Sri G. Anwar Basha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE :: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: SRI G. ANWAR BASHA, I Additional District Judge, Guntur.

Wednesday, the 13 th day of April, 2022.

Original Suit No.526/2014

Between:

Vasantha Venkata Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 62 years, Agriculture, resident of S.Amaravaram village, Kanchikacharla Mandal, Krishna District, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble DMC, Nandigama.

... Plaintiff.

-And-

1. Gadde Yeshoda Rao, S/o.Late Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Agriculture, permanent resident of D.No.4-128, Thulluru village and Mandal, Guntur District, which is within the jurisdiction of Hon’ble DMC, Mangalagiri. Temporarily residing at C/o.Mada Venkateswara Rao, Bunk Centre, Kanchikacharla village and Mandal, Krishna District, which is within the jurisdiction of

Hon’ble DMC, Nandigama.

2. Gadde Venkatapathi Rao, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Cultivation, resident of Tsunduru, Guntur District, which is within the jurisdiction of

Hon’ble DMC, Tanali.

3. Gadde Surendra Babu, S/o.Venkatapathi Rao, Hindu, aged about 29 years, Cultivation, resident of Tsunduru, Guntur District, which is within the jurisdiction of

Hon’ble DMC, Tenali.

...Defendants.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 07.04.2022 in the presence of Sri M.V.Subba Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff, and of Sri S.Ramarao, Advocate for the Defendants No.2 and 3, and Defendant No.1 remained ex-parte and 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 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 30.04.2011, for permanent injunction, suit costs and other reliefs.

2. The brief averments made in the plaint are that:

The first defendant is the absolute owner of the property situated at

Nelapadu, Sakamuru, Tulluru and Rayapudi which are referred as plaint schedule properties. The first defendant has put the plaint schedule properties to sale in the month of April, 2011. The plaintiff offered to purchase the said properties for 2

Rs.30,00,000/-, and the first defendant having satisfied with the offer agreed to sell the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff and after the receipt of Rs.12,50,000/- on 30.4.2011, he executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the plaintiff has to pay Rs.10,00,000/- within 90 days, and the defendant has to execute regular sale deed in favour of plaintiff or his nominee, whenever the plaintiff paid balance sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/-. As such there was time stipulation only for payment of Rs.10,00,000/- and there was no time stipulation for payment of Rs.7,50,000/-. As per the terms and conditions the plaintiff paid Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.6.2011, and it was endorsed on the reverse of agreement.

Subsequently, the plaintiff also paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 22.12.2012, and the same was endorsed on the reverse of the agreement. The plaintiff has totally paid an amount of Rs.27,50,000/- and the balance to be paid is Rs.2,50,000/-. The plaintiff was ready with Rs.2,50,000/- and had been requesting the first defendant to receive the balance and to execute sale deed, but the first defendant did not come forward to perform his part of obligation and the efforts of the plaintiff made to get regular sale deed had become futile as first defendant evading to perform his obligation. The plaintiff got issued legal notice on 29.10.2014 and having received the notice the first defendant did not respond and as there was no other way, the plaintiff knocked the doors of the Hon’ble Court.

3. The first defendant has remained ex-parte. The second defendant has filed written statement which was adopted by third defendant. The brief averments made in the written statement are that :

The allegations in the plaint are false. Plaintiff and first defendant are close relatives. The plaintiff and one Madala Venkateswara Rao are co-brothers, and first defendant is the son of junior material aunt of Madala Venkateswara Rao and after the marriage of the defendant was dissolved, he had been residing along with Madala

Venkateswara Rao at Kanchekacherla. One Velaga Srinadh Prasad is the brother-in-law of plaintiff and Madala Venkateswara Rao. The first defendant sold the plaint schedule properties to Velaga Srinadh Prasad through registered sale deed 5.7.2011 and 3 delivered possession to him. The plaintiff’s co-brother M.V.Rao was one of the attestors to the said sale deed. By the time of the sale, there was no rumor about establishment of A.P.Capital near plaint schedule property. The said Velaga Srinadh Prasad sold plaint schedule property to Vajja Sasidhar through sale deed dated 30.5.2014, and by that time there was no much value of the lands. Later, second defendant purchased item

No.3 of plaint schedule land from Vajja Sasidhar and third defendant purchased item

No.1, 2 and 4 from said Sasidhar through separate registered sale deeds dated 19.9.2014 and possession was delivered to them. Later, the value of the lands was ascending due to announcement of establishment of capital which caused eyesore to

Madala Venkateswara Rao. The plaintiff has got complete knowledge about first defendant’s sale of plaint schedule property to Velaga Srinadh Prasad and sale of

Srinadh Prasad to Vajja Sasidhar. The plaintiff, first defendant, Madala Venkateswara

Rao and V.Srinadh Prasad had colluded together and brought into existence, suit agreement of sale with ante date to defeat the sale deed in view of increase in the value of plaint schedule lands. There was no real transaction under the suit agreement of sale. The plaintiff has approached this Hon’ble Court with unclean hands, and he is not entitled to equitable relief of Specific Performance. The Revenue authorities issued pattadar passbooks and 10(1) Adanagal in the names of defendants 2 and 3 and these defendants had given the land for pooling to AUDA and they have been paying maktha to this defendant. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4. On the basis above said pleadings my learned predecessor–in–office framed following issues for trial:

1. Whether the first defendant executed agreement of sale on 30.04.2011 in favour of plaintiff by receiving advance sale consideration from him?

2. Whether the sale agreement is the outcome of the alleged circumstances as pleaded by the second defendant?

3. Whether the first defendant made part payment endorsements dt.16.06.2011 and 22.12.2012 by receiving 4 the part of sale consideration covered by those two endorsements in favour of plaintiff?

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to seek direction against the defendants to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or in case of their failure to obtain sale deed through court?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any sort of encumbrances over the schedule properties?

6. To what relief?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW.1 to PW.6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B32 were marked.

6. Heard both sides.

ISSUE Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5:

7. The burden of proving these issues is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 30.4.2011, for permanent injunction, for suit costs and other reliefs. The case of the plaintiff is that, the first defendant is the absolute owner of the property situated at Nelapadu,

Sakamuru, Tulluru and Rayapudi which are referred as plaint schedule properties. The first defendant has put the plaint schedule properties to sale in the month of April, 2011. The plaintiff offered to purchase the said properties for Rs.30,00,000/-, and the first defendant having satisfied with the offer agreed to sell the plaint schedule properties to the plaintiff and after the receipt of Rs.12,50,000/- on 30.4.2011, he executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the plaintiff has to pay Rs.10,00,000/- within 90 days, and the defendant has to execute regular sale deed in favour of plaintiff or his nominee, 5 whenever the plaintiff paid balance sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/-. As such there was time stipulation only for payment of Rs.10,00,000/- and there was no time stipulation for payment of Rs.7,50,000/-. As per the terms and conditions the plaintiff paid Rs.10,00,000/- on 16.6.2011, and it was endorsed on the reverse of agreement.

Subsequently, the plaintiff also paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 22.12.2012, and the same was endorsed on the reverse of the agreement. The plaintiff has totally paid an amount of Rs.27,50,000/- and the balance to be paid is Rs.2,50,000/-. The plaintiff was ready with Rs.2,50,000/- and had been requesting the first defendant to receive the balance and to execute sale deed, but the first defendant did not come forward to perform his part of obligation and the efforts of the plaintiff made to get regular sale deed had become futile as first defendant evading to perform his obligation. The plaintiff got issued legal notice on 29.10.2014 and having received the notice the first defendant did not respond and as there was no other way, the plaintiff knocked the doors of the Hon’ble Court.

8. To prove the case of the plaintiff, PW.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to

A10 were marked.

9. PW.1, Vasantha Venkata Rao, is the plaintiff himself. PW.2, Velaga Krishna, is a third party, PW.3, Karla Srinivasarao, is also a third party. PW.4, Shaik Karimulla, is too a third party. PW.5, Gujjarlapudi Sudhakar Babu, is a lorry driver. PW.6, Jalla

Tirupathi Srinivasa Pullarao, is a third party.

LAW ON THE SUBJECT:

10. The relief of Specific Performance is a discretionary remedy and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely it is lawful to do so. The jurisdiction to decree,

Specific performance is discretionary, but the discretion of the court is not to be arbitrary, but sound and reasonably guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by court of appeal. Where the terms of contract or the conduct of the parties at the time of entering into contract or the other circumstances under which the contract was entered into or such that the contract though not voidable but gives the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendant, the court cannot grant a decree for 6 specific performance. Where the performance of the contract would involve some hardship on the defendant, which he did not foresee, whereas its non-performance would involve no such hardship on the plaintiff, there is no obligation on the court to grant the relief of Specific performance. Where the defendant entered into the contract under the circumstances, which though not rendering the contract voidable, makes it inequitable to empower specific performance, the court may probably exercise its discretion not to decree specific performance. Mere inadequacy of consideration or the mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature shall not be deemed to constitute an unfair advantage. The question whether the performance of the contract would involve hardship on the defendant shall, except in cases, where hardship had resulted from any act of the plaintiff subsequent to contract, be determined with reference to the circumstances existing at the time of contract. The court may probably exercise discretion to decree specific performance in any case where plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered losses in consequence of a contract capable of specific performance. The court shall not refuse to any party, specific performance of the contract merely on the ground that the contract is not enforceable at the instance of other party. Discretion when applies to the court of justice means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule and not by humour. It must not be arbitrary, vague and untactful but legal and regular. In view of the above said legal position, it has to be seen whether the discretion has to be exercised in favour of the plaintiff or whether there is any unfair advantage to the plaintiff or hardship to the defendant and the discretion has to be denied.

THE CASE ON HAND:

11. The plaintiff has filed his affidavit in accordance with the pleadings in his plaint. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for defendants 2 and 3. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he has stated that he does not know whether the signature on Ex.A1 belongs to D1, and he did not see when D1 signed on Ex.A.1, and he did not see whether D1 signed on Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3. Ex.A.1 is original agreement of sale

dated 30.4.2011. Ex.A.2 is part-payment endorsement dated 16.6.2011. Ex.A.3 is also

7 part-payment endorsement dated 22.12.2011. The plaintiff, as admitted by him, has not seen the first defendant either signing on Ex.A.1 or on Exs.A.2 and A3.

12. He has also admitted that it was true that for the purpose of filing this suit they prepared Ex.A.1, sale agreement and it was true that, he, D1 and Madala

Venkateswara Rao together prepared Ex.A.1, and Ex.A.1 was prepared about three months prior to the filing of this suit.

13. From these admissions of PW.1, it is clear that Ex.A.1 was prepared by the plaintiff, first defendant and Madala Venkateswara Rao, three months prior to the suit for the purpose of filing this suit.

14. PW.1 has pleaded ignorance stating that he does not know who scribed

Ex.A.1, and again he has stated that one Lawyer by name A.Syam Sundar Reddy,

Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada, scribed Ex.A.1. He has categorically admitted that it was true that his counsel prepared Ex.A.1. He has further admitted that the Government acquired items No.1 to 4 of schedule properties from D2 and D3. With regard to purchase of item Nos.1 to 4 by D2 and D3, he has pleaded ignorance stating that he does not know whether D2 and D3 purchased items 1 to 4 from Vajja Sasidhar. He as admitted that till Srinadh Prasad sold item Nos.1 to 4 to Vajja Sasidhar, the properties were in possession of Srinadh Prasad. He has also admitted that presently the schedule properties are not in possession of D2 and D3, and they were acquired by Government.

15. In spite of admissions made by Pw.1 that Ex.A.1 was prepared by an

Advocate in collusion with plaintiff, D1 and Madala Venkateswara Rao, for the purpose of filing the suit, PWs.2 to 6 were examined by the plaintiff. PW.2 has admitted that the plaintiff had purchased stamp paper on 30.4.2011. Ex.A.1 goes to show that the stamp papers were purchased by the first defendant and not by the plaintiff. He has also admitted that he does not remember the name of scribe of Ex.A.1. He has further admitted that he does not know the details of the properties including extents.

16. PW.3 has admitted that he does not know the other details and he does not know from where the plaintiff brought the cash. He has also admitted that the property is in possession of D1. He has further admitted that he does not know who 8 scribed Ex.A.1.

17. PW.4 has admitted that the contents of chief-examination were stated by plaintiff and then he signed and it was true that he does not know the contents of his chief examination.

18. PW.5 has admitted that it was true that contents of chief-examination were prepared by the plaintiff and he signed.

19. PW.6, who was examined by an Advocate-commissioner, has admitted that he does not know whether the plaintiff got any land except the plaint schedule land and he never signed on any property document of plaintiff. He has also admitted that he did not sign in respect of plaint schedule property documents also. He has further admitted that he did not sign on any property document of Gadde Yashoda Rao. He has categorically admitted that he does not know any transactions of Vasantha Venkata

Rao.

20. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.1 to PW.6, it is crystal clear that the agreement of sale under Ex.A.1, was prepared by plaintiff, D1 and Madala

Venkateswara Rao, three months prior to filing of suit and it was prepared by the counsel of the plaintiff by name A.Syam Sundar Reddy. The plaintiff who had entered into an agreement of sale with first defendant does not know whether the signature on

Ex.A.1 belongs to D1 and surprisingly he has admitted that he did not see as to when

D1 signed on Ex.A.1 and further he did not see D1 signing on Ex.A.2 and A3. He has categorically admitted that himself, D1 and Madala Venkateswara Rao, got prepared the suit. From these admissions it is very clear that Ex.A.1 was created for the purpose of filing of this suit.

21. In Kamal Kumar v. Prema Latha Joshi and others, 2019 (1) ALD 181 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has discussed about the principles of law relating to grant of relief of Specific performance as follows:- “10. It is settled principles of law that the grant of relief of Specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief. The material questions, which are required to be gone into for grant of the relief 9 for specific performance, are first, whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/ purchase of the suit property, second, whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract; third, whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of contract and if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract; fourth, whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to the suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; and lastly, whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest money etc., and if so, on what grounds.”

22. Therefore, the first and foremost requirement for grant of relief of specific performance is existence of a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale of the property.

23. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that there were weaknesses in the case of the defendants and want to rely upon such weaknesses for the purpose of proving the case of the plaintiff. In Chodi Mahalakshmi v. Koppada

Sathiraju and another, 2011 (3) ALD 774, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., held that- “Evidently, as per law of evidence, the burden is on the person who fails if evidence is not adduced to prove the fact in issue. The fact in issue is as to whether the agreement was executed in the manner alleged by the plaintiff. If there is evidence on the side of the plaintiff to probabalise the truthfulness of the contents, then 10 the plea of the defendant has to be put juxtaposition and the court can decide as to whether the plea of the defendant is true or not.

In a suit for specific performance where a decree is only a discretionary, in the proof of the substance of the claim of the plaintiff, the burden cannot be cast on the defendant.”

The Hon'ble High Court also held that- “In fact, when the parties are denying the transaction itself, it is for the plaintiff to prove the truthfulness of the transaction, the authority and the binding nature.”

24. Therefore, except the interested evidence of PW.1, surrounded by suspicious circumstances, there is no other evidence to prove the execution of Ex.A.1 or the probability of its execution for consideration as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has clearly admitted that himself, D1 and M.Venkateswara Rao had prepared Ex.A.1 for the purpose of this suit three months prior to filing of this suit. Ex.A.1 was created by the plaintiff for the purpose of this suit and on the basis of such an agreement the plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance of said agreement. The plaintiff has approached the court with falsity and not with clean hands. The plaintiff is liable to be prosecuted on criminal side for creating Ex.A.1, and filing this suit on the basis of Ex.A.1. Ex.A.1 is not an agreement of sale executed by the first defendant receiving any consideration amount and no part payments were made under Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3, hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance of said agreement and for permanent injunction. These issues are found against the plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.2:

25. The burden of proving this issue is on the defendants. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff, first defendant, Velaga Srinadh Prasad and Madala

Venkateswara Rao, together to defeat the rights of these defendants in plaint schedule property collusively brought into existence the suit agreement of sale in the name of plaintiff with ante date and there was no real transaction under the suit agreement of 11 sale. From the admissions made by PW.1, in his cross-examination, that for the purpose of filing this suit, they prepared Ex.A.1 sale agreement and that PW.1, D1 and Madala

Venkateswara Rao together prepared Ex.A.1 and it was prepared about three months prior to filing of this suit, it is clear that there was no any genuine transaction between the plaintiff and D1, and Ex.A.1 was brought into existence in the circumstances stated by the defendants. This issue is found in favour of defendants.

ISSUE NO.6:

26. In view of the findings recorded in the above said issues, the plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance or the relief of permanent injunction.

27. IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed with exemplary costs to the defendants 2 and 3.

The plaintiff in collusion with others has created Ex.A.1, only for the purpose of filing this suit, hence, a criminal complaint to be lodged against the plaintiff for the offences under Sections 193 and 196 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 13th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Sri G. Anwar Basha

I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: P.W.1 – Vasantha Venkata Rao.

P.W.2 – Velaga Krishna.

PW 3 – Kota Srinivasa RAo.

PW.4 – Shaik Karimulla.

PW.5 – Gujjarlapudi Sudhakar Babu.

PW.6 – Jalla Tirupathi Srinivas Pulla Rao.

For Defendants:

DW.1 – Gadde Venkatapathi Rao.

12

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1: Original agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff dt. 30-04-2011.

Ex.A2: Acknowledgment by the 1st defendant for receipt of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of endorsement on the reverse of agreement of sale dt.16.06.2011.

Ex.A3 : Acknowledgment by the 1st defendant for receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of endorsement on the reverse of agreement of sale dt.22.12.2012.

Ex.A4 : Office copy of legal notice to the 1st defendant to his two addresses dt.29- 10-2014.

Ex.A5 : Postal receipts (2) dt.29-10-2014.

Ex.A6 : Returned notice cover of the 1st defendant dt.01-11-2014.

Ex.A.7 to A10 : Mee-seva copies of gift deeds executed by DW1 in favour of his son who is third defendant in respect of items Nos.1 to 3 & 5.

FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1: Certified copy of the sale deed, dt.12.07.2010.

Ex.B2: Certified copy of sale deed dt.05.07.2011 bearing No. 1990/2011 containing the schedule i.e., confronted to the witness.

Ex.B3 : Certified copy of sale deed dt.05.07.2011 bearing No.1989/2011 containing the schedule i.e., confronted to the witness.

Ex.B4 is the true extract of sale deed dt.05-07-2011.

Ex.B5 is the true extract of sale deed dt.09-09-2011.

Ex.B6 is the true extract of sale deed dt.30-05-2014 bearing No. 1848/2014.

Ex.B7 is the true extract of sale deed dt.30-05-2014 bearing No. 1849/2014.

Ex.B8 is the true extract of sale deed dt.19-09-2014 bearing document No. 4619/2014.

Ex.B9 is the true extract of sale deed dt.19-09-2014 bearing document No. 4620/2014.

Ex.B10 is the true extract of sale deed dt.19-09-2014 bearing document No. 4622/2014.

Ex.B11 is the true extract of sale deed dt.19-09-2014 bearing document No. 4621/2014.

Ex.B12 is the true extract of sale deed dt.26-11-2015.

Ex.B13 is the true copy of development agreement dt.15-05-2017 bearing document N..300/2017.

Ex.B14 is the true copy of development agreement dt.15-05-2017 bearing document No.301/2017.

Ex.B15 is the true copy of development agreement dt.01-09-2017 bearing No. 413/2017.

Ex.B16 is the true copy of development agreement dt.01-09-2017 bearing No. 414/2017.

Ex.B17 is the true copy of development agreement dt.01-09-2017 bearing No. 415/2017.

Ex.B18 is the true copy of development agreement dt.22-09-2017 bearing No. 1338/2017.

Ex.B19 is the true copy of development agreement dt.22-09-2017 bearing No. 1255/2017.

Ex.B20 is original pattadar passbook.

Ex.B21 is original title deed book.

13

Ex.B22 is original pattadar passbook.

Ex.B23 is original title deed book.

(Ex.B20 to 22 are standing in the name of Vajja Sasidhar)

Ex.B24 is mee-seva copy of adangal for fasli 1424 (Survey No.6A).

Ex.B25 is mee-seva copy of 1B register dt.19-03-2015.

Ex.B26 is mee-seva copy of adangal for fasli 1424 ( Survey No. 20-A1).

Ex.B27 is mee-seva copy of adangal for fasli 1425 (Survey No. 20-A1).

Ex.B28 is mee-seva copy of 1B register dt.04-03-2015.

Ex.B29 is mee-seva copy of adangals for fasli 1424 for Survey Nos.308-C1 and 309-C1.

Ex.B30 is mee-seva copy of adangals for fasli 1425 for Survey Nos. 308-C1 and 309-C1.

Ex.B31 is mee-seva copy of 1B register dt.16-03-2015.

Ex.B32 is mee-seva copy of adangal for fasli 1424 for Survey No. 423-1.

Sd/- Sri G. Anwar Basha

I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: GUNTUR.

PRESENT: G. ANWAR BASHA

I Additional District Judge, Guntur.

Friday, the 8th day of April, 2022.

APPEAL SUIT NO.107/2017.

Between:

Angirekula Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Polaiah, Hindu, aged about 47 years, Business, resident of D.No.18-32-37, Manthrivari Veedhi, Sangadigunta, Guntur City, Guntur District, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

.... Appellant/ Plaintiff.

And

1. Grandhi Radha Devi, W/o.Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Business, resident of Door No.22-6-56, Thunuguntla vari Veedhi, Lalapet, Guntur City, Guntur District, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

2. Jyothi Chit Fund Company, represented by its partner, I.C.C.Building, Zinna Tower Centre, Guntur City, Guntur District, within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court (2nd respondent is shows as only proforma party. No relief is prayed against the 2nd defendant).

... Respondents/ Defendants.

ON APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.04.2017 OF THE

HON’BLE IV ADDTIIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR, MADE IN O.S.No.379/2015

IN WHICH THE ARRAY OF THE PARTIES ARE

Between:

Angirekula Srinivasa Rao. ..Plaintiff.

And

1. Grandhi Radha Devi.

2. Jyothi Chit Fund Company, represented by its partner, I.C.C.Building, Zinna Tower Centre, Guntur (2nd respondent is shows as only proforma party. No relief is prayed against the 2nd defendant).

... Defendants.

This Appeal coming on 04.04.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Ramesh, Advocate for Appellant, and of Sri K.V.Raghunath, Advocate for 1st Respondent, and the 2nd respondent is a proforma party, and upon perusing the entire material on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 96 and Order 41 Rules 1 of CPC by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the Judgment and decree dated 07.04.2017 passed in

O.S.No.379/2015 by the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

2

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the defendants in the suit. The suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,73,000/- basing on the receipt and F.S. memo, for suit costs and other reliefs.

3. The brief averments made in the plaint are that:

The first defendant joined as a member of second defendant firm and participated in the bid in 13th month, and the bid was knocked down in favour of first defendant. The first defendant had to furnish sureties before the prize amount is paid and to execute chit agreement along with surety bond and promissory note. The plaintiff also mortgaged his property as security for due discharge by the first defendant and a surety bond, and the plaintiff is a surety to the principal debtor i.e., first defendant. The first defendant committed default in payment of installments and the second defendant filed O.S.No.825/2006 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Guntur, against the first defendant, plaintiff and others. The suit was decreed by passing a preliminary decree against the properties mortgaged. The second defendant filed a petition in the said suit for passing final decree to sell the property mortgaged by the plaintiff. Apprehending that his property would be sold, the plaintiff paid

Rs.2,75,000/- in full and final settlement of decretal amount as first defendant did not choose to pay the decretal amount. The first defendant is bound to reimburse the plaintiff. In spite of repeated reminders the first defendant did not chose to pay the amount, hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit amount.

4. The second defendant remained ex-parte. First defendant only filed written statement. The brief averments made in the written statement are that the allegations mentioned in the plaint are false and untenable. The plaintiff was a worker in Sri Lakshmi Devi Steel Furniture works, Lalapet, Guntur, which was owned by Grandhi

Tulasi Ram, brother in law of first defendant. After the expiry of Grandhi Tulasi Ram, the workshop was handed over to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff helps the first defendant’s husband in collecting the amounts due from outside, look after bank matters, get 3 finance from outside and repay on behalf of him. The first defendant’s husband handed over money payable to second defendant and asked to obtained proper receipt.

As the plaintiff was looking after the affairs of the first defendant‘s husband, the first defendant and her husband ignored the fact of collecting receipt out of acquaintance and relation. Later, in need of finance for business purpose handed over half kilogram gold ornaments to the plaintiff and asked to mortgage the same. The plaintiff with an evil intention mortgaged the said ornaments in his name and even after the first defendant repaying the debt, the plaintiff failed to return he gold ornaments. Later, the plaintiff acknowledging the same in writing requested time to return gold ornaments, and failed till date to return the said ornaments. The first defendant was shocked on receiving notices from this Hon’ble Court and could understood the fraud played by the plaintiff to gain illegally, and the suit is barred by limitation, and is liable to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of above said pleadings, the learned IV Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Guntur, framed following issues for trial:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount?

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for decree against D-1?

(3) To what relief ?

6. During the trial before IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, on behalf of the Plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the first defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.

7. On considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, found that the plaintiff was not entitled to suit amount and dismissed the suit with costs. Hence, this appeal suit.

8. The learned counsel for Appellant contended that, the appellant had stood as guarantor to the first respondent at the time of drawing the chit amount from the second respondent’s chit fund company and had mortgaged the property belonging to the appellant. He also contended that the chit fund company had filed suit in 4

O.S.No.825/2006 for preliminary decree as the first respondent failed to pay the

installments, and obtained a preliminary decree for sale of the mortgaged property. He further contended that in order to protect the property of appellant, he had paid the entire amount of Rs.2,75,000/- towards full and final settlement of the decretal amount and stepped into the shoes of 2nd respondent, and demanded the first respondent to repay the said amount, but the first respondent did not choose to pay and he was constrained to file suit for recovery of said amount, and that the trial court failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective, and has even observed that preliminary decree was not filed though it was marked as Ex.A.4, and that the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court are not sustainable and they are liable to be set aside.

9. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 contended that the amount due to the second respondent was paid by first respondent herself through the appellant, and that the amount was not paid personally by the appellant and that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court are correct, and there is nothing to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

10. Now the points for consideration are:

1) Whether the appellant had discharged the amount due to the second respondent chit fund company and had stepped into the shoes of second respondent or not?

2) Whether the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are factually and legally sustainable or not ?

POINTS 1 and 2:-

11. The appellant/ plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.4,73,000/- which includes principal amount of Rs.2,75,000/- and interest of Rs.1,98,000/-. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant joined as a member of second defendant firm and participated in the bid in 13th month, and the bid was knocked down in favour of first defendant. The first defendant had to furnish sureties before the prize amount is paid and to execute chit agreement along with surety bond and promissory note. The 5 plaintiff also mortgaged his property as security for due discharge by the first defendant and a surety bond, and the plaintiff is a surety to the principal debtor i.e., first defendant. The first defendant committed default in payment of installments and the second defendant filed O.S.No.825/2006 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Guntur, against the first defendant, plaintiff and others. The suit was decreed by passing a preliminary decree against the properties mortgaged. The second defendant filed a petition in the said suit for passing final decree to sell the property mortgaged by the plaintiff. Apprehending that his property would be sold, the plaintiff paid

Rs.2,75,000/- in full and final settlement of decretal amount as first defendant did not choose to pay the decretal amount. The first defendant is bound to reimburse the plaintiff. In spite of repeated reminders the first defendant did not chose to pay the amount.

12. To prove the case of Plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. P.W.1, A.Srinivasa Rao, is the Plaintiff. Ex.A.1 is receipt dt.25.10.2011. Ex.A.2 is certified copy of full satisfaction memo in O.S.825/2006. Ex.A.3 is certified copy of plaint in O.S.825/2006. Ex.A.4 is certified copy of decree in O.S.825/2006.

13. P.W.1, A.Srinivasarao, filed his affidavit in accordance with his pleadings.

He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the first defendant. In the cross- examination of PW.1, it was elicited that he was running a furniture shop under the name and style Srinivasa Iron Safe Company, and previously he worked in the workshop of Tulasi Ram for a period of one year. It was also elicited that he had no idea about the name of the said workshop and Krishna Murthy is the husband of defendant, and

Krishna Murthy’s furniture shop is Lakshmi Steels and Estates. It was further elicited that he did not issue any legal notice to the first defendant prior to his payment under

Ex.A.1 to D2. It was suggested that himself and D2 colluded together and created

Ex.A.1 receipt and filed this suit against first respondent though she paid an amount of

Rs.2,36,500/- under 47 receipts from 5.9.2007 to 3.8.2011 towards full and final settlement of the amount due to the second defendant. It was also suggested that he had paid the chit installments for 24 months on behalf of D1, but he did not give the 6 chit receipts issued by D2 for the said months. It was further suggested that the suit was barred by limitation.

14. From the suggestions made to PW.1, it is clear that the plaintiff was paying installment amounts on behalf of D1. The learned counsel for D1 has not put any suggestions with regard to filing of the suit, obtaining of decree by second defendant, and payment of amount in the said suit. He has also not put any suggestion about the property mortgaged to D2.

15. Ex.A.1 is receipt dated 25.10.2011, which goes to show that D3/

A.Srinivasarao, paid amount of Rs.2,75,000/- to Jyothi Chit Fund Company. Ex.A.2 is certified copy of full satisfaction memo. It goes to show that the third defendant had paid an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- towards full and final settlement on 25.10.2011.

16. The plaintiff had not filed any document relating to the property which was mortgaged to Jyothi Chit Fund Company. He has filed certified copy of plaint in

O.S.No.825/2006 under Ex.A.3. Ex.A.3 goes to show that the third defendant as

guarantor deposited original registered sale deed, dated 25.11.1999, and created equitable mortgage over the schedule property covered under the sale deed and also executed a letter dated 20.7.2004, in favour of the plaintiff company with an intention to extend the equitable mortgage over the schedule property. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.2,36,657/- by passing a preliminary decree for sale of mortgaged property. The property which was mortgaged was Door No.18-33-28, situated at

Sangadigunta, Mantrivari Street, Guntur. From the averments in Ex.A.3, it is clear that the plaint schedule property belonged to the third defendant, who is the plaintiff, in this suit, and he had deposited his sale deed and created equitable mortgage. Ex.A.4 is the certified copy of preliminary decree dated 11.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.825/2006 for the sale of plaint schedule property in case of non-payment of decretal amount.

17. In paragraph ‘17’ of the judgment of the trial court, it is mentioned that, “if really the plaintiff’s property was mortgaged and preliminary decree was passed against the property of plaintiff in O.S.No.825/2006, the plaintiff has to file preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.825/2006 to prove the said fact. But for the reasons best 7 known to plaintiff, he did not file the preliminary decree in O.S.825/2006 showing that the property mortgaged in their decree belongs to him. It makes doubt about the genuineness of case of the plaintiff.”

18. In fact, the plaintiff had filed preliminary decree dated 11.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.825/2006, and got it marked as Ex.A4. In spite of filing of the preliminary decree the trial court lost its sight and did not notice even as to what were the documents filed by the plaintiff. There is no discussion about Ex.A.4 in the entire judgment. From the evidence of PW.1, and Exs.A.1 and A2, it is clear that, the amount was paid by the third defendant in the said suit, who is plaintiff herein. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court are not sustainable. These points are answered in favour of the appellant.

19. IN THE RESULT, the appeal suit is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2017, passed in O.S.No.379/2015, by the learned IV Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, and the suit is decreed with costs for recovery of

Rs.4,73,000/- from the first defendant with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the suit to the date of payment, on principal sum of Rs.2,75,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, on this the 8th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Sri G. Anwar Basha

I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy to:

The IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-cum-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR

PRESENT: G. ANWAR BASHA

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR

FAC: CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR

Friday, the 8th day of April, 2022.

M.V.O.P. No.1046/2018

Between:

Garnepudi mariyamma @ Seetamma, W/o.Late Arjuna Rao, aged about 52 years, Coolie, R/o.Amaravathi Road, Nagaralu, Guntur, Guntur JCJC.

.. Petitioner.

-And-

1. Shaik Masatanvali, S/o.Allabakshu, R/o.Gujjanagundla, Guntur, Guntur JCJC. (Rider of Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 07 BR 6477).

2. Amarthaluri Ratna Prasad, S/o.Dayanandam, R/o.D.No.1-71, Alapadu Village, Tsunduru Mandal, Guntur District, Tenali JCJC. (Owner of TVS XL Moped bearing No. AP 07 BR 6477).

3. National Insurance Company Limited, rep.by its Divisional Manager, Main Road, 9- 10 Lane, Arundelpet, Guntur, Guntur JCJC.

..Respondents.

This petition coming on 04.04.2022 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri C.Satyanrayana, advocate for Petitioner, and of Sri R.V.Vijaya Sai Ram,

Advocate for R1, and of Sri Bulla Ravi Babu, Advocate for R.2, and of Sri B.Haranadha

Babu, Advocate for R3, and upon perusing the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a claim petition under Sections 166 of M.V. Act and Rules 455 and 476 of A.P. M.V. Rules filed by the legal heir of deceased/ Garnepudi Nageswara Rao, claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for untimely death of deceased / Garnepudi

Nageswara Rao, in a Motor Vehicle accident that occurred on 30.05.2018 at about 6.30 p.m., at Out skirts of Tsunduru Village, Tsunduru village and Mandal, Guntur District, and sought for an award against R.1 to R.3.

2. The brief facts as mentioned in the claim petition are that:

On 30.5.2018 at about 4.00 p.m., the deceased went to his sister’s village

Ayyannapalem village on his motor cycle. After completion of his work at his sister’s 2 house and while returning to his village and at about 6.30 p.m., when he reached the outskirts of Tsunduru Village, a motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 BR 6477 driven by first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and with high speed dashed the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of which the deceased fell down, received multiple injuries to all over his body and died on the spot. The matter was reported to police, and Tsundur police registered the same as a case in Crime No.65/2018 under

Sec.304(A) of IPC against the 1st respondent.

The deceased was aged about 27 years, hale and healthy working as

Assistant to Physiotherapist at Visakhapatnam on a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- at the time of accident. Except the petitioner there are no other legal representatives or dependents on the deceased. Due to the unfortunate and untimely death of the deceased the petitioner lost her bread winner and her life became block and dark.

Hence, this petition claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- under different heads.

3. There are three Respondents in this case. R1 to R3 filed separate written statements.

4. The brief averments made in the written statement of R.1 are that:

The allegations in claim petition are neither true nor correct. There was no negligence on his part and the criminal case was foisted against this respondent in order to gain huge amount wrongfully. The crime vehicle was insured with third respondent and the insurance policy was in force at the time of accident and the claim shall be paid by the insurance company. The petitioner is put to strict proof of age and injuries sustained by the deceased. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs

5. The brief averments made in the written statement of R.2 are that:

The allegations in claim petition are neither true nor correct. There was no negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle and was having valid driving licence.

That motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 BR 6477, was insured with third respondent having policy which was valid from 9.3.2018 to 8.3.2019. The accident was occurred during the validity period of policy. Hence, third respondent is liable to pay in event of passing of 3 any award. The compensation amount claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and arbitrary. The petitioner has exaggerated the accident claim and there was no negligence on the part of rider of vehicle. The petitioner did not approach this respondent and in the claim application it is stated that she had already approached this respondent. The petitioner is put to strict proof of age and injuries sustained by the deceased. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

6. The brief averments made in the written statement of R.3 are that:

Most of the averments mentioned in the petition are false and denied.

That there was collision between two motor vehicles and the petitioner impleaded only second respondent’s motor cycle, and the motor cycle of the deceased is necessary party and in the absence of impleading motor cycle of the deceased, the petitioner has to forego such amount. The accident occurred due to sheer negligence of deceased only. The deceased had driven the motor cycle at high speed without observing road rules and traffic and had hit the second respondent’s motor cycle and there was no negligence on the part of driver of motor cycle bearing No. AP 07 BR 6477, and this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The deceased was aged about 27 years, and earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing private job are false and denied by this respondent. The driver of motor cycle bearing No. AP 07 BR 6477, should have valid and effective driving licence, otherwise this respondent is not liable. The motor cycle bearing No. AP 07 BR 6477 was not insured with this respondent. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exaggerated, and the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

7. Basing on the above said pleadings, my learned predecessor-in-office framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 30.05.2019 has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle viz., Motor cycle bearing No. AP 07 BR 6477 by its rider/ 1st respondent, and whether the deceased Garnepudi 4

Nageswara Rao, S/o.Arjuna Rao died due to the said accident?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

8. On behalf of the Petitioner, P.Ws.1 and PW.2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

9. Heard both sides.

ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2:

10. The burden of proving these issues is on the claim petitioner. The petitioner is claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- from R1 to R3 jointly and severally on the ground that the accident was taken place due to negligent riding of motor cycle by the first respondent, and that the insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident and the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. As the claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act, the burden is on the petitioner to establish negligence on the part of rider of motor cycle, due to which the accident was occurred and the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the said motor vehicle accident.

11. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked.

12. PW.1, Garnepudi Mariyamma @ Seetamma, is the petitioner. PW.2, Golla

Yesobu, is a third party. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.55/2018 of Tsundur

PS, dated 30.05.2018. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of inquest report conducted on the dead body of the deceased Garnepudi Nageswara Rao, dated 31.05.2018. Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of post-mortem certificate of the deceased Garnepudi Nageswara Rao,

dated 31.05.2018. Ex.A.4 is the certified copy of accident report from Motor Vehicles

Inspector, Tsundur, dated 06.09.2018. Ex.A.5 is the certified copy of charge sheet in 5

C.C.No.584/2018 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class magistrate, Tenali, dated 01.11.2018.

Legal Position:-

13. In cases of death the proper method of computation is the multiplier method. Any departure, except in exceptional and extraordinary cases, would introduce inconsistency of principle, lack of uniformity and an element of unpredictability, for the assessment of compensation. Basically, only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in case of death i.e., (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and (c) the number of dependants. The income of the deceased should be determined and out of the said income personal and living expenses of the deceased to be deducted. The balance is to be considered his contribution to the dependant family, which constitutes the multiplicand. The multiplier should be chosen from the table with reference to the age of the deceased. The annual contribution to the family when multiplied by such multiplier gives the loss of dependency to the family. No amount should be awarded for pain and suffering s of the legal heirs of the deceased except funeral expenses, cost of transportation and cost of medical treatment of deceased before death.

The case on hand:

14. The case of the Petitioners is that due to negligent riding of motor cycle by the first respondent the accident was occurred, and the deceased sustained injuries in the said accident and died due to said injuries. PW.1 filed her affidavit in accordance with the contents of the petition. She was cross-examined by the learned counsel for R1 and R3.

15. In the cross-examination of PW.1, it was elicited that she did not witness the accident. It was also elicited that she did not bring any document to show that deceased was working in Visakhapatnam. It was further elicited that she did not produce any age proof of deceased, and also income proof. It was suggested that the deceased died due to cardiac arrest but not due to accident. It was also suggested that her son did not wear on the date of accident. It was further suggested that the 6 deceased had no income as on the date of accident. There is no cross-examination of

PW.1 on EXs.A.1 to A.5.

16. The petitioner has examined PW.2 to speak about the manner of accident. He filed his affidavit stating that he was eye witness to the occurrence. In the cross-examination of PW.2, it was elicited that himself and PW.1 belong to same village and he was cross-examined by police. It was also elicited that the place of accident was far away from the village of PW.1. It was suggested that he was not in the list of witnesses in the charge sheet and he was deposing falsely to help the petitioner and he did not witness the accident. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 to disbelieve their evidence. As against the evidence produced by the petitioner, the insurance company has not produced any oral or documentary evidence. From the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, and Exs.A.1 to A5, it is clear that due to the negligent riding of the motor cycle by the first respondent, the accident was occurred due to which the deceased sustained injuries and died.

17. The petitioner is contending that the deceased was aged about 27 years, working as a private employee and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any age proof or income proof. The age of the deceased is mentioned as 27 years in Ex.A2 and A3. Hence, the multiplier applicable is ‘17’. The petitioner has not filed any income proof. Hence, notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month to be taken into consideration. From the said amount 50% is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses and 40% is to be added towards future prospects, and the multiplicand comes to Rs.4,200/-. As such the petitioner is entitled to the following amounts under different heads:

Funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000/-

Loss of estate : Rs. 15,000/-

Loss of love and affection : Rs. 10,000/-

Loss of dependency : Rs.8,56,800/-

Total : Rs.8,96,800/- 7

18. Therefore, in all the petitioner is awarded compensation amount of

Rs.8,96,800/- against R1 to R3, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the same.

These issues are found accordingly.

ISSUE NO.3:

19. In view of the findings recorded in above said issues, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,96,800/- with proportionate costs and future interest.

20. In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs and an amount of Rs.8,96,800/- is awarded to the claim petitioner as compensation against R1 to R3, who are jointly and severally liable, and by virtue of contractual obligation, R3 is liable to indemnify R2. The petitioner is entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition to the date of deposit. The third respondent is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.8,96,800/- with interest within 30 days from the date of this Judgment. On making such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount apportioned to them, and the remaining 50% to be kept in Fixed deposit for a period of three years in a Nationalized Bank, and thereafter she is at liberty to withdraw the said amount with accrued interest thereon. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.8,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 8th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Sri G. Anwar Basha

I ADDITONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR

FAC:CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-cum-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:

PW.1 : Garnepudi Mariyamma @ Seetamma. PW.2 : Golla Yesobu.

For Respondents: None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1: Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.55/2018 of Tsundur PS, dated 30.05.2018. Ex.A.2: Certified copy of inquest report conducted on the dead body of the deceased Garnepudi Nageswara Rao, dated 31.05.2018. Ex.A.3: Certified copy of post-mortem certificate of the deceased Garnepudi Nageswara Rao, dated 31.05.2018.

8

Ex.A.4: Certified copy of accident report from Motor Vehicles Inspector, Tsundur,

dated 06.09.2018.

Ex.A.5: Certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.584/2018 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class magistrate, Tenali, dated 01.11.2018.

For Respondents: Nil.

(Sd/-) G. Anwar Basha

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR,

FAC: CHAIRMAN, MACT-cum- PDJ, GUNTUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE CONSTITUTED UNDER

NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT - CUM – I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :: GUNTUR

PRESENT: Sri G. Anwar Basha,

SPECIAL JUDGE CONSTITUTED UNDER

NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT - CUM –

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Tuesday, the 12th day of April, 2022.

Crl.M.P.No.578/2022 in Cr.No.136/2022 of Lalapet PS.

Between:

Shaik Asif @ Khasim @ Puthel, S/o.Arif, aged 23 yrs., Muslim, R/o.D.No.18-12-111, Isukuvari street, Chinna Bazar, now at Balaji Nagar, Guntur.(A.1)

..Petitioner/Accused No.1.

-And-

State: Inspector of Police, Lalapet P.S. .. Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.A.Wilson, Advocate for the petitioner/Accused No.1 and of learned Special

Public Prosecutor for complainant, and upon perusing the record, this court made the following :

O R D E R

1. This is the 3rd bail application filed by Petitioner/Accused No.1 under

Secs.437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.136/2022 of Lalapet Police station for the alleged offence under Sec.392 IPC and Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. As per the contents of the Petition, the Petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 26.02.2022 by the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur.

2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he did not commit the alleged offence and he is falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that there is no iota of evidence to connect the petitioner with alleged offences and there is no evidence to show that the petitioner has committed offences under Section 392 of IPC, and Section 8(C) r/w.20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. He further submitted that A1 is not involved in any other cases and the prosecution has not registered any cases and there is no evidence. He further submitted that the alleged ganja seized from petitioner was falsely planted by the respondent to get away from 2 under investigation basis and the petitioner is law abiding citizen, has permanent abode at Guntur, and is willing to produce sureties to the satisfaction of this court.

3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a case where 5 Kgs., of ganja was seized from A1 and A2 and a juvenile. She also submitted that the petitioner is a notorious criminal committing offences against two wheelers as well as lonely persons in the outskirts during nights, and was selling ganja to earn easy money by purchasing the same at Araku of Visakhapatnam. She further submitted that investigation in this case is not completed, analysis report is not received and there are no changed circumstances.

4. As seen from CD Part-I, this is a case of extortion dated occurred 18.2.2022 at 11.15 p.m., at Budampadu bye-pass near Indian Petrol Bunk, Guntur town, and reported in police station on 20.2.2022 at 9 p.m., in which the defacto- complainant, Pathan Salman Khan, while going to Suddapall village through Budampadu bye-pass on his unicorn bike, bearing No. AP 07 DB 2692, had given trouble, and not started, and the defacto-complainant informed the same to his friend Mastan vali, who rushed to the spot and tried to start the bike, and in the mean time two unknown persons had come there and started the bike, and soon after that his friend went away from there, and later unknown strangers demanded the defacto-complainant for money, and when he questioned them they grabbed his wallet, mobile and bike by using criminal force, and fled away on bike along with wallet and mobile all worth

Rs.35,000/-. It is alleged that A1, A2 and the juvenile are close associates, and to satisfy their vices, they hatched plan to earn more money and they chose to steel the motor cycles as well as started committing offences against lonely persons in the outskirts, and used to rob cash and valuables from them. It is alleged that the petitioner is a habitual offender. It is alleged that about 10 months back the petitioner and another committed theft of FZ motor cycle at Government General Hospital, Guntur, dismantled the parts and sold away to unknown persons and around 7 months back A1 and A2 committed theft of Activa motor cycle at Arch, near Pedakakani, disposed of spare parts to some unknown persons, around 6 months back they committed theft of 3

Honda shine at Arch center, Pedakakani Sivalayam, and it was recovered by police,

around three months back they committed theft of TVS XL, dismantled and sold away spare parts to some unknown persons, around 2 months back they committed theft of pulsar motor cycle at ITC, Nagaramapalem and disposed of spare parts, in the 3rd week of November-2021, in the evening at 7 p.m., they had noticed a male person on scooty at Satya Sai Baba Trust Road, intercepted him, extorted on the point of knife and robbed Rs.1800/- and Samsung mobile phone and sold away Samsung mobile to some unknown person, and it is the subject matter in Cr.No.635/2021 under Sec,.384 of IPC of Lalapet P.S., in the month of January, 2022, they committed theft of Hero Glamour

Motor cycle at R.Agraharam, and it is subject matter in Cr.No.4/2022 under Section 379 of IPC of Lalapet P.S., in the third week of January, they committed theft of Splendor motor cycle and it is subject matter in Cr.No.43/2022, under Section 379 of IPC of

Lalapet PS., in the first week of February, they committed theft of FZ motor cycle at ITC

Nagarampalem and decamped with the booty, and around 10 days back they committed theft of splendor plus motor cycle and decamped with the booty. There are no changed circumstances from previous application to this Petition. Hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/A1.

5. In the result, the bail application is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 12th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Sri G. Anwar Basha

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

-cum-SPECIAL JUDGE CONSTITUTED UNDER

NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC

SUBSTANCES ACT, GUNTUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE : GUNTUR

PRESENT: G. Anwar Basha,

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC: PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Friday, the 8th day of April, 2022.

Crl.M.P.No.538/2022 in Cr.No.12/2022 of Ponnuru Town PS.

Between: Syed Abdul Sony @ Jalachitra Sony @ Itta Sony, W/o.Jalachitra Naga Raju @ Jalachitra Audi @ Itta Audi, Muslim, aged about 27 years, R/o.Door No.1-2-1, 2nd Ward, 2nd Lane, Bhavanagar Colony, Ponnur Town, Guntur District.

..Petitioner/A3

-And-

The State- Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town P.S., .. Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Ankamma Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner/A3 and of learned Public

Prosecutor for Complainant, and upon perusing the record, this court made the following :

O R D E R

1. This is the third bail application filed by the Petitioner/A3 under Secs.437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, seeking regular bail in Cr.No.12/2022 of Ponnuru Town Police Station, for the alleged offences under Sections 302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC. As per the contents of the petition the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 20.01.2022 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnuru.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A3 submitted that the petitioner is innocent and she did not commit any offence, and the same is foisted false case against the petitioner for statistical purpose. He also submitted that the petitioner is a lady having infant children, aged about 5 years and 3 years, and relatives of petitioner are not taking care of her children. He further submitted that A3 is permanent resident of

Bhavanagar colony, Ponnur, and is having sufficient sureties.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a case of gruesome murder of husband by the wife by entering into a conspiracy with A1 and A2. He also submitted that LWs.1 to 13 were examined and that the crime weapons were sent to

RFSL and report is not yet received, and investigation is not completed. He further submitted that the statement of LW.13 to be recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, who is 2 own sister of A3, and there is every possibility that A3 would influence her sister. He further submitted that there are no changed circumstances to grant the bail, and the bail application is liable to be dismissed.

4. As seen from CD Part-I, this is a case of gruesome mariticide i.e., murder of husband that occurred on intervening night of 6/7.1.2022 at about 2 a.m., at

Bhavnagar colony, Ponnur town and reported in the police station on 9.1.2022 at 17.00 hours, in which one Jalachitra Nageswararao, brother of deceased Nagaraju @ Audi, made a complaint that A3, Sayyad Abdul Sony being wife of deceased and mother of two kids made her lover followed by others, and killed the deceased, and threw the dead body in a canal causing disappearance of body, on the ground that, her husband got wind of her affair with others. It is alleged that Sony got friendship with Javvadi

Venkata Sai @ Sai of Ponnur through Instagram account chitchatting, developed illegal contact with him, distancing his brother and getting wind of the same, assaulted her and threatened her with death and Sony with a premeditated plan to do away with the life or the deceased, so that they would continue their lecherous link forever, on the intervening night of 6/7.1.2022 she had offered chicken curry rice mixed with sleeping tables and after the deceased was sleeping, opened the doors and allowed Javvadi

Venkata Sai and Binendra Kumar who butchered him with knife on his throat, dealt blows on his head with iron rod. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 20.1.2022 and it is submitted that she has got minor children. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/A3.

5. In the result, the bail application is allowed, and the petitioner /A3 is released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.20,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 8th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- G. Anwar Basha

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC: PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Copy to: The Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur.