in 2013 (5) ALD 484 wherein it is held that

Since the plaintiff has paid the entire sale consideration, obtained possession of the property on the date of Ex.A1 agreement itself and since there is no other obligation to be performed by the plaintiff, I find no reasons to non- suit the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance.

ii) Gautam Sarup .Versus. Leela Jetly & Orsreported in 2009

Sup AIR 363 wherein it is held that

A thing admitted in view of Section 58 of the Indian

Evidence Act need not be proved.

There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the above decisions. In the present case on hand, it

PDJ A.S. 49 23 of 2014 is true that the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration on the date of Ex.A1, but the plaintiff himself admitted in his cross-examination that one year after the agreement of sale

dated 04-05-1989, the father of second defendant purchased

it from him. PW2 also stated the same in his cross- examination. Moreover, the plaintiff filed the suit basing on

Ex.A1 which is an attested Xerox copy which is inadmissible in evidence. When the plaintiff himself admitted that he sold the house to the father of the second defendant one year after

Ex.A1, he cannot seek specific performance in respect of the same property he admitted to have sold to the father of second defendant. The plaintiff admittedly did not make any claim over the suit schedule house during the life time of the father of second defendant and having kept quiet for 22 years, now he filed the suit claiming specific performance of the agreement basing on a Xerox attested copy of the agreement.

As such, though the plaintiff might have paid the entire sale consideration to the first defendant, but in view of the admission of PWs.1 and 2 that the plaintiff sold the house to the father of second defendant, it is not open for the plaintiff to seek the relief of specific performance based on Ex.A1. The plaintiff has not issued any notice to the first defendant even after lapse of 22 years, claiming for specific performance of agreement of sale as deposed by DW1. DW1 categorically deposed that as he knows about the facts, at the request of

PDJ A.S. 49 24 of 2014 the second defendant he executed regular registered sale deed in favour of the second defendant on 26-02-2011 to curtail unnecessary litigations. The facts in the above decisions, are not similar to the facts of present case on hand and as such, to applicable to this case.

21.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence placed by the plaintiff is not sufficient to substantiate his case and the plaintiff did not approach the Court with clean hands. The relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief which cannot be granted in the absence of cogent evidence. The admissions of PWs.1 and 2 make out a serious circumstance, which disentitles the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff. The trial Court rightly discussed all the aspects and came to proper conclusion. This Court does not find any irregularities in the judgment of the trial Court and as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and the same has to be confirmed.

This point is accordingly answered.

22.In the result, appeal is dismissed with costs, confirming the decree and judgment dated 05-11-2014 in Original Suit

No.213 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Dhone.

PDJ A.S. 49 25 of 2014

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 31st day of

December 2018.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Nil

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

Copy to

The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone.

SC/57/2017 Acquitted

State rep. by Inspector of Police vs Addakula Yella Raju

18 Dec 2018

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 20171

`IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

PRESENT: Smt. G.Anupama Chakravarthy,

Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Tuesday, the 18th day of December 2018

SESSIONS CASE No.57 of 2017

ComplainantState represented by the Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur Circle, Kurnool District.

Name of the accused1.Addakula Yella Raju, aged 22 years, son of Addakula Yesanna 2.Addakula Karunakar @ Karna, aged 21 years, S/o.A.Naganna 3.Kyathur Pedda Ramudu, S/o.late K.Yesepu, aged 65 years, 4.Addakula Ayyanna, aged 60 years, S/olate A.Seshanna All are residents of Konetammapalli village, Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District

Offences chargedUnder Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code against Accused Nos.1 to 4. Under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code against Accused Nos.1 and 2. Under Section 302 read with 109 of Indian Penal Code against Accused Nos.3 and 4.

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Name of the Police Crime No.10 of 2016 of Brahmanakotkur Station and crime Police Station number Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty

Sentence of OrderAccused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code; Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code; Accused Nos.3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with 109 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 20172 are acquitted of the said offences, under Section 235 (1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds executed by the Accused Nos.1 to 4 shall remain in force for a period of six months.

MO17 Hero company Glamour motor cycle bearing registration No.AP21-BG- 3420 is given for interim custody to Addakula Karunakar @ Karna (Accused No.2) as per orders in Cr.M.P.No. 1858/2016 dated 16-09-2016 is made absolute, and the said order holds good and he shall retain the same after lapse of appeal time.

MO20 Passion Pro motor cycle bearing registration No.AP21-AU-1178 is given for interim custody to Borelly Vijayuduasperordersin Cr.M.P.No.1326/2016 dated 29-06-2016 is made absolute and it shall be retained with him, after lapse of appeal time.

This Sessions Case coming on 17-12-2018 for final hearing

before me in the presence of the Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for Accused Nos.1 and 2;

Sri.T.Maheswar Reddy, Advocate for Accused Nos.3 and 4; having heard arguments on both sides; upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur Circle laid a charge sheet against the Accused 1 to 4, who are tried before this Court for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.10 of 2016 of

Brahmanakotkur Police Station, with the following allegations.

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 20173

i) The accused are residents of Konetammapalli Village of

Nandikotkur Mandal. The deceased Mahimakar @ Balu was also a resident of the same village. PW1, Borelli Devaraju is the father of the deceased. PW1, and Accused Nos.1 and 2 are friends and lived by doing painting work and they used to attend the work together at Hyderabad and some other places. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are the important persons in Konetammapalli village among the new SC Community people. The accused usually attended painting work in Hyderabad city under the contractor Iqbal who is the father of PW17-Mohammed Imran of Hyderabad. There was a dispute between Accused 1 and 2 and the deceased in respect of the distribution of wages when they worked under Iqbal.

ii)Accused Nos.1 to 4 belong to SC Madiga (new). In

Konetammapali village, there is a dispute between the old Madiga and new Madiga communities with regard to church. Accused

Nos.1 to 4 belong to new Madiga community and the deceased belonged to old Madiga community. There were grudges between the two communities as the old community people were not giving priority to the new community people in the affairs and activities of the church. As such, the new community people wanted to construct a new church and tried for the same. On this issue, there was an altercation between them and at that time, the deceased abused the women folk of the new SC Community people in vulgar language and insulted them in the public. Accused

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 20174

Nos.1 and 2 developed grudge on the deceased as the deceased insulted the women folk of the new SC community and all the accused decided to kill the deceased by conspiring together and waited for an opportunity.

iii)On 29-03-2016 PW17, LW18-Mohammad Shoaib and LW19-

Mohammad Khadar Basha of Hyderabad came to Konetammapalli village to take Accused Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased to

Hyderabad for painting work and they moved in the village on motor cycles, purchased water packet and consumed liquor. PW17 and LW18-Mohammad Shoaib, LW19-Mohammad Khadar Basha gave advance of Rs.1,000/- to Accused No.1 for painting works and later all of them had lunch in the hotel of LW20-Mulla Mohammad at Nandikotkur. After lunch, they again purchased liquor and consumed the same in the teak plantation by the side of Allur road at the outskirts of Nandikotkur town. PW17 and LW18-

Mohammad Shoaib, LW19-Mohammad Khadar Basha boarded a bus to go to Hyderabad.

iv)The deceased forced Accused Nos.1 and 2 to give money to purchased alcohol with the advance amount, but Accused Nos.1 and 2 did not agree and the deceased picked up quarrel with them and abused them in filthy language and even chased them while returning to the village in their motor bikes by abusing them. As

Accused Nos.1 and 2 already decided to kill the deceased, they thought it was the right time to kill him. After crossing SGH Slab

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 20175

Polishing Factory near the field of Nagaraju in Survey No392 situated in between Barhmanakotkur – Vaddemanu B.T Road,

Accused Nos.1 and 2 hit the motor cycle of the deceased bearing

No.AP21-AU-1178 with their motor cycle bearing No.AP21-BG-3420 and the deceased fell on the ground. Accused No.1 hit on the face of the deceased with a big napa boulder which caused deep bleeding injury. Accused No.2 also hit the deceased with a big boulder. The deceased died on the spot with severe bleeding injuries. Later, Accused Nos.1 and 2 put the head of the deceased on the damaged head light doom of the motor cycle of deceased, to screen away the evidence and to create it as an accident. This was witnessed by PWs.12 and 13 in the glow of their motor cycle head light. PWs.14 and 16 also witnessed the offence.

v)Basing on the complaint of PW1, the Sub Inspector of Police

Brahmanakotkur police station registered a case in

CrimeNo.10/2016 under sections 302, 201, 120B read with 34 of

Indian Penal Code and sent copy of Express FIR to the Inspector of

Police Nandikotkur for investigation and he also assisted in the investigation of the case. The Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of blood relatives and inquest panchayatdars, examined and recorded the evidence of witnesses and seized the material objects including the motor bike of the deceased. He arrested Accused Nos.1 and 2 on 14-04-2016 in the

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 20176 presence of mediators and seized the motor bike bearing No.AP21-

BG-3420 and their blood stained clothes. The V.R.O of

Vaddemanu village produced Accused Nos.3 and 4 before the

Inspector of Police on 27-05-2016 along with their extra judicial confession made before him and the Inspector of Police arrested

Accused Nos.3 and 4 in the presence of mediator on 27-05-2016 and sent them to remand. The Medical Officer,

Government Hospital, Nandikotkur who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued postmortem certificate opining that the deceased died of haemorrhagic shock due to ante mortem injuries. After receipt of the postmortem and RFSL Reports and after completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police filed charge-sheet against the accused.

2.The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandikotkur, took up the case on file as P.R.C. No.24 of 2016. On appearance of the

Accused Nos.1 to 4 before the learned Magistrate Court, copies of case documents have been furnished to them, as envisaged under

Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure. When examined with regard to their means in engaging a Counsel to defend their case, they stated before the Court that they have capacity to engage

Counsel in the Court of Sessions. As the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this case has been committed to the Court of Sessions, Kurnool under Section 209 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, for trial.

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 20177

3.This Court numbered the case as Sessions Case No.57 of 2017 for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of the Accused Nos.1 to 4 before this Court, they were examined and this Court, after careful consideration and upon hearing the accused, framed charge under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against Accused Nos.1 to 4, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against Accused Nos.1 and 2, under Section 302 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code against Accused Nos.3 and 4, read over and explained the same to them in Telugu language. The Accused 1 to 4 pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 28 and got marked Exs.P1 to P42, Exs.P32A, P32B and MOs.1 to 20.

6.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Accused

Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 313 of The Code of

Criminal Procedure and they denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the Counsel for the accused.

8.Now the points that arose for consideration are:

1) Whether the Accused 1 to 4 conspired to commit the murder of Mahimakar @ Balu?

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 20178

2) Whether the Accused 1 and 2 committed the murder of Mahimakar @ Balu?

3) Whether the Accused 3 and 4 abetted the Accused 1 and 2 to commit the murder of Mahimakar @ Balu?

4) Whether the Accused 1 and 2 caused the evidence of murder to disappear with an intention to screen themselves from legal punishment?

9.It is urged by the learned Public Prosecutor that the oral evidence of PWs.26 to 28, coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.P24 to 42, Exs.P32A, P32B and MOs.1 to 20, corroborated with each other and it proves the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against them and therefore prayed to convict the accused.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused contended that none of the witnesses, including the family members of the deceased, stated about the role of accused in committing the alleged offences and that the material witnesses in this case have turned hostile. The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the medical evidence is not supported by the ocular evidence and there is no corroboration to the evidence of police officials and as such, there is no evidence to establish the guilt of the accused and therefore, prayed to acquit them.

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 20179

10.POINTS 1 to 4:

PW1 is the defacto-complainant and father of the deceased

Mahimakar @ Balu, who gave report to the police. It is the evidence of PW1 that he came to know through the villagers that the deceased fell on the motorcycle in between Brahmanakotkur and Vaddemanu road and on coming to know about the death of the deceased, he went to the scene of offence and saw the dead body of the deceased with injuries on his head. He deposed that he is an illiterate and made his thumb impression on the statement at the instance of the police and he identified his thumb impression on the statement dated 29.03.2016 which is marked as Ex.P1.

PW1 deposed that he is not aware of the contents of the statement and that he was neither examined by the police nor his statement was recorded. The learned Public Prosecutor declared PW1 as hostile and cross-examined him, but nothing useful was elicited in favour of the prosecution case. The Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 was marked as Ex.P2 in his cross-examination.

11.PW2 is the elder brother and PW3 is the wife of the deceased.

PWs.4 to 6 are the relatives of the deceased. PWs.2 to 6 deposed in one voice that they came to know that the deceased fell down from the motor cycle while riding and died in the said accident with injuries on his head and after coming to know about the death of the deceased, they went along with other relatives to the scene of offence and saw the dead body of the deceased and that they were

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 201710 not examined by the police. PWs.2 to 6 were declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and their Section 161 Cr.P.C

Statements were marked as Exs.P3 to P7 respectively.

PW10, 12 and 13 also deposed in the same lines and their respective Section 161 Cr.P.C Statements are marked as Ex.P11,

P13 and P14.

12.As per the case of prosecution, PWs.7 to 9 said to have witnessed the deceased and Accused Nos.1 and 2 moving in the village and they have knowledge about the quarrel between them.

PWs.7 to 9 deposed that they are not aware of the facts of the case and do now know the cause of the death of the deceased. PWs.7 to 9 were also declared hostile and their Section 161 Cr.P.C

Statements were marked as Exs.P8 to P10 respectively in their cross-examination.

PWs.11, 14 to 20 also deposed in the same lines and their respective Section 161 Cr.P.C Statements are marked as Ex.P12,

P15 to P21.

13.PWs.21 to 23 are the alleged mediators for inquest held on the dead body of the deceased, and they deposed that they never acted as mediators for the inquest of the dead body of the deceased and their respective signatures in the inquest report dated 30-03-2016, are marked as Exs.P22, P23 and P24. PW24 is the

V.R.O of Vaddemanu village who said to have acted as mediator for

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 201711 the arrest of Accused Nos.1 and 2 and said to have recorded the extra judicial confession of Accused Nos.3 and 4. PW24 deposed that he never acted as panchayatdar for the arrest of the Accused

Nos.1 and 2, but signed on the arrest and confession panchanama and seizure panchanama dated 14-04-2016 at the behest of the police. He also stated that Accused Nos.3 and 4 never gave extra judicial confession statement to him and that he signed on the confession statement dated 27-05-2016 in the Police Station at the behest of the police. The signature of PW24 in the arrest- confession and seizure panchanamas are marked as Exs.P27 and

P28 respectively. The signature of PW24 in the extra judicial confession statement of Accused Nos.3 and 4 is marked as Ex.P29.

PW25 who is another mediator for the arrest and confession panchanama, also deposed in the same lines and his signature in the confession and arrest panchanama is marked as Ex.P30.

Inspite of cross-examining PWs.21 to 25 by the learned Public

Prosecutor, nothing useful could be elicited in favour of the prosecution case.

14.PW26 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. She deposed that on 30-03-2016, she conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and found external injuries and internal injuries over the dead body. She deposed that all the external injuries correspond with the internal injuries and issued Ex.P31 postmortem report opining that the

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 201712 deceased might have died due to shock and heamorrhage, due to ante mortem injuries, 24 hours prior to the post mortem examination.

In the cross-examination, PW26 stated that there is possibility of sustaining external injuries even if a person falls from a motor bike.

15.PW27 is the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the case and assisted in the investigation. He deposed that on 29-03-2016 at about 9-30 P.M while he was in police station, PW1 gave oral statement which he reduced into writing and registered a case in

Crime No.10/2016 of Brahmanakotkur Police Station under

Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted

FIRs to all the concerned Officers and the original copy of FIR was sent to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur and a copy of FIR sent to Inspector of police, Nandikotkur Circle for further investigation and later he assisted the Inspector during the course of investigation.

In the cross-examination, PW27 denied the suggestion that

PW1 did not prefer any report to him, but Ex.P32 is falsely fabricated by obtaining thumb impression on Ex.P32.

16.PW28 is the Inspector of Police who investigated into the case and filed charge-sheet. PW28 deposed that on 29-03-2016 at

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 201713 10-00 P.M, he received Exs.P32 and proceeded to scene of offence and could not hold inquest as it was dark; that he secured the presence of PWs.1 to 4, examined them and recorded their statements and posted guard at the scene of offence. He further deposed that on 30-03-2016 at about 7.00 A.M he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and it was unanimously opined by the panchayatdars that some unknown offenders might have beat the deceased with napa rayi on his head due to which the brain of the deceased came out and as a result the deceased died on the spot instantaneously. He further deposed that during the course of inquest he seized MOs.1 to 5, the blood stained wearing apparels of the deceased, and also seized MOs.6 to 16. PW28 deposed that he seized the vehicle bearing No.AP21 AU 1178 Passion-pro motorcycle from the scene of offence, prepared Ex.P35-rough sketch of the scene of offence, went to Konetammapalli village and secured the presence of PWs.5 to 13, examined them and recorded their statements. PW28 deposed that Pws.1 to 13 stated before him as in Exs.P2 to P14 respectively. He further deposed that on 31-03-2016 he secured the presence of PWs.14 to 19,

LW18/Mohammad Sohail, LW19/Mohammad Khadar Basha and

LW20/Gulam Mohammad, examined them and recorded their statements and that PWs.14 to 19 stated before him as in Exs.P15 to P20 respectively. PW28 also deposed that on 14-04-2016 at 7.45 a.m. on Nandikotkur-Kurnool road near

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 201714

Madireddy Eswar Reddy Dabha, he arrested the Accused Nos.1 and 2 in the presence of PWs.23 and 24 and prepared confession panchanama, seized MO17-motor vehicle of Accused No.2 i.e.,

Hero company Glamour motorcycle bearing No.AP21-BG-3420 having Chasis Nos.MBLJA06AMFGK12453. He further deposed that Accused Nos.1 and A2 lead them to Hundri Niva Canal Bridge on the high way of Nandikotkur and Kurnool road near

Gargeyapuram and produced MOs.18 & 19 which he seized them under Ex.P37-seizure panchanama dated 14-04-2016 at 10-00 A.M and later produced them before the Court for judicial remand. He further deposed that he forwarded the material objects to the Court for forwarding them to RFSL, Kurnool through Ex.P38-letter of advice dated 16.04.2016. PW28 deposed that he visited

Konetammapalli village and secured the presence of PW20 and

LW.24/B.Ravi, examined them and recorded their statements and that PW20 stated before him as in Ex.P21. On 27-05-2016 at 10- 00 A.M PW24 produced Accused Nos.3 and 4 along with their extra judicial confession statement and he interrogated them and drafted arrest-cum-confession panchanama and effected their arrest and produced them before the Court for judicial remand. He deposed that he took Ex.P40-photographs of scene of offence during the course of inquest and scene observation on 30.03.2016 which are 16 in number. He also deposed that he sent the viscera of the deceased which was preserved by the medical officer during the course of post mortem examination of the deceased to RFSL,

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 201715

Kurnool and after receipt of the RFSL Report, Postmortem Report and after completion of investigation, laid charge-sheet against the accused.

In the cross-examination, PW28 admitted that his investigation reveals that Accused No.2 is the owner of MO17. He denied the suggestions that he has not properly investigated the case, did not visit the scene of offence, did not prepare the rough sketch, did not hold inquest and did not arrest the Accused Nos.1 and 2 and that Accused Nos.3 and 4 were not produced before him by PW24 and they did not confess before him about the committing of murder of the deceased in the presence of the panchayatdars.

He also denied the suggestions that he did not seize the blood stained clothes of Accused Nos.1 and 2 pursuant to the confession made by them and that all the panachanamas in this case are prepared in the police station and signatures of the mediators were obtained on them in the Police Station.

17.It is pertinent to note that PW1 who is the father of the deceased and who gave report to the police, did not support the case of prosecution and he deposed that he made thumb impression on the statement at the instance of police. The brother and wife of the deceased who are examined as PWs.2 and 3, also did not depose anything against the accused. PWs.4 to 10 who said to have seen the accused moving with the deceased, turned

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 201716 hostile to the prosecution case. PWs.11 to 16 who are the alleged eye-witnesses to the occurrence, deposed that they do not know the facts of the case. As such, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence with regard to the occurrence.

18.The mediators for the inquest i.e, PWs.21 to 23 deposed that they never acted as mediators for the inquest held over dead body of the deceased. PWs.24 and 25 who are the alleged mediators for arrest, confession of the accused and seizure of the material objects, also did not support the prosecution case. The evidence of the Medical Officer, PW26 shows that she found external injuries corresponding to the internal injuries and issued Ex.P31- postmortem report opining that the cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries. But there is no iota of evidence from any of the witnesses as to who is the cause of the injuries mentioned in Ex.P31-postmortem report. Hence, the evidence of PW26 is helpful to the prosecution only to the extent of proving the fact that the death of the deceased is a homicide.

19.PW27 is the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the case and PW28 is the Inspector of Police who investigated into the case.

They deposed in detail about the investigation done by them and their evidence is formal in nature. However, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PWs.27 and 28 from any of the independent witnesses, in the absence of which their evidence

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 201717 cannot be accepted, and it is unsafe to convict the accused basing on the uncorroborated testimony of the police officers. As such, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the charged offences, with cogent and acceptable evidence and as such, they are entitled for acquittal.

These points are answered against the prosecution.

20.In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code; Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code; Accused Nos.3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with 109 of Indian Penal

Code and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offences, under Section 235 (1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds executed by the Accused Nos.1 to 4 shall remain in force for a period of six months.

MOs.1 to 16, 18 and 19 shall be confiscated to the State, after lapse of appeal time.

MO17 Hero company Glamour motor cycle bearing registration No.AP21-BG-3420 is given for interim custody to

Addakula Karunakar @ Karna (Accused No.2) as per orders in

Cr.M.P.No. 1858/2016 dated 16-09-2016 is made absolute, and the said order holds good and he shall retain the same after lapse of appeal time.

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 201718

MO20 Passion Pro motor cycle bearing registration No.AP21-

AU-1178 is given for interim custody to Borelly Vijayudu as per orders in Cr.M.P.No.1326/2016 dated 29-06-2016 is made absolute and it shall be retained with him, after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 18th day of December

2018.

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS

JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:-

PW1Borelli Devaraju, Son of B.Balanna, Resident of Konetammapalli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW2Borelli Vijayudu, Son of B.Devaraju, Resident of Konetammapalli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW3Borelli Rajeswari, Wife of Borelli Balu @ Mahimakar, Resident of Konetammapalli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW4Borelli Yallaiah, Son of B.Budda Naganna, Resident of Konetammapalli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW5Borelli Nagaraju, Son of B.Swamulu, Resident of Konetammapalli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW6Borelli Devadarshanam, Son of B.Devadanam, Resident of Konetammapalli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW7Borelli Murali, Son of B.Yellaiah, Resident of Konetammapalli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW8Kommu Ranjith, Son of K.Veeranna, Resident of Konetammapalli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW9Borelli Nathanial, Son of B.Gokari, Resident of

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 201719

Konetammapalli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW10Borelli Daveedu, Son of Ramgari Raju, Resident of Vaddemanu Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW11Gaddala Vinod, Son of G.Nageswara Rao, Resident of Brahmanakotkur Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW12Borelli Deva Prem, Son of B.Budda Naganna, Resident of Konetammapalli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW13Borelli Thirupalu, Son of B.Laxmanna, Resident of Konetammapalli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW14Buram Prashanth, Son of B.Samanna, Resident of Brahmanakotkur Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW15Perugu Siva Kumar, Son of P.Yellappa, Resident of Brahmanakotkur Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW16Pinjari Khaleel, Son of P.Mazeed, Resident of Brahmanakotkur Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW17Mohammad Imran, Son of Mohammad Iqbal, Resident of Asif Nagar Mandal, Hyderabad.

PW18B.Sreenivasulu, Son of B.Jammulaiah, Resident of Vaddeman Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW19B.Daveedu, Son of B.Solman, Resident of Konetammapalli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW20Borelli Suresh, Son of B.Nagaraju, Resident of Konetammapalli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW21Balamkari Murali Krishna Reddy, Son of B.Nagi Reddy, Resident of Konetammapalli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW22Balamkari Venugopal Reddy, Son of B.Govardhan Reddy, Resident of Konetammapalli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW23Talari Budda Kavi, Son of T.Bala Nagaiah, Village Revenue Officer, Resident of Brahmanakotkur Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW24Kattubadi Rasheed, Son of K.Khaja Hussain, Village Revenue Officer, Resident of Vaddemanu Village, Nandikotkur Mandal.

PW25Tappeta Chennaiah, Son of T.Chenrayudu, Village

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 201720

Revenue Officer, Nandikotkur.

PW26Dr.S.Nahida, Wife of Abdul Ashfaq, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Nandikotkur.

PW27A.Raj Kumar, Son of A.Dhanappa, Sub-Inspector of Police, Brahmanakotkur Police Station.

PW28M.Sreenath Reddy, Son of M.Adinarayana Reddy, Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur Circle.

For Defence:-

None

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution:-

Ex.P1Thumb impression of PW1 on the statement dated 29.3.2016.

Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.

Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

Ex.P5161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4.

Ex.P6161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5.

Ex.P7161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6.

Ex.P8161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW7.

Ex.P9161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW8.

Ex.P10161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW9.

Ex.P11161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW10.

Ex.P12161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW11.

Ex.P13161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW12.

Ex.P14161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW13.

Ex.P15161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW14.

Ex.P16161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW15.

Ex.P17161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW16.

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 201721

Ex.P18161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW17.

Ex.P19161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW18.

Ex.P20161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW19.

Ex.P21161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW20.

Ex.P22Signature of PW21 on the inquest report dated 30.3.2016.

Ex.P23Signature of PW22 on the inquest report dated 30.3.2016.

Ex.P24Signature of PW23 on the inquest panchanama dated 30.3.2016.

Ex.P25Signature of PW23 on the arrest and confession panchanama dated 14.4.2016.

Ex.P26Signature of PW23 on the seizure panchanama dated 14.4.2016.

Ex.P27Signature of PW24 on the arrest and confession panchanama dated 14.4.2016.

Ex.P28Signature of PW24 on the seizure panchanama dated 14.4.2016.

Ex.P29Signature of PW24 on the extra judicial confession statement of A3 and A4, dated 27.5.2016.

Ex.P30Signature of PW25 on the confession and arrest panchanama, dated 27.5.2016.

Ex.P31Postmortem report of the deceased issued by PW26

dated 12.4.2016.

Ex.P32Statement of PW1 dated 29.3.2016.

Ex.P32-AEndorsement of PW27 on Ex.P32.

Ex.P32-BAnother endorsement of PW27 on Ex.P32.

Ex.P33Original First Information Report in Crime No.10/2016 of Brahamanakotkur Police Station, dated 29.3.2016.

Ex.P34Inquest report dated 30.3.2016, from 7-00 a.m. to 10-00 a.m.

Ex.P35Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 201722

Ex.P36Relevant portion of the arrest-cum-confession panchanama dated 14.4.2016 at 8-00 a.m.

Ex.P37Seizure panchanama dated 14.4.2016 at 10-00 a.m.

Ex.P38Letter of advice dated 16.4.2016 along with covering letter of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur,

dated 20.4.2016 with regard to sending of material

objects to RFSL, Kurnool.

Ex.P39Extra judicial confession statement of A3 and A4 recorded by PW24, dated 27.5.2016.

Ex.P40Sixteen photographs of the scene of offence.

Ex.P41Letter of advice dated 16.4.2016 along with covering letter of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur

dated 20.4.2016 with regard to viscera of the deceased.

Ex.P42RFSL reports for material objects and viscera of the deceased dated 29.6.2016.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Defence:-

Nil

Material objects marked:-

MO1Bloodstained white blue checks cotton shirt of the deceased.

MO2Bloodstained dark blue colour jeans pant of the deceased.

MO3Bloodstained pink colour underwear of the deceased.

MO4Bloodstained two pairs of red colour waist thread of the deceased.

MO5Bloodstained one brown colour leather belt of the deceased.

MO6Bloodstained napa rayi.

MO7Control napa rayi.

MO8Bloodstained earth.

MO9Control earth.

MO10Bloodstained small pieces of stones.

P.S.J. S.C. No.57 of 201723

MO11Empty plastic water packets (two).

MO12A pair of rubber chappals.

MO13Beedi packet containing eight beedis.

MO14One empty cigarette packet.

MO15Three head pieces containing hair.

MO16Fiber glass pieces of the motorcycle.

MO17Hero Company Glamour Motorcycle bearing No.AP21- BG-3420 having Chassis No.MBLJA06AMFGK12453 of Accused No.2.

MO18Light cream and rose colour half hands neck ‘T’ shirt.

MO19‘T’ shirt of orange colour with white buttons having full colour.

MO20Passion Pro motorcycle bearing No.AP21-AU-1178.

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

OS/96/2013

V.Vijayakumar vs Gopal Das Anuradha

20 Aug 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

PRESENT: Smt. G.Anupama Chakravarthy,

Principal District Judge, Kurnool.

Monday, the 20th day of August 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.96 of 2013

V.Vijaya Kumar..Plaintiff

-Versus- 1)Gopal Das Anuradha, W/o.late Gopal Das Balaswamy 2)Gopal Das Jayanthi,

D/o.late Gopal Das Balaswamy..Defendants

This suit coming on 26.6.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Shaik Chand Basha and

Sri.D.Mohammad Rafi, Advocates for the plaintiff and

Sri.A.Rama Subba Reddy and Sri A.Prabhakara Reddy,

Advocates for the first defendant, Sri Shaik Chand Basha,

Court Guardian for the second defendant; upon hearing both sides, having perused the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 2.6.2012 executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.12,00,000/- directing the defendants 1 and 2 to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property at his cost after receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and handover

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 20132 possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and on their failure, to execute the same under due process of law and for costs.

2. The plaint pleadings go to show that originally the plaint schedule property was purchased by the husband of first defendant and father of minor second defendant by name

Gopal Das Balaswamy under a registered sale deed dated 3.10.2000 and after his death, the defendants 1 and 2 succeeded the plaint schedule property. On 2.6.2012, the first defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff, agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per cent.

On the same day, the plaintiff paid Rs.2,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration and the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- is payable on or before 10-10-2012 after due measurements of site. The first defendant sold the plaint schedule property for her necessities and also for the necessities of second defendant who is a minor. The plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and requested the first defendant to obtain permission from the

Court to sell the plaint schedule property and to execute a sale deed in his favour on her behalf and also on behalf of second defendant, but the first defendant sought time. The plaintiff came to know that the first defendant did not obtain any Court

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 20133 permission to sell the plaint schedule property to the extent of minor second defendant’s share. The plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 8.11.2013 to the defendants and the defendants issued reply dated 18.11.2013 with false allegations. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons served upon the defendants 1 and 2. Second defendant is a minor.

4.The first defendant filed written statement admitting that on 2.6.2012, she entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff to sell the plaint schedule property at Rs.2,00,000/- per cent and received advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on the same day. The plaintiff agreed to pay the balance sale consideration on or before 10-10-2012 and on failure to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time, the agreement stands cancelled and the amount paid towards advance gets forfeited. The plaintiff was never ready to perform his part of contract and never requested this defendant to receive the balance amount and execute a registered sale deed in his favour. This defendant insisted the plaintiff several times for payment of balance sale consideration within the stipulated time, but the plaintiff expressed his inability to do so on the ground that he had no money to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and as

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 20134 such, the agreement of sale stood cancelled on 10.10.2012 itself. The plaintiff got issued legal notice after lapse of more than one year from the date of stipulated period of agreement with all false allegations to which suitable reply was given to the plaintiff. Time fixed for payment of balance sale consideration was the essence of contract. The plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. The relief of specific performance is an equitable relief which cannot be granted in favour of a person, like the plaintiff, whose suit is based on false allegations. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

5.On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for discussion.

1.Whether the first defendant is entitled to sell the property that fell to the share of minor second defendant ?

2.Whether the agreement of sale stood cancelled on 10.10.2012 ?

3. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 are liable to execute a registered sale deed by receiving balance of sale consideration from the plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property ?

4.To what relief?

6.The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, besides examining himself as PW1, has also examined the attestor of

Ex.A1 as PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 on his side.

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 20135

On the other hand, the defendants, in order to establish their defence, examined DW1, but no documents were marked on their behalf.

7.Heard on both sides. Written arguments were filed on behalf of the plaintiff.

8.ISSUE No.1 to 3:

1. Whether the first defendant is entitled to sell the property that fell to the share of minor second defendant?

2. Whether the agreement of sale stood cancelled on 10-10-2012?

3. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 are liable to execute registered sale deed by receiving balance of sale consideration from the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property ?

These three Issues are discussed together, as they are inter-linked with each other.

In order to arrive to a conclusion whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of contract, it is necessary to scrutinize the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff as well as the defendant.

09.PW1 reiterated the entire facts of the plaint pleadings by way of his chief examination affidavit and Exs.A1 to A3 are the documents marked through him. Ex.A1 is the agreement of

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 20136 sale dated 2-6-2012 executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. On perusal of Ex.A1, it is clear that if the plaintiff fails to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period i.e, by 10-10-2012, the advance amount will not be returned and the agreement shall stand cancelled.

There is no recital in Ex.A1 about the share of the minor daughter of first defendant or to the effect that the first defendant has agreed to obtain permission from the court to sell the share of the minor/second defendant. Ex.A1 reveals that time is the essence of the contract, in view of the specific recital that the balance sale consideration has to be paid on or

before 10-10-2012 failing which the agreement shall stand

cancelled.

10.Ex.A2 is the legal notice dated 8-11-2013 issued by the plaintiff to the first defendant demanding to execute regular registered sale deed and to furnish original documents with regard to the schedule property. It is pertinent to note that the said notice was issued about thirteen months after the date stipulated in Ex.A1. There is no mention in Ex.A2 that the plaintiff has paid or offered to pay the balance sale consideration on or before 10-10-2012. It is also not mentioned in the notice that the first defendant did not obtain permission from the court to sell the share of the minor/second defendant or that the plaintiff did not pay the

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 20137 balance sale consideration as the first defendant failed to do so. It is also not mentioned that the first defendant failed to get measured the land, due to which the plaintiff did not pay the balance sale consideration. Hence, it clear that even as on the date of Ex.A2 which is after the stipulated date of 10-10-2012, the plaintiff has not paid or offered to pay the balance sale amount.

11.Ex.A3 is the reply notice dated 18-11-2013 issued by the first defendant to the plaintiff’s advocate stating that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract and to pay the balance sale consideration, inspite of several oral requests and never approached the first defendant either before the stipulate time or thereafter and never demanded to receive the amount inorder to execute a registered sale deed and instead, expressed his inability to pay the balance sale consideration on the ground that he had no money to perform his part of contract and thereby the agreement contract stood cancelled on 10-10-2012.

12.Coming to the oral evidence of PW1, he reiterated the contents of plaint in his chief-examination affidavit. In the cross-examination, PW1 stated that after paying Rs.2,00,000/- they had Rs.3,00,000/- with them, for paying the same to the defendants and he requested one Nagarjuna Rao to lend money

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 20138 for interest at the rate of 8% or 12% per annum in the month of July 2012 and borrowed Rs.8,00,000/- and offered to pay the balance sale consideration to the first defendant and when he informed to the first defendant that she is required to get certificate from court as suggested by the sub-registrar, she accepted to get such certificate.

Except his oral evidence, the plaintiff has neither examined any witness nor filed any document to prove that the first defendant accepted to get permission from the court to sell the share of her minor daughter. On the other hand, PW1 admitted in the cross-examination that he got issued Ex.A2 on 8-11-2013 in which he did not mention about the requirement of obtaining certificate from the court and requirement of measuring the plaint schedule site and also about obtaining loan from Nagarjuna Rao. He also admitted that he did not mention either in Ex.A2 or in his pleadings that he was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration from the amount borrowed from Nagarjuna Rao. PW1 also admitted that

Ex.A1 stipulates that advance paid on the date of Ex.A1 would be forfeited in the event of not paying the balance sale consideration by 10-10-2012 and that the agreement shall stand cancelled and that there is no written evidence to show that he had been ready and willing to perform his part of contract by 10-10-2012. It is pertinent to note that the

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 20139 plaintiff did not examine Nagarjuna Rao from whom he alleged to have borrowed Rs.8,00,000/- for interest, to pay the balance sale consideration to the first defendant. In the absence of any evidence to that effect and in the absence of any recital in

Ex.A2 that the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration on or before 10-10-2012, the contention of the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, cannot be accepted.

13.PW2 is one of the attestor of Ex.A1. He deposed that

Ex.A1 transaction took place in his presence and the first defendant executed Ex.A1 after receiving an advance of

Rs.2,00,000/- and that the balance sale consideration of

Rs.10,00,000/- is payable on or before 10-10-2012, after due measurements according to the net site available on the ground.

In the cross-examination, PW2 admitted that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is payable on or before 10-10-2012 and in default, Ex.A1 agreement stands cancelled and the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is liable to be forfeited. He also stated that there is no dispute as to the measurements of area of the plaint schedule property and it is not necessary to measure the area once again. The evidence of PW2 shows that there is no dispute about the measurement of the land and it is not the reason for cancellation of Ex.A1. PW2 did not state in

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 201310 his entire evidence that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance sale consideration to the first defendant on or before 10-10-2012.

As such, the evidence of PW2 is not helpful to the plaintiff to show that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

14.The first defendant was examined as DW1 and she reiterated the averments of written statement in her chief examination affidavit. In the cross-examination, DW1 denied the suggestions that the recitals of Ex.A1 disclose that she being the guardian of the minor daughter, executed Ex.A1 to sell the entire property and the share of the minor shall be deposited in the bank by protecting the rights of minor. DW1 however admitted that till day she did not get the land surveyed through government surveyor and further did not get court order for selling the property of the minor. DW1 volunteered that the plaintiff approached her after the stipulated time mentioned in Ex.A1. She denied the suggestion that the plaintiff was always ready to pay the balance amount and to get registered the property. As already stated supra,

PW2 who is the witness of the plaintiff, stated in his cross- examination that there is no dispute as to the measurements of the area of the plaint schedule property and it is not necessary to measure the area once again. From the above evidence, it is

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 201311 clear that non-measuring of the land is not the reason for cancellation of Ex.A1, but as the plaintiff did not approach the first defendant within the stipulated time as mentioned in

Ex.A1, to pay the balance sale consideration, Ex.A1 stood cancelled and the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- stood forfeited as per terms of the contract.

15.On careful perusal of the oral documentary evidence of the plaintiff, no material is placed to show that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance sale consideration on or before 10-10-2012 and after a lapse of about 13 months, he issued Ex.A2 demanding the first defendant to execute a registered sale deed. When time is the essence of Ex.A1, the plaintiff ought to have paid the balance sale consideration on or before 10-10-2012 or should have atleast issued a notice before the said date expressing his ready and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration.

Ex.A2-notice does not contain any recital that the plaintiff expressed his willingness to pay the balance amount. It does not even show that the first defendant failed to measure the land on or before 10-10-2012. As such, the evidence of PW1 does not in any way establish his ready or willingness on his part, or the failure on the part of the first defendant to get the land measured or to obtain permission from the court. Since time is the essence of contract in the instant case and as the

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 201312 plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration on or

before 10-10-2012, this court has no hesitation to hold that

Ex.A1 stood cancelled on 10-10-2012.

16.The learned counsel for the first defendant relied on a citation between Saroj .Vs. Sunder Singh and Ors reported in 2013 (8) SUPREME 404 wherein it is held that “Where the father dies leaving behind only minor daughters and their mother as natural guardian, the share of the daughters became definite; the question of family partition retaining the character of joint Hindu Family property does not exist. In the present case, after the death of the father, the property has been shared amongst each member of the family and recorded in the mutation register having 1/4th share each. In such circumstances, the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 8 shall attract as the mother sold the property without previous permission of the Court. Hence, both the sale deeds executed by the second respondent in favour of the first respondent shall become voidable at the instance of the minor i.e. the appellant and the Proforma-respondent nos.4&5.”

The above case law is supporting the case of the first defendant. However, there is no evidence on record in the present case that non-obtaining of permission of the court is the reason for cancellation of Ex.A1, but it is due to the failure of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract by paying the balance consideration within the stipulated time.

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 201313

17.It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has not pleaded for refund of the earnest money in the plaint. It appears that the plaintiff has not taken such a plea as he knows that the earnest money is forfeited in view of cancellation of Ex.A1 as per the terms of contract. The learned counsel for the first defendant relied upon a decision between Narayana Reddy .Vs.

Khaja Gulam Mustafa reported in 2016 (2) ALD 503 wherein it is held that “Section 22(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act which starts with a non-obstante clause mandates that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code, any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may, in an appropriate case ask for any other relief to which he may be entitled, including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or made by him, in case his claim for specific performance is refused. Sub-section (2) of Section 22 expressly state that no relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of

Sub-section (1) shall be granted by the Court unless it has been specifically claimed. In view of the provision of law, the court below is right in not granting the relief of refund of earnest money and part of sale consideration paid as no relief alternatively for refund of the said amounts was claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not also make an attempt even during the pendency of the first appeal to seek an amendment of the plaint; the plaintiff had thus failed to seek the alternative relief. This Court accordingly holds that the plaintiff is not entitled to the aforementioned alternative relief.”

The plaintiff admittedly did not plead for refund of the advance amount in the plaint. In view of the provision

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 201314 mentioned in the above case law, the plaintiff is not entitled for refund of the advance amount paid under Ex.A1.

18.The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the following citations:

i) 2013 AIAR (Civil) 749 Supreme Court of India between

Vathsala Manickavasagam & Ors .Versus. N.Ganesan & Anr.

ii) 2011 AIAR (Civil) 171 Supreme Court of India between

D.N.Jeevaraju & Anr. .Versus. S.Sudhakar & Ors. Etc,.

The above two decisions are to the effect that admissions are binding on the parties. There is no dispute about the above proposition of law. In the instant case, though the first defendant admitted the execution of Ex.A1, it stood cancelled as the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract.

iii) 2006 AAIAR (Civil) 350 Supreme Court of India between

Bishwanath Prasad Singh .Vs. Rajendra Prasad & Anr.

iv) 2006 AIRR (Civil) 588 Supreme Court of India between

State Bank of India & Anr. .Vs. Mula Sahakari Sakhar

Karkhana Ltd.

In view of the above case law, the learned counsel for plaintiff argued that oral evidence contra to written recital in

Ex.A1 is barred. There is a recital in Ex.A1 that the first defendant undertook to get the suit plot measured prior to registration. In view of the evidence of PW2 who is the witness

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 201315 on plaintiff’s side, it is clear that there is no dispute about the measuring of the land and hence, the above case law is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

v) 2010 AIAR (Civil) 25 Supreme Court of India between

A.K.Lakshmiparhy (D) & Ors. .Vs. Rai Saheb Pannalal H. Lahoti

Charitable Trust & Ors.

vi) 2013 AIAR (Civil) 121 Supreme Court of India between

Satya Jain (D). Thr. Lrs. & Ors .Vs. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (D)

Thr. Lrs. & Ors for the proposition that time is not essence of contract in case of immovable property contracts.

In the present case on hand, there is specific mention that Ex.A1 would stand cancelled if the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration by 10-10-2012 and as such time is the essence of agreement. It is held in the above decision reported in 2010 AIAR 25 itself that where the parties to contract clearly expressly and specifically intended the time to be of essence of contract and expressly so provided in the contract, time would be treated to be of essence of agreement to sell.

vii) 2015 SAR (Civil) 82 Supreme Court between K.Prakash .Versus. B.r.Sampath Kumar viii)2015 SAR (Civil) 106 Supreme Court between Zarina

Siddiqui .Versus. A.Ramalingam alias R.Amarnathan

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 201316 for the proposition that inadequacy of sale consideration, subsequent rise in value is not a ground. There is no pleading on both sides in this regard in the present case, except suggestion in the cross-examination of DW1.

ix) 2017 (6) ALD SC 98 (SC) between Nadiminti Suryanarayan

Murthy (Dead) thr. LRs. .Vs. Kothurthi Krishna Bhaskara Rao and others

x) 2008 AIAR (Civil) 521 Supreme Court of India between

Shri Rameshwar Prasad (D) by LRs. .Versus. Shri Basanti Lal.

In the case reported in 2017 (6) ALD 98 SC, the agreement therein was proved to be bogus. It is not the case of any party in the present case that Ex.A1 is bogus.

It is held in the decision reported in 2008 AIAR 521 that

Section 16(c) of the Act mandates the plaintiff to aver in the plaint and establish as the fact by evidence that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. But the plaintiff in the present case, failed to establish his ready and willingness to perform his part of contract with cogent evidence.

19.In view of the above discussion, this court has no hesitation to hold that the first defendant is not entitled to sell the share of the minor in the plaint schedule property and that

Ex.A1 stood cancelled on 10-10-2012 as the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract. In view of the cancellation of

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 201317

Ex.A1, the defendants 1 and 2 are not liable to execute registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration from the plaintiff. Issues 1 to 3 are accordingly answered.

20.ISSUE No.4:To what relief?

In view of the finding on Issues 1 to 3, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

21.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20th day of August 2018.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff

P.W.1V.Vijaya Kumar, Son of V.Chennaiah, Resident of Sriram Nagar, Kurnool District.

P.W.2K.Gnana Murthy, Son of Late K.Nambiyar, Resident of Budhawara Peta, Kurnool City.

For Defendants

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 201318

D.W.1Gopal Das Anuradha, Wife of Late Gopal Das Balaswamy, Resident of Bandimetta Street, Kurnool.

P.D.J. O.S. 96 of 201319

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1Original Agreement of sale dated 2-6-2012 executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-.

Ex.A2Office copy of Legal Notice dated 8-11-2013 issued to the first defendant.

Ex.A3Office copy of Reply Notice dated 18-11-2013 issued by the first defendant.

For Defendants:

NIL

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

OS/77/2013 Compromised

D.Venkateswara Reddy vs V.Suresh Reddy

10 Aug 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

PRESENT: Smt. G.Anupama Chakravarthy,

Principal District Judge, Kurnool.

Friday, the 10th day of August 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.77 of 2013

D.Venkateswara Reddy … Plaintiff -Versus-

V.Suresh Reddy . . Defendant

This suit coming on 26-06-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Hanumantha Reddy, Sri.S.V.Sathya

Reddy, Advocates for the plaintiff and Sri.Paluru Yellappa and

Sri.Paluru Ravi Guvera, Advocates for the defendant and having heard on plaintiff’s side and treated as heard for the defendant; upon perusing the material available 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 by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of

Rs.77,00,000/- being the principal and interest on two promissory notes dated 6-11-2010 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.25,00,000/- each.

2)The averments in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

P.D.J. O.S. 77 of 20132

On 6-11-2010 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.50,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his business necessities and executed two promissory notes for Rs.25,00,000/- each, agreeing to repay the same on demand to the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the borrowed amount. The rate of interest is not specified in the suit promissory notes and the interest is calculated at the rate of 18% per annum on the principal amounts as per Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Hence, the suit.

3)Notice served upon the defendant.

4)The defendant filed written statement denying the material averments made in the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff misled the court by suppressing the true facts and chosen to take the jurisdiction of the court with an intention to harass the defendant and to bring him to his terms. As per

Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, suits shall be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. In this case, as per version of the plaintiff, the defendant is residing at Hyderabad and was residing there itself when the alleged promissory note was signed. The plaintiff concealed the previous litigations and cases pending between the plaintiff and the defendant. On 6-11-2010, the defendant was present

P.D.J. O.S. 77 of 20133 in Hyderabad before the Lok Adalat, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad, to compromise the litigation pending between the company in which the defendant was the Director and several other claimants of whom the plaintiff was one. The defendant at the time of settlement of litigation, had signed several papers and also pronotes and cheques which were given as surety as part of the compromise at Hyderabad, and the defendant is not sure whether the promissory notes filled by the plaintiff claiming the suit amount, were signed by him or were forged for the purpose of the suit and hence, the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. There has been a history of litigations pending between the plaintiff and investors in the plaintiff’s company and in the year 2009 the defendant had settled all the claims and had entered into Memorandum of Compromise

before the Lok Adalat at Hyderabad. Several claimants had also

filed several suits against the company in which the defendant was the director, for recovery of money which they had forwarded as unsecured loan. After the suits were filed, the directors of the company had entered into a Memorandum of understanding and according to the understanding and the

Award passed by the Lok Adalat, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.671 of 2009, the defendant would retire as partner from the partnership Firm M/s.Sri Sai Mourya Estate and Tech

Park by transferring all his rights and interest over a sum of

P.D.J. O.S. 77 of 20134

Rs.3,09,07,443/- in favour of the plaintiff herein and others and further he shall transfer all his rights and interest over a sum of Rs.58,25,000/- in favour of the investors. On the date of compromise, the plaintiff herein took signatures of the defendant on several printed documents, transfer papers, promissory notes etc., towards security till the defendant retires and transfers all his rights and interest of the partnership firm and it was agreed that the plaintiff shall return all the documents on which he had obtained signatures of the defendant, once the settlement is done as per the memorandum of compromise. On 6-11-2010 the defendant and others appeared before the Lok Adalat and compromised and settled their pending issues and when the plaintiff had been in litigation with the defendant, how can the plaintiff forward the alleged loan to the defendant inspite of the fact that the defendant had transferred his share of property in their favour as he had defaulted the payment. The defendant transferred his shares in the name of plaintiff and others as per the memorandum of understanding, but the plaintiff failed to return the promissory note to the defendant and instead, misused the same and filed the suit taking undue advantage of illegal custody of the promissory notes. The defendant was not present at Kurnool on 6-11-2010 and never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he was present before the Lok

P.D.J. O.S. 77 of 20135

Adalat at Hyderabad. The promissory note was issued towards security till the shares of the firm were transferred in the name of plaintiff and others as per the memorandum of understanding.

The defendant further submitted that the defendant was surprised to receive summons in the suit for the reason that since the date of compromise before Lok Adalat, Hyderabad, the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant was strained and there were no talking terms and hence the question of defendant requesting the plaintiff to forward loan, does not arise. The plaintiff filed the suit without giving any proper demand notice to the defendant. The plaintiff filed the suit after waiting for three years, keeping in mind the old enmity, with an intention to harass the defendant. There is no cause of action to file the suit and the plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands by misrepresenting the true facts.

The defendant filed documentary evidence to show that he was at Hyderabad before the Lok Adalat to settle the disputes between the Firm, plaintiff and other investors. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5)On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for discussion.

P.D.J. O.S. 77 of 20136

1.Whether the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed two promissory notes, each for Rs.25,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff on 6-11-2010 at Kurnool?

2.Whether the Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this suit?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount from the defendant, as prayed for?

4.To what relief?

6)The plaintiff to prove his case, examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. On the other hand, the defendant filed his chief examination affidavit as DW1, but failed to appear for the cross-examination inspite of several adjournments and as such, the chief affidavit of

DW1 was eschewed and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendant.

7)Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

Inspite of posting the suit as a last chance for hearing the arguments on behalf of the defendant, there was no representation for the defendant on 26-06-2018 till 5 P.M, hence the arguments for the defendant were treated as heard.

8)Perused the material available on record.

9)ISSUE Nos.1 and 2:

P.D.J. O.S. 77 of 20137

1.Whether the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed two promissory notes, each for Rs.25,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff on 6-11-2010 at Kurnool?

2.Whether the Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this suit?

Issues 1 and 2 are inter-connected with each other; hence they are discussed together.

It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from him on 06-11-2010 and executed Exs.A1 and A2-promissory notes in his favour and later did not repay the amount inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff. Since the rate of interest is not specified in the suit promissory notes, the interest is calculated at 18% per annum on the principal amount, as per section 80 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the oral evidence of PW1 is supported with the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and the documentary evidence under

Exs.A1 and A2 and hence prayed to decree the suit.

On the other hand, the defence taken by the defendant in his written statement is that there were previous litigations between the plaintiff and defendant and on such litigation in

O.S.No.671 of 2009 was settled before the Lok Adalat at City

Civil Court, Hyderabad on 6-11-2010 between the plaintiff and

P.D.J. O.S. 77 of 20138 defendant; that on the said date the defendant signed on several documents towards security and the plaintiff taking undue advantage of the illegal possession of the promissory notes, filed the suit to harass him and to bring him to his terms. It is the further case of the defendant that Exs.A1 and

A2 were signed at Hyderabad but the plaintiff filed the suit at

Kurnool and as such this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit; that the plaintiff filed the suit by suppressing the facts and therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.

10)It is necessary to scrutinize the evidence of PW1 and

Exs.A1 and A2 in order to come to a conclusion whether the suit promissory notes were executed by the defendant after receiving the consideration under Exs.A1 and A2 from the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was examined as PW1 by filing his chief affidavit in lieu of chief-examination and he reiterated the entire facts of the plaint in his chief affidavit, and Exs.A1 and

A2 were marked. Exs.A1 and A2 are the suit promissory notes

dated 6-11-2010 executed by the defendant in favour of the

plaintiff.

11)It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that he is doing real estate business and studied upto B.Com and that he is a resident of H.No.40/448-3, Gypsum Colony, Vittal Nagar,

P.D.J. O.S. 77 of 20139

Kurnool. PW1 admitted that he has not filed any document to show that he is residing in the said address and he stated that he cannot say as to how many days he will reside at Hyderabad and Kurnool. PW1 stated that he knew the defendant since 15 to 20 years and the defendant has real estate business, under the name and style Sai Mourya Company. It is elicited that there were disputes between PW1 and the defendant since 2009 and the defendant preferred report against him and another before the Banjara Hills police station which is subject matter of CC.No.915/2010 on the file of XVII ACMM, Nampally

Courts, Hyderabad, which ended in acquittal in the year 2016.

PW1 denied the suggestion that there are no talking terms between him and the defendant since the date of filing the report against him. PW1 stated that on 6-11-2010 the defendant came down to Kurnool from Hyderabad along with his two friends and took the amounts from him at Kurnool, but he do not remember the names of the friends of defendant and do not remember the denominations of the cash given to the defendant. PW1 stated that the promissory notes under Exs.A1 and A2 were scribed in his office by the friend of defendant and the defendant signed them. PW1 stated that he is an income tax assesse for the past 10 years and filed separate assessments individually as well as on behalf of the company.

PW1 denied the suggestion that he took signatures of the

P.D.J. O.S. 77 of 201310 defendant on the promissory notes and cheques at the time of settlement before the Lok Adalat which took place at the City

Civil Courts, Hyderabad. He denied the suggestion that Exs.A1 and A2 were signed by the defendant at Hyderabad and not at

Kurnool. PW1 admitted that the plaint particulars do not contain that the amount was borrowed at Kurnool, but volunteered that he stated to his counsel that the amounts were borrowed by the defendant at Kurnool. He also denied that as the defendant took the plea of jurisdiction, he mentioned in his chief affidavit for the first time that the amounts were borrowed at Kurnool. PW1 also stated that the defendant borrowed amounts from him promising to repay within 10 days, but did not repay and was not in touch with him and so he preferred the suit. PW1 denied the suggestion that Exs.A1 and A2 were taken by him as security for settlement in Lok Adalat and he misused them and filed the false case.

Though the learned Counsel for the defendant cross- examined PW1, nothing useful could be elicited in support of the defence taken by the defendant.

12)The plaintiff also examined the attestors of Exs.A1 and

A2 as PWs.2 and 3 who categorically stated in their chief examination affidavits that on 6-11-2010 the defendant

P.D.J. O.S. 77 of 201311 borrowed Rs.50,00,000/- from the plaintiff at Kurnool for his business needs and executed Exs.A1 and A2 each for

Rs.25,00,000/- in their presence and at the instance of plaintiff and defendant, they attested Exs.A1 and A2.

It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW2 that he knew the plaintiff and defendant for past 15 years; that he was present in the office of the plaintiff at about 8-30 to 9-30 P.M when the defendant came along with his friends and the plaintiff paid the amount in the denomination of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/-. PW2 also stated in the cross-examination that

Exs.A1 and A2 were brought by the defendant and were scribed in his presence by the friend of the defendant. PW2 denied the suggestion that the defendant did not come to

Kurnool on 6-11-2010 and did not execute Exs.A1 and A2 and did not receive any amount from the plaintiff and that Exs.A1 and A2 were given as security at Hyderabad in view of compromise before Lok Adalat. It is elicited in the cross- examination of PW3 that Exs.A1 and A2 were executed at 8-30 P.M and that the defendant stayed in the office of plaintiff for one hour upto 9-30 P.M. PW3 stated that the defendant made two signatures on each pronote and the denomination of the amount is Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- currency notes. PW3 stated that the friends of defendant did not sign on Exs.A1 and

A2. PW3 also denied the suggestion that the defendant did not

P.D.J. O.S. 77 of 201312 come down to Kurnool from Hyderabad on 6-11-2010 and the plaintiff did not pay him Rs.50,00,000/- under Exs.A1 and A2 and that he did not act as attestor.

Nothing worthwhile was elicited in support of the case of defendant, from the cross-examination of PWs.2 and 3 inspite of their lengthy cross-examination.

13)The defendant, though filed his chief examination affidavit as DW1 reiterating the facts mentioned in the written statement, on 5-1-2018, did not appear for the cross- examination on 1-5-2018. The defendant also remained absent on 2-5-2018 and as such his chief affidavit was eschewed and the defendant side evidence was closed.

14)The defendant did not make any efforts to bring back the evidence by filing recall petition. Even the arguments were not advanced on behalf of the defendant inspite of granting three adjournments and as there was no representation for the defendant till 5 P.M on 26-6-2018, the arguments for defendant were treated as heard.

15)On perusal of Exs.A1 and A2 suit promissory notes, it is evident that the defendant having borrowed an amount of

Rs.50,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 6-11-2010, executed

Exs.A1 and A2 in favour of the plaintiff. In support of his case, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and he categorically

P.D.J. O.S. 77 of 201313 deposed about the borrowing of amount by the defendant. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by PWs.2 and 3 in all aspects.

The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 shows that they were present at the time of execution of Exs.A1 and A2 by the defendant and in their presence the plaintiff paid the amount in the denominations of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- currency notes.

Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3 to disprove the case of the plaintiff. The defendant did not choose to enter the witness box nor examined any other witness on his behalf, to disprove the case of the defendant. On the other hand, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 proves that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.50,00,000/- from the plaintiff in cash under Exs.A1 and A2.

Hence, the execution of Exs.A1 and A2 and the passing of consideration is proved by the plaintiff.

16)It is the contention of the defendant in his written statement that Exs.A1 and A2 were not executed at Kurnool, but he signed them at Hyderabad on 6-11-2010 at the time of settlement of the matter in O.S.No.671/2009 in the City Civil

Court, Hyderabad, as a security and as such, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendant did not choose to produce any oral or documentary evidence to prove the said fact. There is no evidence to show that Exs.A1 and A2 were executed towards security in connection with the previous

P.D.J. O.S. 77 of 201314 litigations. The said plea taken by the defendant that he signed Exs.A1 and A2 at Hyderabad and not at Kurnool, shows that he is admitting the execution of Exs.A1 and A2, but only denying that they were not executed at Kurnool. On the other hand, as already stated supra, the plaintiff by examining himself a PW1 and the attestors of Exs.A1 and A2 as PWs.2 and 3, proved that the suit promissory notes were executed at

Kurnool and the cash consideration was passed to the defendant. Hence, the contention of the defendant that Exs.A1 and A2 were not executed at Kurnool and this court has no jurisdiction, cannot be accepted.

In the absence of contra evidence to disprove the case of the plaintiff, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has successfully established that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 6-11-2010 and executed Exs.A1 and A2 at Kurnool after receiving the cash consideration.

These Issues are thus answered accordingly.

17)ISSUE No.3:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount from the defendant, as prayed for?

P.D.J. O.S. 77 of 201315

In view of the findings of this Court on Issues 1 ad 2, this

Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that there no rate of interest specified in Exs.A1 and A2, but the plaintiff mentioned in the plaint that he is claiming interest at the rate of 18% per annum as per section 80 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 80 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act reads thus:

“When no rate of interest is specified in the instrument, interest on the amount due thereon shall, [notwithstanding any agreement relating to interest between any parties to the instrument], be calculated at the rate of [eighteen per cent per annum], from the date at which the same ought to have been paid by the party charged, until tender or realization of the amount due thereon, or until such date after the institution of a suit to recover such amount as the Court directs.”

In view of the above provision, the claim of interest made by the plaintiff at 18% per annum, is sustainable. Hence, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount from the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

Therefore, this Issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

18)ISSUE No.4:

To what relief?

P.D.J. O.S. 77 of 201316

In view of the findings of this Court on Issue Nos.1 to 3, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount with costs and interest from the defendant.

19)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.38,50,000/- + Rs.38,50,000/- = Rs.77,00,000/- (Rupees seventy seven lakhs only) (towards Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum adjudged, i.e.,

Rs.25,00,000/- + Rs.25,00,000/-, respectively.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 10 th day of August

2018.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1D.Venkateswara Reddy, Son of D.Gur Reddy, Resident of Vittal Nagar, Kurnool.

P.W.2Shaik Ali, Son of S.Moula Miskin, Resident of Dharmapeta, Kurnool.

P.D.J. O.S. 77 of 201317

P.W.3A.Venkatesh Gupta, Son of A.Sudhakar, Resident of Gandhi Nagar, Kurnool.

For Defendant:-

D.W.1V.Suresh Reddy, Son of V.Rosi Reddy, Resident of Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

(Chief examination affidavit of D.W.1 was eschewed as per docket order dated 2.5.2018).

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 Promissory note dated 6.11.2010 along with the receipt for Rs.25,00,000/-.

Ex.A2 Another promissory note dated 6.11.2010 along with the receipt for Rs.25,00,000/-.

For Defendant:- Nil

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

MVOP/139/2014

P.Venkateswarlu vs Boya Nagaseshi

14 Jul 2017

MVOP 139 of PDJ1 2014

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL –CUM- PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KURNOOL

PRESENT: Smt. G.Anupama Chakravarthy, Chairperson, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool -cum- Principal District Judge, Kurnool

Friday, the 14th day of July 2017

MVOP No.139 of 2014

P.Venkateswarlu..Petitioner

-Versus-

1. Boya Nagaseshi

2. The Divisional Manager,..Respondents

M/s.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kurnool

This petition coming on 13-06-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy and Smt.K.Jayanthi,

Advocates for the petitioner and Sri V.V. Augustine, Advocate for the second respondent; the first respondent having remained ex parte; having heard on both sides; upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-

O R D E R

Claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- in total, the petitioner in the capacity of the injured, has come up with this petition against the respondents 1 and 2, invoking Section 166 (1)

(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

MVOP 139 of PDJ2 2014

2. The facts of the case, in brief, as narrated in the petition, are that on 19-12-2013, after completion of their work in Vemula village, the petitioner as the pillion rider and one Allibabu as rider started from the said village on a motorcycle bearing registration

No.AP22AJ-6324 and one Ayyanna started on another motorcycle in order to go to their village, Gokulapadu and at about 10.20 a.m., when they reached near Bharat Petroleum Bunk, which is situated in between Boravelli to Manopadu stage on NH44 road, Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.AP22W-5170, being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner fell on the ground and sustained grievous injuries. In the accident, the petitioner sustained fractures to his left leg ankle, left leg tibia and fibula and left leg femur, apart from head injury and other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Renuka Multi Speciality

Hospital, Kurnool for treatment, where the petitioner underwent operation and steel rods were inserted and he incurred

Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical and attendant charges.

It is contended by the petitioner that he was hale and healthy, aged about 45 years and was earning a sum of Rs.300/- per day by doing coolie work. Due to fractures and grievous injuries sustained, the petitioner is unable to do coolie work and as such, he lost his income, as he became permanently disabled and therefore, the first respondent, being the owner of Tata Ace vehicle

MVOP 139 of PDJ3 2014 bearing registration No.AP22W-5170 and the second respondent, being its insurer, are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner to the extent claimed.

3.Notice served upon the respondents 1 and 2.

4.The first respondent remained ex parte.

5.The second respondent, who came on record, filed counter, denying all the material averments in the petition with regard to the date, place, time and the manner in which the accident occurred, the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, his hospitalization, his age, occupation and income as on the date of the accident, the aspect of disability and contended that it is for the petitioner to prove all those facts by documentary evidence.

The second respondent contended that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the petitioner, who was driving the motorcycle and as such, the owner and the insurer of the motorcycle are necessary parties to this petition. It is further contended by the second respondent that the alleged accident took place on 19-12-2013 at 10.20 a.m., but F.I.R. was lodged on 27-12-2013 at 4.00 p.m., as such, the occurrence is highly suspicious. It is also contended by the second respondent that

Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.AP22W-5170 was planted with the help of the first respondent in order to help the petitioner.

It is the another contention of the second respondent that the driver of Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.AP22W-5170 was

MVOP 139 of PDJ4 2014 not having a valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident, hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. It is also contended by the second respondent that the compensation and the interest claimed are excessive. By stating so, the second respondent prayed this Court to dismiss the petition with costs.

6.On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.AP22W-5170?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?

3. To what relief?

7.The petitioner, to prove his claim, examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 and Ex.X1.

On behalf of the second respondent, RW1 was examined and

Ex.B1 was got marked.

8.Heard on both sides. Gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner as well as the second respondent.

MVOP 139 of PDJ5 2014

9.ISSUE No.1:

Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.AP22W-5170?

The version of the petitioner is that the accident solely occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.AP22W-5170. The contention of the second respondent is that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner, to establish his version, besides examining himself as PW1, also produced Exs.A1 and A2, which are the certified copies of F.I.R. and charge-sheet.

PW1 gave evidence to the effect that on 19-12-2013 at about 10.20 a.m., the driver of Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration

No.AP22W-5170 came at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his motorcycle, on which he (PW1) was riding as a pillion rider, due to which, he fell down and sustained injuries.

In the cross-examination, PW1 denied the suggestion of the learned Counsel for the second respondent that he foisted a false case against the driver of the first respondent in collusion with the first respondent, to gain wrongfully and to cause loss to the second respondent. PW1 admitted in the cross-examination that he did not lodge complaint to the police, but one Ayyanna gave report to the police. PW1 stood on his stand even in the cross-examination

MVOP 139 of PDJ6 2014 that he was pillion rider and one Alli Babu was the rider of the motorcycle at the time of the accident.

10.RW1, who is the Legal Officer of the second respondent, gave evidence to the effect that there is an unexplained delay of 9 days in lodging complaint to the police, which gives rise to a legitimate suspicion that the alleged accident never occurred in the manner stated by the petitioner and that F.I.R. in Crime No.166 of 2013 came into existence with the help of the first respondent and hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

In the cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, RW1 clearly admitted that Ex.A1 discloses the reasons for the delay in reporting the matter to the police that the complainant assisted the injured person. RW1 further admitted that the report of the defacto-complainant also discloses that the report was not preferred, as he assisted the injured. It was also admitted by RW1 that Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and Ex.X1 disclose that the accident occurred on 19-12-2013. RW1 further stated that they did not nominate any Investigator to examine the owner and driver of the crime vehicle.

11.Ex.A1, which is the certified copy of First Information Report in Crime No.166 of 2013 of Manopad Police Station, disclose that basing on the written complaint given by one P.Ayyana, a case was registered against the driver of Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration

MVOP 139 of PDJ7 2014

No.AP22W-5170. Ex.A1 further discloses that under Column

No.8, the reasons for the delay in reporting the matter is mentioned as the complainant assisted the injured. Ex.A2, which is the certified copy of charge sheet in Crime No.166 of 2013 of Manopad

Police Station, disclose that after due investigation, the Sub

Inspector of Police, Manopad Police Station laid charge sheet against A.Madanna, who was the driver of Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.AP22W-5170 at the relevant time of the accident, for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of Indian

Penal Code.

12.Except the evidence of RW1, who is not an eye-witness to the accident, the second respondent did not choose to adduce any other oral evidence in order to establish its contentions that the accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioner or due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle.

13.It is clear from the documentary evidence of Exs.A1 and A2, coupled with the oral evidence of PW1 that a case was registered against the driver of the first respondent and the police have laid a charge sheet against the said driver. It is well settled that delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be a ground to doubt the petitioner’s case.

It is the human tendency that whenever any accident occurs, more importance will be given to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. In the present case, the delay in lodging report to the police was clearly explained and the same was also

MVOP 139 of PDJ8 2014 admitted by RW1 in the cross-examination. Even otherwise, the said delay would not be fatal to the claim of the petitioner.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has successfully established that only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent, the accident occurred and that the owner and the insurer of the motorcycle, which is also involved in the accident, are not necessary parties to this petition.

Therefore, this issue is settled in favour of the petitioner.

14.ISSUE No.2:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?

The claim of the petitioner is for Rs.4,00,000/- in total. The second respondent contended that the said claim is excessive and exorbitant. The contention of the petitioner is that he sustained fractures to his left leg ankle, left leg tibia and fibula and left leg femur, apart from head injury and other multiple injuries all over the body and immediately after the accident, he was shifted to

Renuka Multi Speciality Hospital, Kurnool for treatment, where he underwent operation and steel rods were inserted and he incurred

Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical and attendant charges.

15.In order to establish the injuries sustained by him in the accident, the petitioner got examined the doctors as PW2 and PW3.

PW2 is the consultant at Renuka Multi Speciality Hospital,

Kurnool, who treated the petitioner. It is the evidence of PW2 that

MVOP 139 of PDJ9 2014

PW1 was admitted in Renuka Multi Speciality Hospital, Kurnool on 19-12-2013 with fractures of right femur and both bones of left leg and both wrists and he was operated on 22-12-2013 by interlocking nailing of right femur and plating of tibia and fibula and plating of left radius was also done to PW1 and he was discharged on 31-12-2013. Ex.X1 is the case sheet of the petitioner maintained by the said hospital. It is the specific evidence of PW2 that after discharge, the petitioner approached him at regular intervals for follow up treatment and though both bones were united, there is shortening of left limb by half inch and right limb by 1 centimeter and the petitioner needs assistance for attending his normal pursuits. PW2 also admitted that Exs.A3 and A4 were issued by the said hospital. PW2 further deposed that except the bill pertaining to blood bank, which is present in Ex.A7, all other bills were issued by their hospital.

In the cross examination, PW2 admitted that the relevant prescriptions are not found in Ex.A7 bunch of medical bills, however, he stated that those bills contain his signatures.

16.PW3 is one of the members of the Medical Board, Government

General Hospital, Mahabubnagar District, who examined PW1 and issued disability certificate, being the member of the Medical Board.

It is the specific evidence of PW3 that the petitioner sustained disability of 45% for post-traumatic sequel left lower limb and the petitioner had fracture of left femur and fracture of both bones of left leg, for which Ex.A5 disability certificate was issued by the

MVOP 139 of PDJ10 2014

Medical Board, in which he signed. It is also the testimony of PW3 that there is shortening of 1 ½ inch left lower limb of the petitioner and he needs stick for support throughout his life and he cannot do his regular professional work and will have difficulty in regular work and he cannot sit cross legs and squat.

In the cross examination, PW3 deposed that the disability of 45% assessed by him is only in respect of left leg and not the whole body. However, PW3 denied that the disability of the petitioner assessed at 45% is on a higher side.

17.It is pertinent to mention that Ex.A3 is the certified copy of wound certificate of the petitioner issued by Renuka Multi

Speciality Hospital, Kurnool, which discloses that the petitioner sustained three grievous injuries – (1) head injury, (2) fracture of left femur and (3) fracture of left leg. Ex.A4 discharge summary supports the evidence of PW1 and PW2. On perusal of Ex.A5, disability certificate, it reveals that it was issued by Government

Medical Board, Mahabubnagar. As per Ex.A5, the petitioner has 45% disability. Thus, through the oral evidence of PW3 and the documentary evidence of Ex.A5, the petitioner could able to establish that he has sustained 45% disability.

18.The evidence of PW1 goes to show that he was aged 45 years by the date of the accident. In Ex.A5, disability certificate, the age of the petitioner is mentioned as 49 years. Ex.A5 was issued in the year 2014. The accident in this case took place on

MVOP 139 of PDJ11 2014 19-12-2013. So, as per Ex.A5, the petitioner was aged 48 years by the date of the accident. For the age group of 46-50 years, the appropriate multiplier that can be taken as per the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Sarla Verma and others,

Appellants -Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and another, respondents”1, is “13”. The petitioner contended that he was doing coolie work and getting income of Rs.300/- per day. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file any convincing material to establish his income. Assuming for a moment that the petitioner is a non earning member of the family too, as per the above cited decision, i.e., Sarla Verma’s case, the earnings of a non earning member shall be taken as Rs.100/- per day. Hence, the income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. The total earning power of the petitioner comes to Rs.36,000/-. As per the multiplier, the total earning power of the petitioner comes to

Rs.4,68,000/-, i.e., Rs.36,000/- x 13. As per Ex.A5, the disability of the petitioner is 45%. So, the loss of earning power of the petitioner comes to Rs.2,10,600/-, i.e., Rs.4,68,000/- x 45%.

19.The petitioner has pleaded that he incurred an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical and attendant charges and deposed as PW1 that he incurred an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- towards medical and attendant charges. As already stated, PW2 deposed that except the bill pertaining to blood bank, which is present in

Ex.A7, all other bills were issued by their hospital. The medical 12009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MVOP 139 of PDJ12 2014 bills under Ex.A7 are to the tune of Rs.3,11,864/-. In view of the evidence of PW2, this Court is inclined to grant to the petitioner an amount of Rs.3,11,864/- towards medical expenses.

20.It is an admitted fact that the accident occurred within the limits of Manopad and from there, the petitioner was shifted to

Renuka Multi Speciality Hospital, Kurnool for treatment. Though specific transportation bills are not filed by the petitioner, this

Court is of the considered view that the petitioner can be granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. Apart from that, the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, which he might have suffered during the course of treatment. The petitioner might have spent some amount for having extra nourishment during the period of his treatment for having a speedy recovery. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges.

As per Ex.A3 wound certificate, the petitioner sustained three grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of

Rs.45,000/-, i.e., Rs.15,000/- x 3, towards three grievous injuries.

Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to compensation under the following heads.

MVOP 139 of PDJ13 2014

Loss of earning power :Rs.2,10,600=00

Medical expenses:Rs.3,11,864=00

Transport charges:Rs. 5,000=00

Pain and suffering during :Rs. 25,000=00 treatment

Extra nourishment:Rs. 5,000=00

Attendant charges:Rs. 10,000=00

Pain and suffering for three :Rs. 45,000=00 grievous injuries at the rate of Rs.15,000/- for each injury

TOTAL Rs.6,12,464=00 :

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the written arguments filed in this O.P. that though the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, this Court has got powers to award compensation more than the amount claimed. The petitioner has not taken steps to amend the petition, enhancing his claim from Rs.4,00,000/- to a higher amount. Therefore, as the claim of the petitioner is only Rs.4,00,000/-, the compensation is restricted to the said amount only.

21.The contents of Ex.B1 Insurance Policy go to show that the offending vehicle was insured with the second respondent and that the policy stood subsisting when the accident occurred. There is no evidence on record to show that the first respondent violated the terms and conditions of Ex.B1 policy. The petitioner herein is a third party and therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to answer the

MVOP 139 of PDJ14 2014 claim of the petitioner, as the policy covers the risk of the petitioner.

Thus, this Issue is answered partly in favour of the petitioner.

22.ISSUE No.3:

To what relief?

In the result, the petition is allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) to the petitioner together with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.

The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the entire amount within one month from the date of this order.

On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- immediately after deposit and the remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with accrued interest shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years and he is permitted to withdraw the said amount with accrued interest after expiry of the said period.

However, the Award becomes executable only on payment of the exempted Court fee by the petitioner.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14 th day of July 2017.

Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- Principal

District Judge, Kurnool

MVOP 139 of PDJ15 2014

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:

P.W.1:P.Venkateswarlu, S/o Peddanna, Resident of Gokulapadu Village, Manopadu Mandal, Mahaboob Nagar District, now residing at Panchalingala Village, Kurnool Mandal and District.

P.W.2:J.Raghunatha Reddy, S/o J.Yella Reddy, Kurnool.

P.W.3:Dr.S.Chakradhar Goud, S/o S.Chandra Shekar Goud, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Mahaboobnagar.

For Respondent No.2:

RW1:K.Kamal, S/o K.Narayanan, Legal Officer, M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool.

Exhibits marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of First Information Report in Crime No.166 of 2013 of Manopadu Police Station.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A3:Certified copy of wound certificate.

Ex.A4:Original discharge card.

Ex.A5:Copy of disability certificate issued by Medical Board, Mahaboob Nagar.

Ex.A6:Copy of identity card for person with disability.

Ex.A7:Original 21 medical bills amounting Rs.3,11,864.42/-.

Ex.X1:Case sheet of P.W.1.

For Respondent No.2:

Ex.B1:TruecopyofInsurancepolicybearing No.433100/31/2014/2736 issued by R.W.1 company for the TATA ACE Auto bearing No.AP22.W.5170 for the period 22.11.2013 to 21.11.2014.

MVOP 139 of PDJ16 2014

Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- Principal

District Judge, Kurnool.

Order Record 1,287 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
AS/49/2014	V.Krishnaiah alias Krishna Murthy vs Chakali Somanna	31 Dec 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/64/2018	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited., vs T.Sudhakar	31 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
EP/678/2016	Ms Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., vs M.Hari Krishna	31 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
AS/6/2016	K.Venkateswara Reddy vs T.Venugopal Reddy	28 Dec 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/578/2017	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd., vs D.Bala Nagamma	28 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
EP/921/2016	Ms Shriram Transport Fin. Co. Ltd., vs J.Eranna	28 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
EP/1446/2017	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited., vs S.Abdul Rasool	28 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
MVOP/545/2015	M.Masthan Vali vs S.Venkat Reddy	28 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
MVOP/546/2015	J.Sailaja vs S.Venkat Reddy	28 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
MVOP/547/2015	J.Ananthamma vs S.Venkat Reddy	28 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
MVOP/548/2015	J.Praveen Rangaiah vs S.Venkat Reddy	28 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
OP/67/2018	Ramineedi Premalatha vs M.Mariya Surendra	28 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
OP/68/2018	P.Rajasekhar vs Pusthela Lavanya	28 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
OP/121/2017	Kurla Venkata Lakshmi vs Bheemarasetti Eswara Rao	28 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/76/2015	P.Gopal vs G.Malyadri	24 Dec 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CRLA/178/2017	Seelam Mallaiah vs State rep. by its S.H.O.	21 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
OP/65/2018	Battu Pushpanjali vs Battu Vijayaraju alias Jayanna	20 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
CRLA/199/2016	Manchala Maddilety Reddy vs State rep. by SHO of	20 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
T.R.O.P/72/2018	Sugali Kodavath Balachandra Naik vs Sugali Kodavath Samakka Bai	20 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
MVOP/35/2018	Midde Murthujabi alias Shaik Murthujabi vs Syed Mahammad Yusuf	19 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/140/2014	K.Sandya Rani vs Yerraguntla Renuka Devi	19 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
OP/61/2018	Uppalapati Victor Devadanam vs Uppalapati Hepsiba	18 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
SC/57/2017	State rep. by Inspector of Police vs Addakula Yella Raju	18 Dec 2018	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
G.W.O.P/30/2018	Yerrannagari Venkata Subbamma vs Nil	18 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
EP/931/2017	SriRama Chandra Murthy vs Shaik Nazeer Ahammed	17 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
OP/101/2018	Shanti alias Akepogu Jayanthi vs Nil	17 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
AS/15/2016	D.K.Ravi alias D.K.Ravindranath vs K.Mahesh	14 Dec 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/150/2017	Ms Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs P.Nagendra	14 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
EP/747/2016	Ms Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., vs D.Khader Basha	14 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
EP/1209/2016	Vijayalakshmi Devi vs A.M.Naveen	14 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
MVOP/1/2015	E.Rama Krishna Goud vs APSRTC	13 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/41/2015	S.Sartaz vs M.Ibrahim	13 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
T.R.O.P/45/2018	G.Srisailavasa vs G.Eswaramma	13 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
EP/997/2017	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited., vs S.Mahaboobullah	12 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
MVOP/143/2012	C.B.Swamy Rangaiah and 3 others vs Mr.Bhaudessai and 3 others	12 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
OP/62/2018	Smt.M.Nagendramma vs M.Babu Manohar Prem Kumar	11 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
G.W.O.P/20/2018	K.Madhavi Latha vs The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, VM Branch, Knl	11 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
T.R.O.P/36/2017	Momin Beejan vs Gajula Arif	11 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
EP/70/2014	Ms Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd., vs K.Lakshmi	10 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
EP/270/2017	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs C.Hanumanthu	10 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
MVOP/196/2014	Golla Sreeramulu vs D.P.Rama Naik	10 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
CRLA/203/2016	Ragimani Gandhar vs State by SHO of	10 Dec 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
T.R.CRLMP/1415/2017	Shaik Chandini vs S.K.Sulthan	10 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
MVOP/40/2018	Chinna Bushi Krishnaveni vs Gundrathi Nagalakshmi	08 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
MVOP/142/2015	Boya Guntha Venkateswarlu alias Guntha Venkateswar vs M.Sudhakar Reddy	08 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
MVOP/150/2017	Danamma vs T.Narasimha Rao	08 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
MVOP/252/2018	Golla Lakshmi Narayana vs Gadda Mahesh	08 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
MVOP/309/2018	T.Tulisamma vs Shaik Mohammad Rafi	08 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
MVOP/310/2018	P.Sreenivasulu vs Shaik Mohammad Rafi	08 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
MVOP/311/2018	P.Chandra Shekar vs Shaik Mohammad Rafi	08 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
MVOP/312/2018	P.Ravi vs Shaik Mohammad Rafi	08 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
MVOP/393/2017	Shameem Bhanu vs Vs	08 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
MVOP/556/2015	Pothula Pratap vs Varalakshmi Narayana	08 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
MVOP/559/2017	Bobbala Bayamma vs Bollavaram Parameswara reddy	08 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
MVOP/679/2017	Alakunta Subbarayudu vs S.Venkata Rami Reddy	08 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
MVOP/314/2016	S.Akbar Basha vs Ginjagalla Balaiah	07 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
MVOP/315/2016	Rajoli Masthan vs Ginjagalla Balaiah	07 Dec 2018	Copy of other	—
SC/28/2017	State rep. by the Inspector of PS vs Pulakurthy Prahlada Reddy	07 Dec 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/354/2017	Shriram city union finance limited pvt.ltd., vs P.Suman	06 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
EP/1039/2017	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited vs G.Kasaiah	06 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
SC/305/2017	State rep. by Inspector of police vs Kuruva Suresh	06 Dec 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
T.R.O.P/70/2018	K.Yugandhar Reddy vs K.Bhanu Prakash Reddy	06 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
T.R.O.P/87/2018	B.Lakshmi Devi vs K.Amarnath	06 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
OP/154/2015	Onka Saramma vs Nil	05 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
OP/189/2016	K.Raju vs A.Sivamma alias Swarna Lalithamma alias Ludhia	04 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
A.R.B.O.P/87/2016	B.Bapi Reddy vs Ms Shriram City Union Finance Co.Ltd.,	04 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
EP/146/2017	Ms Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs D.Chinna Ramudu	03 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
CRLA/96/2018	Sri Jagadamba Modern Rice Mill vs The Tahsildar, Velgodu	03 Dec 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
T.R.O.P/15/2018	Muthyala Siddanna vs Muthyala Parameshwarappa	03 Dec 2018	Copy of Order	—
CRLRP/55/2016	Pujala Venkata Siva Reddy vs Dr.P.Samba Siva Reddy	30 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/106/2014	P.Ravi Kumar vs B.Sreenivasulu	29 Nov 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CRLA/96/2018	Sri Jagadamba Modern Rice Mill vs The Tahsildar, Velgodu	29 Nov 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
SC/342/2017	State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kurnool I Town PS vs Syed Sirajuddin	29 Nov 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
AS/28/2016	K.Anand vs Devalapuram Laxmi Devi	28 Nov 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
MVOP/149/2016	Mohd. Sujjath vs Boya Srinivasulu	28 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
MVOP/150/2016	Smt.Nusrath alias Nustrah Begum vs Boya Srinivasulu	28 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
MVOP/570/2016	Boya Smuithra vs T.G.S.R.T.C.	28 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
T.R.O.P/24/2018	Bandi Swaroop Vijaya Kumar vs Jwata Thirumaleswarlu	28 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
MVOP/416/2016	E.Saraswathi vs Govindaraju H.K	27 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/100/2015	Bangaru Nagamma vs Uppalapati Subba Ramaiah	27 Nov 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
AS/37/2016	K.Sreenivasulu vs Jagan Mohan	26 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
EP/68/2016	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs M.Samelu	26 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
EP/295/2016	Ms Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd vs Sandya Prabhudas	26 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
EP/676/2016	Ms Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., vs B.Ravi	26 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
EP/963/2016	Shriram City Union Finance Co., Ltd vs S.Rajashekar Reddy	26 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
EP/995/2017	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited., vs S.Lakshmi Narayana	26 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
CRLA/232/2016	Challa Sreedhar vs State rep. Sub Inspector of police	26 Nov 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
AS/10/2017	G.Surender vs N.Raraju	23 Nov 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/695/2016	Ms Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., vs S.Hanif	23 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
SC/120/2017	State rep. by Inspector of Police vs Harijana Vanipenta Bramhaiah	23 Nov 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
T.R.O.P/76/2017	G.Ram Mohan Reddy vs M.Srinivasa Reddy	23 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
MVOP/41/2015	Ashamoni Lalu vs A.Jayanth Kumar	22 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
G.W.O.P/5/2017	Siriguppa Suresh Babu vs Nil	22 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
OP/159/2016	M.Maddilety vs Mangamuri Jayamma	20 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
G.W.O.P/165/2016	S.Venugopal Reddy vs Nil	20 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/24/2013	K.Venkateswara Reddy vs Sayyed Saheba	19 Nov 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/140/2018	Green Lands Institute of Agriculture and research and Developments rep. by its S. Sudarshan Reddy vs Kottam Tualasi Reddy	19 Nov 2018	Copy of other	—
CRLA/265/2016	S.Nabi Rasool vs L.Salaam	19 Nov 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/1049/2017	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited., vs Ramakrishna Boya	16 Nov 2018	Copy of Order	—
SC/89/2017	State rep. by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer vs Mandha Venkata Ramana	16 Nov 2018	Copy of Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 1,287 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Dec 2018		69
Nov 2018		48
Oct 2018		45
Sep 2018		59
Aug 2018		29
Jul 2018		67
Jun 2018		32
May 2018		17
Apr 2018		47
Mar 2018		28
Feb 2018		38
Jan 2018		25

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt G.Anupama Chakravarthy handled?

Smt G.Anupama Chakravarthy has handled 1299 court orders since 2016 at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool. The average disposal rate is 44 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt G.Anupama Chakravarthy hear?

Based on available records, Smt G.Anupama Chakravarthy primarily handles Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Original Suits) and Criminal matters (Criminal Appeals, Sessions Cases) at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool.

Where is Smt G.Anupama Chakravarthy currently posted?

Smt G.Anupama Chakravarthy is posted as Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt G.Anupama Chakravarthy available online?

Yes. 24 judgments by Smt G.Anupama Chakravarthy are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt G.Anupama Chakravarthy dispose cases?

Smt G.Anupama Chakravarthy disposes approximately 44 cases per month, based on 1299 orders handled over their tenure at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool.

Since when is Smt G.Anupama Chakravarthy serving?

Smt G.Anupama Chakravarthy has been serving at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool since 2016.

Case Types

MVOP 31%

EP 14%

T 13%

CRLA 12%

CRLMP 9%

OS 7%

SC 7%

CRLRP 7%

Posting History

Sep 2018 — Dec 2018

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool · 192 orders
Aug 2018 — Sep 2018

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool · 35 orders
Aug 2017 — Aug 2018

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool · 444 orders
Nov 2016 — Mar 2017

I Addl. District And Sessions Judge, Kurnool · 15 orders
Jul 2016 — Aug 2017

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool · 613 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 8

Compromised 2

Other Judges at this Court

Sri G.Kabardhi

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool

1,856 orders

Smt. P. Kamala Devi

I Addl. District And Sessions Judge, Kurnool

0 orders

P.vasu

Spl. Court for SC/ST Cases-Cum-VI ADJ Court,KNL

213 orders

T.leelavathi

Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessio...

250 orders

Smt T.Malleswari

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool

1,112 orders

K V Ramakrishnaiah

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool

0 orders

← View all judges at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool