Sri G.Durgaiah, B.Com. M.A., LL. M.,

Page No.1 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE­CUM­SPL.

JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NDPS ACT OFFENCES: VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT:­ SRI G.DURGAIAH, IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIOINS JUDGE­CUM­

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

FAC.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 20th DAY OF JANUARY 2021.

SESSIONS CASE No.340/2018

 (NCB F.NO. 48/1/1/2018/HYD/SUB­ZONE)

COMPLAINANT:Union of India, Narcotics Control Bureau Sub­Zone Hyderabad, Through Intelligence Officer. 

NAME OF THE ACCUSED:­

Senthil Kumar, S/o Veluswami, Age 38 years, R/o Door No.448, Chairmanmudaliar street, Ammapet, Salem, Tamilnadu State.

OFFENCE CHARGED: U/s.8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act.

PLEA OF THE ACCUSED: Not guilty

FINDING OF THE COURT & SENTENCE OR ORDER:­ In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The accused is acquitted U/s.235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the offence punishable U/s.8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

The M.Os.1 to 34 and other unmarked property if any shall be disposed off as per Notification dated 16.01.2015 after appeal time is over.

This Sessions Case coming on 12.01.2021 before me for final hearing through Blue Jeans Application at the Court premises in the presence of Sri R.Suresh Kumar, Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Smt.M.V.L.Gayathri, Advocate for accused and upon hearing and considering the material on record and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:­ 

Page No.2 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

J U D G M E N T

The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Hyderabad, filed complaint against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.8 (c) r/w 20

(b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 in NCB F.NO. 48/1/1/2018/HYD/SUB­

ZONE.

2.The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

 on 23.04.2018 at 17­00 hours P.W.2 (Sumit Arya) received reliable information that one person by name Senthil Kumar, Tamilian was carrying one concealed huge quantity of Ganja in the lorry bearing registration No.TN 51 U 2677 and travelling towards Salem via Vijayawada on 24.04.2018 at around 09­00 hrs with the consignments. The same was reduced into writing and communicated to P.W.1(Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi) .

As per the instructions received from P.W.1 to constitute a team and take action under the NDPS Act, 1985 a team of Officers from NCB Hyderabad left for the spot and reached the spot at about 08­00 hours and approached two persons, who were present near the spot and identified themselves as officers of NCB, Hyderabad by showing their identity card and informed them that they have received information regarding drug trafficking and requested to be witnesses for the proceedings, for which they agreed. The independent witnesses Chintapalli Chandra Sekhar (PW6) and Varma Ramesh also readily agreed to the proposal and NCB team along with the above independent witnesses mounted surveillance at the spot for the observation of the said vehicle movement. At about 11­00 hours, a lorry bearing registration No.TN 51 U 2677 was moving towards

Vijayawada was intercepted. The NCB officials indicated to stop the said lorry and found one driver was present in the lorry cabin. The NCB team introduced themselves to the driver by showing identity cards and the

Page No.3 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

purpose of checking his vehicle, asked the driver to park the lorry in a vacant place near the spot at NH 16. The driver of the lorry voluntarily disclosed his name as Senthil Kumar, S/o.Veluswami, R/o.Door No.448,

Chairmanmudaliar Street, Ammapet, Salem. The NCB officials informed the driver that they will carry out his personal search and search of the lorry, for which he voluntarily accepted. The NCB team officials offered their personal search for which he declined. He was given notice U/s.50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and explained the contents of the notice for personal search in presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and also informed that it was his legal right, for which he declined and replied stating that the team may undertake his personal search and the search of the said lorry in their presence by waiving his legal right in terms of section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The search authorization of the said vehicle was shown by the official of NCB.The accused also replied in affirmative and said that he collected about 950 KGs. of Ganja from one person by name,

Guru of Vijayanagaram, Andhra Pradesh and to supply the same to one person in Salem on reaching there with the telephonic direction from

Guru. The team found that the lorry was covered with a dark grey colour tarpaulin and tide over with rope. After opening the rope and dark grey colour tarpaulin, it was covered with one more tarpaulin. On opening these two tarpaulins, some white colour plastic gunny bags were found.

All the white colour plastic gunny bags were unloaded which was found to be 32 in number. They cut opened serially and found dark brown colour suspected material with pungent smell and appearing as flowering and fruiting tops. The accused replied that it is Ganja. Then the NCB official took one white colour plastic gunny bag and mixed properly. A small quantity of the suspected material from this plastic gunny bag was tested with field drugs detection kit and gave positive result to be Ganja. The

Page No.4 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

same procedure was carried out for the remaining 31 white colour plastic gunny bags and all gave positive result for Ganja and all the gunny bags were seized as per provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985. The 31 bags were weighed and weight of each bag was 30 KGs respectively. The 32nd bag was weighed 27.70 KGs. The total weight of the seized Ganja was 957.70

KGs from all the 32 plastic gunny bags. Two representative samples of 24 grams each were drawn from all 32 white colour plastic gunny bags which is believed to be Ganja, put in a plastic pouch, heat sealed and put in a paper envelop, pasted and marked as S­1 to S­64 respectively. All 64 samples were sealed with NCB RIC HYD SEAL NO 02. All 32 gunny bags were stitched properly and sealed with NCB RIC HYD SEAL NO 02. White colour paper slip which contained description of the seized property and samples was pasted on all the respective property and samples. 

Another tarpaulin was removed and found 16 white colour plastic bag with marking as ‘calcined alumina’ each mentioned as 1000 KGs. The said 16 bags were left in the lorry and it was covered with tarpaulin and tied with rope. The said lorry along with the 16 white colour plastic bags used as concealment for trafficking of Ganja was seized along with Xerox copy of authorization certificate issued by RTO, Erode (East), Tamilnadu.

The driver voluntarily handed over the invoice of ‘calcined alumina’, one

ATM Card of Andhra Bank bearing No.6079090500031947, one toll plaza payment slip of Kalaparu toll and cash of Rs.360/­ which was placed in plastic pouch, stapled, which were seized under a reasonable belief that they are liable for confiscation under the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 and put the cash of Rs.360/­ in an envelop and sealed properly. The personal search of Senthil Kumar was not conducted as he voluntarily shown his empty pockets. All the seizure proceedings were conducted by the NCB team in the presence of the panch witnesses. The driver Senthil

Page No.5 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

Kumar, panch witnesses and Seizure Officer, Sumit Arya (P.W.2)

Investigation Officer, NCB, subscribed their signatures on all the seized property, samples and other incriminating documents. Later a

Panchanama was prepared by one of the NCB Intelligence Officers, Sumit

Arya (P.W.2) to the narration of panch witnesses i.e., Chintapalli Chandra

Sekhar (P.W.6) and Varma Ramesh. The above proceedings were carried out without any damage or hampering any religious sentiment and ended peacefully at around 18­00 hours on 24.04.2018.

On 24.04.2018 summons were issued U/s.67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 to Senthil Kumar by P.W.2 for enquiry and recording of his voluntary statement. The said Senthil Kumar tendered his voluntary statement before P.W.2 U/s.67 of the NDPS Act 1985 on 24.04.2018 and that continued to 25.04.2018 in which he, inter­alia, admitted his involvement in procurement, transport and sale of Ganja and that he did this for earning easy money. Basing on his voluntary statement and incriminating documents, material seized, Senthil Kumar was arrested at about 12­30 hours on 25.04.2018 for contravention of the provisions of section 8 (c) read with Section 20(b), 28 & 29 of the NDPS Act 1985. The

Accused was allowed to talk with his family over mobile No.9385405623 for information about his arrest to his family. The Accused was taken to

A.P. Vaidya Vidhan Parishad Govt. Hospital, Gannavaram for medical examination and the medical report was obtained. Intimation of arrest was communicated to his wife Kanaki through speed post vide letter dated 25.04.2018. Later the Accused was produced before the VIII Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Gannavaram along with Annexure I,II,

III on 25.04.2018 and he was remanded to judicial custody. The seized items including the samples were handed over to the Superintendent,

NCB, Hyderabad Sub­Zone along with a forwarding memo on26.04.2018

Page No.6 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

under acknowledgement, which was issued by the Superintendent, NCB,

Hyderabad, Sri Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi (P.W.1). P.W.2 submitted the

Search & Seizure report on 26.04.2018 along with report of arrest U/s.57 of the NDPS Act 1985.

On 26.04.2018 P.W.2 requested P.W.1 to issue seized materials un­ der panchanama dated 24.04.2018 for production before the District &

Session Court at Vijayawada on 27.04.2018 along with memo of submis­ sion of seized properties on 27.04.2018. The properties were not deposited due to administration ground, hence re­deposited with the godown in­ charge along with a letter dated 27.04.2018 and P.W.1, who was incharge of godown and acknowledged the same. After making a requisition by a letter to P.W.1, the samples marked as S1, S3, S5, S7, S9, S11, S13, S15,

S17, S19, S21, S23, S25, S27, S29, S31, S33, S35, S37, S39, S41, S43,

S45, S47, S49, S51, S53, S55, S57, S59, S61 and S63 were taken out from the Malkhana and handed over to Sri Chamat Sanjay Bhivaji, Sepoy,

NCB, Hyderabad along with a covering letter to the Director, Central

Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad along with Annexure­I. The

CFSL issued acknowledgment on receipt of the samples vide letter

dated 01.05.2018. A letter dated 10.05.2018 addressed to the Zonal Di­

rector, NCB, Chennai, regarding follow up action in respect of the Accused and also addressed letters dated 10.05.2018 and 07.08.2018 addressed to the RTO, Erode requesting the details of movable properties of the accused and seized vehicle. A letter addressed to the G.M., Personal Banking, Hy­ derabad, and Branch Manager of Andhra Bank, Salem was sent for the details of the Andhra Bank ATM debit card (No.6079090500031947) that was found from the possession of the Accused. A reply in this regard was received from Andhra Bank Salem dated 14.05.2018 vide L.R.

No.0500/01/344 enclosing the KYC documents and the Bank Statement.

Page No.7 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

The KYC documents revealed some other address, which was visited by the NCB team, and found that said building is owned by one Lady Kalai

Selvi, who confirmed that the Accused was residing there along with his family earlier, however, she said she does not know the whereabouts of the accused at present, as he left the said premises without intimating her. An enquiry report in this regard was submitted by P.W.2 along with the authorization under section 41(2) of the NDPS Act, 1985 application submitted by the owner of the premises along with the copy of Aadhar card and the water supply receipt and electricity card with free English translation of the owner of the premises. The address, which was given by the Accused, was found to be occupied by one lady, Smt.Jayam, who is re­ siding in that address for last 25 years in rent.

Summons were issued U/s.67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 to the authorized signatory of M/s.Sri Durga Lucky Road Lines, Sri Biyyala

Krishna Rao (P.W.3),who is the owner of M/s.Sri Durga Lucky Road Lines (Transport Contractors & Commission Agent) appeared before the NCB office on 22.05.2018 and tendered statement along with annexure on 22.05.2018. He identified the photograph of the accused as driver, who was issued the Voucher No. 54 on 24.04.2018. P.W.3 again appeared on 30.05.2018 and submitted his voluntary statement. At that time, he submitted the duplicate copy of original cash voucherNo.61, 94 and 54

dated 7.1.2017, 15.3.2018 and 22.04.2018 respectively of Sri Durga

Lucky Road Lines which were issued to the accused, in which he has given his mobile and fictious name twice and also submitted the photocopy of the Form C issued by Labour Dept. of Govt. of A.P. regarding the registration of the firm. Summons were also issued U/s.67 of the

NDPS Act, 1985 to the authorized representative of Associated Road

Carriers Limited office, K.L. Puram Road, near RTO office, Vizianagaram

Page No.8 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

by P.W.2 and the said summons was returned as unserved. On 30.05.2018 summons were issued U/s.67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 to Sri

Aleti Sanjeeva Rao (L.W.6), Cashier of the M/s.Sri Durga Lucky Road

Lines (Transport Contractors & Commission Agent) by P.W.2 and his statement was recorded and some documents were submitted by him on the same day stating that he has been working in M/s.Sri Durga Lucky

Road Lines (Transport Contractors & Commission Agent) since last eight years and he used to provide 80­90 vehicles per month to different transporter at Vizianagaram for transportation of goods to the States of

Tamil Nadu and Kerala and used to collect the commission and issued cash receipts and that he used to get the commission from the driver of the vehicle in cash. His mobile no is 7799242786. P.W.4 further stated in his statement that on 20.04.2018 the driver of the vehicle number TN 51U 2677 came to his office for booking and asked the owner for the booking of the lorry, but the owner told him to wait for booking and he waited near the office for two days. On 22.04.2018 as per the direction of the owner P.W.4 provided the booking of lorry to the driver and forwarded the vehicle No. TN 51U 2677 to Associated Road Carriers Limited Office, (Mobile No. 9396934245) at K.L.Puram Road, near RTO Office,

Vizianagaram for loading after the payment of 1970/­ by cash which includes commission. The voucher no 54 dated 22.04.2018 which was seized at the spot was the commission voucher issued by the owner to the driver (Mobile No.9443418023) of the lorry No.TN51U 2677. The name told by the driver as T.Manikanthan was not verified with any document.

P.W.4 issued receipt of cash voucher number 54 mentioning the name of the driver and owner of the vehicle as told by the driver. Previously he had been provided loading by his office vide voucher No.61 dated 07.01.2018 and voucher No.94 dated 15.03.2018, in which the same

Page No.9 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

driver visited their office and had told his name as Jayamurugan of Salem and Senthil of Erode respectively and at that time too P.W.4 did not verify the name of the driver with any documents. The mobile of the same

Branch Manager is 934895400. Vide cash voucher dated 15.03.2018 the driver along with the lorry no. TN51U2677 was forwarded to Surat Goods (P) Ltd. (Mobile No.9959246255) at K L Puram, Near FCI godown,

Vizianagaram 535003. The photo of the accused was shown to P.W.4, who confirmed the photo to be of the driver of vehicle No.TN51U 2677 who was waiting there for two days for booking and paid the commission in the office on 24.04.2018. The accused previously issued booking on 07.01.2018 and 15.03.2018 too. All the documents given by the driver of the vehicle TN51U 2677 during booking was forwarded to the Associated

Road Carriers Limited Office, Vizianagaram. The mobile number of the vehicle owner submitted by the driver during the three booking are as 9092558292 and 9500516179. 

After completion of the analysis, Sri Sanjay Chaman, Sepoy was deputed to collect the sample and the analysis report from the CFSL vide letter No.CFSL(H)/581/CHEM/86/2018/1339 dated 29.06.2018, which confirmed the contraband to be Ganja in all the 32 samples. For further investigation a letter was written on 07.08.2018 to the Nodal Officer of

BSNL for providing the CAF (Customer Application Form) and CDR (Call

Data Record) of the said mobile No.9443418023. A Copy of the letter received by the NCB Hyderabad office on 05.10.2018 along CDR and CAF.

The CDR of the mobile number used by the Accused clearly indicates that he was in communication with the mobile No.7799242786 belonging to

P.W.4 on 21.04.2018 at 10:43:39 hours and with No.9703917786 belonging to P.W.3 on 22.04.2018 at 15:43:21 hours in the last page of the CDR. It is established that the truck from which there was a seizure

Page No.10 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

of 957.7 KGs of Ganja was driven by the Accused. As per Customer

Application Form (CAF) records provided by BSNL authorities in respect of

Mobile No.9443418023 reveals the address of the accused. Accordingly, a letter was forwarded to the Superintendent NCB, Madurai for taking necessary action. After issuing summons U/s.67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 to Sri Kapil Deo Sing, Divisional Manager, Associated Road Carriers,

Visakhapatnam, he appeared on 02.08.2018 and gave statement, in which he expressed his ignorance about such transportation of Ganja. It clearly proves that the accused was knowingly carrying the huge quantity of

Ganja in a lorry without giving any intimation to the owners of the consignment of Calcined Alumina. The voluntary statements of independent witnesses i.e., P.W.6 and Varma Ramesh of the seizure

Panchnama dated 24.04.2018 also corroborate the seizure of 957.7 KGs of

Ganja from the possession of the accused. As per the authorization certificate issued by the RTO, Erode(East), Tamil Nadu, which was found on the spot and annexed with the Panchnama, the owner of the Vehicle with Reg. No. TN 51 U 2677 used for transporting the seized Ganja (957.7

Kgs) was ascertained as Mohammed Younus M, R/o.14 VOC Street,

Kollampalyam Railway Colony, Erode­638002. He was also sent notices

U/s.67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for examination, though notice was returned unserved with an endorsement “no such address”. The

Registration Extracts of the said Vehicle were also obtained from the RTO,

Erode, which also provided the address of the owner of the vehicle as above. When the NCB team visited the above mentioned address, it was learnt that no such person with name Mohammed Younus M,

S/o.Mohammed Yagoob was ever rented out the said premises. In fact the said property was owned by Mr. A. David. A letter in this regard has been received from Mr. A.David, 14, V.O.C Street, Kollampalayam, Erode­

Page No.11 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

638002 along with copy of the Aadhar Card and Electricity Receipt. A letter was also addressed to the Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Ltd.,

Hyderabad requesting to furnish CAF and CDR of mobile number 9500516179 of the Lorry owner and also forwarded a letter to the Nodal

Officer of Idea, Hyderabad requesting to furnish CAF and CDR of mobile

No.9092558292 of the Lorry owner given by P.W.4 during his voluntary statement. A Letter was also addressed to the Zonal Director NCB,

Chennai regarding serving of summon and the enquiry regarding the whereabouts and any other address of the residence of the owner of the lorry Mohammed Younus M of seized vehicle TN 51U 2677. As per orders of this Court, 16 bags of Calcined Alumina were returned to P.W­5 under acknowledgment. The residential address as provided by the accused was found that no such person ever resided in the said address, which clearly indicates that the said accused intentionally, mislead the NCB team and concealed his actual address, showing his malafide intentions. U/s.35 of the NDPS Act 1985, the Court shall presume the existence of culpable mental state of the accused and it shall be the defense of the accused to prove that they had no such mental state. Hence, the charge sheet. 

3)On 24.11.2018 the Court took cognizance for the offence punishable

U/s.8 (c) r/w. 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and registered the case against the accused, who is an under trial prisoner.

4)After production of accused before the Court, the accused was provided with case copies as per section 207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure on 14.12.2018.

5)The accused was charged for the offence punishable U/s.8 (c) r/w.

20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 on 17.04.2019 and it was explained to

Page No.12 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

him in Tamil language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

6)During the course of trial, P.Ws­1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P­1 to P­46 were marked. M.Os­1 to 34 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of the defence.

7)After conclusion of the evidence for prosecution, the accused was examined U/s.313 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the evidence for prosecution on 11.03.2020 with the assistance of Smt.B.Radhika,

Advocate, who knows Tamil Language. He denied the same as not true and pleaded that he did not commit any offence and reported no defence evidence.

8)Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and perused the written arguments of both side.

9)Now the point for determination based on the charge in the case is as follows:­

“Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of

the accused for the offence punishable U/s.8 (c) r/w 20 (b)

(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 beyond reasonable doubt?”

POINT:­

10)In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined the Superintendent of NCB, Hyderabad as P.W­1. The Investigation

Officer is examined as P.W­2. Owner of M/s.Sri Durga Lucky Road Lines,

Vijayanagaram is examined as P.W­3. The cashier of M/s.Sri Durga

Page No.13 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

Lucky Road Lines, Vijayanagaram is examined as P.W­4. The Divisional

Manager of M/s.Associated Road Carriers Limited, Visakhapatnam is examined as P.W­5. The mediator to the seizure of the contraband is examined as P.W­6. The Assistant Director of CFSL, Hyderabad is examined as P.W­7 and another Investigation Officer who took­up further investigation in this case is examined as P.W­8 and relied on Exs.P­1 to

P­46 and M.Os­1 to 34.

11)As seen from the evidence of P.W­1, his evidence goes to show that previously he worked as Superintendent, NCB, Hyderabad from June 2016 to March, 2019. On 23.04.2018 at about 05­00 p.m. while he was in the office, P.W­2 the then Investigation Officer, NCB put up information report before him stating that a person by name Senthil Kumar was transporting huge quantity of ganja in a lorry which was going to Salem,

Tamil Nadu State via Vijayawada. Basing on the said information he directed P.W­2 to constitute a team and take necessary action as per law.

Ex.P­1 is the report dated 23.04.2018 also substantiate the version of

P.W­1. Later he issued search authorization to P.W­2 to conduct search of the lorry and also forwarded seal No.2 for using the same to seal the seized objects. On 26.04.2018 P.W­2 put up letter before him to deposition of seized property, to keep the same in Malkhana (godown).

Most of the packets of the seized ganja and lorry were kept under the custody of Gannavaram Police Station. The samples of ganja which were taken during the seizure proceedings and one packet contained cash were deposited in the godown. P.W­2 also submitted search and seizure report

before him on 26.04.2018. On the same day, he handed over the samples

and a packet containing cash to P.W­2 for producing the same before the

Magistrate. On 27.04.2018 the said property was again produced and

Page No.14 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

deposited in the godown. On the same day samples were forwarded to

CFSL, Hyderabad for chemical analysis. The evidence of P.W­2, who is

Investigation Officer in this case also corroborates the evidence of P.W­1 regarding receiving information from reliable source about transportation of ganja by the accused in the lorry bearing No.TN51U 2677 and submitting the information report and conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of two mediators and submitting search and seizure reports, submitting a requisition to P.W­1 to keep the seized contraband and samples in the godown etc. 

12)P.W­2 categorically stated in his evidence that on 24.04.2018 at about 11­00 a.m. they noticed lorry bearing No.TN51U 2677 was coming towards Vijayawada. Then they have given signal to stop the lorry. The lorry was stopped and parked near vacant place on the side of NH 16 road. They verified lorry cabin and found the accused in the lorry in the driver seat. He introduced details to the accused and shared the information received by him. Then he issued notice U/s.50 of the NDPS

Act, 1985 to conduct his personal search and informed that he is having a right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. The accused declined, as such, personal search of the accused was not conducted, as he has shown his empty pockets. After showing the search authorization, he conducted search and found the lorry was covered with grey colour tarpaulin and tied with rope. After it was removed, he noticed white colour plastic gunny bags and they were unloaded and counted. They were 32 plastic gunny bags containing some material. Those bags were tested with drug detection kits and found the presence of ganja in those gunny bags. Each bag weighed and found 31 bags containing 30 KGs each and 32nd bag weighing 27.70 KGs of ganja. Then he has drawn 2

Page No.15 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

samples each of 24 grams from each bag which are marked as M.Os­1 to 32 respectively. The samples marked as S­1 to S­64 respectively. The truck was covered with one more plastic cover. After removed the same, he found 16 bags of 1000 KGs each containing calcined alumina. When he questioned the accused about the contents of the material found in the lorry, he confirmed that the bags contained ganja and received them from one Guru of Vijayanagaram and he was instructed to deliver the same to a person in Salem, Tamil Nadu on telephonic instructions. The accused handed over the photo copy of RTO certificate. He seized the lorry along with 16 bags of calcined alumina and RTO certificate. The accused also handed over carbon copy of invoice and one toll plaza receipt of Kalaparru

Toll Plaza and handed over Andhra Bank ATM Card and those seized items were sealed in the presence of the independent witnesses and proceedings were translated to Tamil Language by Tamil knowing Sepoy

V.Viju. The seizure proceedings were concluded at 06.00 p.m. on the same day.

12)Ex.P­1 is the information report dated 23.04.2018 submitted by

P.W­2 to P.W­1. Ex.P­2 is the letter dated 26.04.2018 submitted by P.W­2 for deposition of the property. Ex.P­3 is the godown receipt dated 26.04.2018 issued by P.W­1. Ex.P­4 is search and seizure report dated 26.04.2018 submitted by P.W­2. Ex.P­5 is report of arrest dated 26.04.2018 submitted by P.W­2. Ex.P­6 is letter dated 26.04.2018 regarding issuing of seizure material submitted by P.W­2. Ex.P­7 is letter

dated 27.04.2018 regarding deposition of seized material submitted by

P.W­2. Ex.P­8 is letter dated 27.04.2018 submitted to CFSL, Hyderabad regarding forwarding of samples by P.W­1. Ex.P­9 is notice U/s.50 of the

NDPS Act, 1985 which was served to the accused for personal search.

Page No.16 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

Ex.P­10 is photo copy of RTO certificate handed over by the accused. It is a Xerox copy. It reveals the validity of national permit authorization in respect of vehicle bearing No.TN51U 2677 upto 09.11.2015. The validity of basic goods permit is till 09.11.2019. The name and address of the permit holder is Md.Yunus M, R/o.14 VOC street, Kollampalayam Railway

Colony, Erode­638002. Ex.P­11 is carbon copy of the invoice and other related documents relating to transport of calcined alumina. Ex.P­12 is plain receipt along with ATM card said to have been handed over by the accused. The receipt does not contain anything. No printed material is visible on the receipt. The ATM card is in the name of the accused. Ex.P­ 13 is panchanama proceedings dated 24.04.2018 at 11.30 a.m. Exs.P­1 to P­13 are going to substantiate the version of P.W­1 and P.W­2 regarding submitting information report and conducting search after giving authorization to P.W­2 and seizure of the contraband along with calcined alumina material 16 bags, drawing 64 samples from 32 bags of contraband and seizure of cash, ATM card and RTO certificate under cover of Ex.P­13 panchanama proceedings.

13)The evidence of P.W­2 further reveals that the accused appeared

before him on 25.04.2018 and made a voluntary statement about

transporting of ganja said to have been handed over by one Guru and the same is to be delivered on telephonic directions of Guru to a person at

Salem, Tamil Nadu and in the statement, he stated that he will be paid

Rs.10,000/­ for this work. Ex.P­14 is the statement recorded by one Viju in the presence of P.W­2 on 25.04.2018, which is in Tamil Language, translated copy of Ex.P­14 is not filed into Court, as such this Court has no opportunity to go through the contents of Ex.P­14. Ex.P­14 was not proved by examining any competent person. Moreover, the evidence of

Page No.17 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

P.W­2 reveals that lorry and accused had been in the custody of P.W­2 by the date of Ex.P­14. I may say without proving Ex.P­14, the question of evidentiary value of Ex.P­14 cannot be decided. Thus, Ex.P­14 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution. The evidence of P.W­2 further reveals that he prepared arrest memo for the arrest of the accused at 12.30 p.m.

on 25.04.2018 and informed the accused about the reasons for his arrest and also intimation was given to his wife over phone and letter was prepared to the address of his wife under Ex.P­16 and accused was produced before the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court,

Gannavaram on the same day. The contraband covered by M.Os­1 to 32 bags, seized truck along with 16 bags of calcined alumina were handed over to Gannavaram Police Station as per direction of P.W­1 due to administrative reasons. He deposited the sample packets which are marked as S­1 to S­64 and seized money and key of the lorry to P.W­1 on 26.04.2018 under Ex.P­3. His evidence also further reveals that he conducted further investigation by submitting letter to P.W­1 to issue the 32 samples seized under panchanama dated 24.04.2018 for chemical analysis to be forwarded to CFSL, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad and he also addressed letter to Zonal Director, Chennai Zonal Unit of NCB for follow­ up action of arrested person to conduct house search. He also addressed letter to General Manager and Branch Manager of Andhra Bank, Salem to provide details of Ex.P­12 debit card and he received reply from the Chief

Manager, Andhra Bank, Salem intimating details of account, in which address of the accused is found. The bank also provided statement of account. Later he issued summons to the authorized signatory of M/s.Sri

Durga Lucky Road Lines, Vijayanagaram regarding details of consignment and he also issued summons to owner of the vehicle Md.Yunus of Erode,

Tamil Nadu. On the same day, he also issued summons to authorized

Page No.18 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

representative of Associated Road Carriers Limited Office,

Visakhapatnam. The authorized signatory of Sri Durga Lucky Road Lines and cashier of Sri Durga Lucky Road Lines appeared before him and their statements were recorded by him. On 07.06.2018 he received letter from

CFSL, Hyderabad dated 05.06.2018 about completion of chemical analysis. On 18.07.2018 he visited the given address of the accused at

Salem, Tamil Nadu and came to know that his family has left the premises and whereabouts his family is not known to the owner of the premises. Thereafter he visited the address given by the accused during his arrest at Salem but the said premises was being used by one woman

P.Jayam for the last 25 years and she did not hear about the accused.

On 02.08.2018 summons were issued to Mr.Kapid Dev Singh, Divisional

Manager of Associated Road Carrier Limited, Visakhapatnam and recorded his statement. On 07.08.2018 letter was written to the Nodal

Officer, Bharathi Airtel, Hyderabad to provide Customer Application Form and Call Data Record relating to mobile number 9500516179 which was informed by P.W­4 stating that it belongs to the owner of the vehicle. On the same day letter was written to the Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular,

Hyderabad to provide Customer Application Form and Call Data Record relating to mobile number 9092558292 which was informed by P.W­4 as it belongs to the owner of the vehicle. On the same day P.W­1 addressed a letter to the Zonal Director, NCB, Chennai to serve summons to

Mr.Mohammad Yunus M U/s.67 of the NDPS Act, 1985. On the same day he addressed a letter to RTO, Erode to provide the details of the vehicle bearing No.TN51U 2677 and received reply on 20.09.2018 providing information that owner of the vehicle is Mr.Mohammad Yunus

M and his address details. On 17.08.2018 received reply from Idea

Cellular Limited, Hyderabad providing information with regard to name of

Page No.19 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

the customer as Ashik Hussain. On 17.08.2018 he wrote a letter to the

SHO, Ammapet Police Station, Salem, Tamil Nadu to provide information about cases if any pending against the accused. Ex.P­15 is copy of arrest memo dated 25.04.2018 served on the accused. Ex.P­16 is intimation with regard to arrest of accused to his wife. Ex.P­17 is requisition dated 27.04.2018 submitted by P.W­2 to P.W­1 for 32 samples seized under panchanama for chemical analysis to be forwarded to CFSL,

Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. Ex.P­18 is letter addressed by P.W­1 to CFSL,

Ramanthapur, Hyderabad dated 01.05.2018 and acknowledgement received from CFSL, Hyderabad. Ex.P­19 is letter dated 10.05.2018 forwarded to Zonal Director, Chennai Zonal Unit of NCB for follow­up action of arrested person to conduct the house search. Ex.P­20 is letter

dated 10.05.2018 addressed to RTO, Erode to provide details of seized

lorry No.TN51U 2677. Ex.P­21 is letter written to the General Manager and Branch Manager of Andhra Bank, Salem to provide details of Ex.P­12 debit card. Ex.P­22 is reply received from Chief Manager, Andhra Bank,

Salem dated 05.07.2018 intimating details of account of accused.

Ex.P­23 is bank statement of accused account along with bank account opening from and KYC details. It reveals the address particulars of the accused. Ex.P­24 is bunch of three cash vouchers issued by P.W­4.

Ex.P­25 and P­26 are statements of P.W­3 dated 22.05.2018 and 30.05.2018 respectively. Ex.P­27 is statement of P.W­4. Ex.P­28 is letter

dated 05.06.2018 received from CFSL, Hyderabad about completion of

chemical analysis. Ex.P­29 is Chemical Analysis Report dated 29.06.2018 received from CFSL, Hyderabad. The analysis reveals that the material contained ganja. Ex.P­30 is statement of P.W­5. Ex.P­31 is letter dated 07.08.2018 addressed to the Nodal Officer, Bharathi Airtel, Hyderabad by

P.W­2 to provide Customer Application Form and Call Data Record

Page No.20 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

relating to mobile No.9500516179. Ex.P­32 is letter dated 07.08.2018 addressed to the Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular, Hyderabad by P.W­2 to provide Customer Application Form and Call Data Record relating to mobile No.9092558292. Ex.P­33 is copy of photo containing statement of

P.W­3. Thus, Exs.P­15 to P­33 are going to substantiate the version of

P.W­2 with regard to arrest and taking up further investigation by examining P.W­3, P.W­4 and seizure of vouchers and addressing letters to the concern authorities for furnishing particulars of mobile numbers and address particulars of the accused etc.

14)The evidence of P.W­8 reveals that he took­up further investigation in this case on 11.09.2018 from P.W­2 and he verified the record. On 11.09.2018 P.W­1 issued authorization for return of case property. On the same day, he sent notice U/s.67(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 to

Mr.Md.Yunus. On 12.09.2018 he handed over the case property i.e., 16 bags of calcined alumina to P.W­5 under Ex.P­36. Later he issued summons to one Chintapalli Chandra Sekhar (P.W­6) and on the same day he recorded statement of P.W­6. He also issued summons to

Mr.Varma Ramesh another panch witness and recorded his statement.

On 04.10.2018 he received letter from A.David through e­mail and the same was printed vide Ex.P­40, in which A.David informed that no person by name Md.Yunus is not known to him and the premises was not leased out to said Md.Yunus and he also furnished his Aadhar card, electricity bill attached to the e­mail. On 05.10.2018 he received letter from DGM,

BSNL, Hyderabad along with certificate, Customer Application Form relating to mobile No.9443418023 in the name of Senthil Kumar and copy of voter I.D.Card in the name of Senthil Kumar and C.D.R. relating to mobile No.9443418023. On 10.10.2018 he received certificate and C.D.R.

Page No.21 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

for the period from 25.10.2017 to 24.04.2018 relating to mobile

No.9500516179. He has also taken steps for conducting inventory of contraband before learned IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada. Ex.P­34 is authorization letter dated 11.09.2018 made by

P.W­1 for return of case property. Ex.P­36 is handing over letter dated 12.09.2018. It reveals that 16 bags of calcined alumina were handed over to P.W­5 as per direction of the Court. Ex.P­35 is notice dated 11.09.2018 issued to Md.Yunus by P.W­8. Ex.P­37 is summon dated 14.09.2018 issued to P.W­6. Ex.P­39 is statement of Varma Ramesh (L.W­6, not examined). Ex.P­38 is statement of P.W­6. Ex.P­40 is letter from A.David through e­mail dated 04.10.2018. Ex.P­41 is copy of

Aadhar card and Ex.P­42 is copy of electricity bill pertaining to A.David attached to e­mail stating that no person by name Md.Yunus is known to

A.David and premises was not leased out to said Yunus at any time.

Ex.P­43 is letter dated 05.10.2018 received from DGM, BSNL, Hyderabad regarding call data particulars of the accused. Ex.P­44 is letter addressed to Nodal Officer, BSNL dated 07.08.2018. Ex.P­45 is certificate and Call

Data Record pertaining to the period from 25.10.2017 to 24.04.2018 in respect of mobile No.9500516179 and Ex.P­46 is inventory report dated 31.08.2019 along with photographs, CD of the photographs etc also going to substantiate the version of P.W­8 relating to his further investigation in this case. M.Os­1 to 32 are the reminiscent samples in sealed cover returned by CFSL, Hyderabad after chemical analysis. M.Os­33 and 34 are the sealed covers containing samples lifted by learned IV Addl.Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, on 31.08.2019 at the time of proceedings U/s.52­A of the NDPS Act, 1985. 

Page No.22 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

15)The evidence of P.W­6 goes to corroborate the evidence of P.W­2 regarding seizure of contraband from the lorry bearing No.TN51U 2677 and accused is the driver of the said lorry. The evidence of P.W­3, who is owner of Sri Durga Lucky Road Lines, Vijayanagaram reveals that on 20.04.2018 accused came to his office and asked him to arrange a load for his lorry bearing No.TN51U 2677. He arranged load for transported aluminium powder belonging to Associated Road Carrier Limited at

K.L.Puram, Near RTO Office, Vijayanagaram on 22.04.2018. He prepared a voucher and handed over the same to the accused. He was asked to identify the driver by showing photo and he identified the driver. He also further stated that accused also came to his office for arranging loads previously. Ex.P­33 is xerox copy of photo of the accused with endorsement of P.W­3 and evidence of P.W­3 coupled together goes to substantiate the case of the prosecution regarding arrangement of load to the accused at his request on 22.04.2018. The said portion of evidence of

P.W­3 is not disputed in the cross­examination. It is not the case of the defence that accused never approached P.W­3 who is owner of Sri Durga

Lucky Road Lines, Vijayanagaram and he never requested P.W­3 for arranging load or no load was arranged for him transporting in his lorry bearing No.TN51U 2677.

16)The evidence of P.W­4, who is Cashier of Sri Durga Lucky Road

Lines, Vijayanagaram also corroborate the evidence of P.W­3 regarding preparing voucher by P.W­4 and handed over the same to the accused etc.

According to P.W­3 and P.W­4, previously also accused approached them for arranging load and empty lorry was sent for loading goods from the office of Associated Road Carrier Limited on 22.04.2018. He also stated that Ex.P­24 contains three invoices and among them one invoice in the

Page No.23 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

name of Senthil Kumar, Salem and another invoice in the name of

Jayamurugun and another invoice is in the name of Senthil. All the three invoices contain the same phone number of 9443418023. P.W­4 also categorically stated in the cross­examination that owner name was mentioned as Md.Yunus, Erode with phone No.9092558292. The evidence of P.W­4 reveals that the accused gave his phone number but his name was changed from time to time on the respective dates of his previous visits, on the date of visit for arrangement of this load i.e., 16 bags of calcined alumina. 

17)The evidence of P.W­5, who is working as Divisional Manager in

Associated Road Carriers at Visakhapatnam goes to show that he approached Sri Durga Lucky Road Lines for transporting goods and they arranged lorry on 22.04.2018. The empty lorry came to their office around 03.00 p.m. Then 16 bags of calcined alumina were loaded into the lorry. He also further stated that he filed application in the Court for custody of the goods and he got returned the custody of 16 bags of calcined alumina bags towards interim custody. Ex.P­30 also substantiate the same. The evidence of P.W­5 also not disputed in the cross­examination. It is crystal clear from the evidence of P.Ws­2 to 5 that P.W­3 arranged load to the lorry of the accused on 22.04.2018. The lorry was loaded with 16 bags of calcined alumina by P.W­5 on the same day at 03.00 p.m. The accused was driver of the said lorry TN 51U 2677.

The said portion of evidence of P.Ws­2 to 5 is remained undisputed. 

18)The evidence of P.W­7 goes to show that on 01.05.2018 he received 32 sealed paper envelopes from Superintendent, NCB, Hyderabad (P.W­1).

All the envelopes were in sealed condition and tallied with the specimen seal provided by P.W­1. He started analysis and he confirmed that ganja

Page No.24 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

has been detected in all the 32 samples. After the analysis all the reminiscent samples were sealed again with the impression of ‘SNR’ and sent back to P.W­1 on 29.06.2018 through a messenger Chamat Sanjay

Bhivaji, Sepoy. Ex.P­28 is the letter dated 05.06.2018 addressed to

P.W­1. Ex.P­29 is letter dated 29.06.2018 along with chemical examination report. M.Os­1 to 32 are the reminiscent samples in sealed covers returned to P.W­1. The evidence of P.W­7 goes to substantiate that he received 32 sealed paper envelopes from P.W­1 and after analysis, he confirmed that ganja has been detected in all the samples i.e., M.Os­1 to 32. 

19)The evidence of P.W­2, P.W­6 coupled together goes to substantiate the case of the prosecution that P.W­3 conducted search and seized 32 bags of contraband from the lorry bearing No.TN51U 2677 which was driven by the accused and the samples were drawn from the seized contraband i.e., 2 samples from each bag and submitted 32 samples to the CFSL, Hyderabad and they were found ganja. The evidence of P.Ws­2 to 4 goes to show that accused gave wrong name and wrong address with a malafide intention to the concerned authorities.

20)The learned counsel for defence contended in her written arguments that P.W­1 categorically stated in his cross­examination that he did not take any separate inventory report from the forwarding officer except the forwarding note about the articles submitted in the godown. He also stated that he did not issue any separate letter that he has received the contraband and other items as per inventory. He further admitted that no application filed U/s.52­A of the NDSP Act before concerned Magistrate prior to Ex.P­46 dated 31.08.2019. P.W­8 deposed that he did not enquire his predecessor about the proceedings filed by him U/s.52­A of

Page No.25 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

the NDPS Act while admitting that section 52­A of the NDPS Act is mandatory, which deals with disposal of seized narcotic drug and psychotropic substance. After filing charge sheet, taking cognizance, prosecution filed application for conducting inventory before the learned

IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Accordingly, the inventory was conducted by the learned IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Vijayawada on 31.08.2019. It shows the non­compliance of

the procedure enumerated in section 52­A of the NDPS Act, 1985, which leads to defective investigation of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W­7 and Ex.P­29 did not contain the fact that all the samples were taken

before the Magistrate, hence, it amounts to non­compliance of section

52­A of the NDPS Act, 1985. Therefore, taking of samples is illegal and the alleged contraband seized from the possession of the accused not produced before this Court. There is no explanation for non­production of the seized contraband before this Court. There is no specific order for destruction of the contraband. Hence, failure on the part of the prosecution in not producing contraband and non­compliance of section 52­A of the NDPS Act vitiates the trial. Mere producing oral evidence and panchanama does not discharge the heavy burden which lies on the prosecution. To substantiate her plea, she relied on the following decisions:

1. In the case of Munna Nai, Appellant Vs. The State, Respondent in

Crl.A.No.368/1991 on the file of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court reported in

1997 Crl.L.J.4553.

2. In the case of Jitendra Singh Rathore Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2014(3) Crimes 203.

3. In the case of Ashok Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2011(5) SCC 123.

4. In the case of Union of India Vs. Jarooparam reported in AIR 2018

Supreme Court 1927.

Page No.26 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

5. In the case of Jitendra and others Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2004 (10) SCC 562.

21)The learned defence counsel further contended that in the instant case the informant and Investigator are one and the same and there is no fair investigation. To cover up latches of the non­following of mandatory provisions, prosecution examined P.W­8 to show that he took­up further investigation and filed charge sheet. By the time of taking samples before the learned IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada report of

Chemical Analyst received, charge sheet also filed. It clearly establishes the contravention of the provision U/s.52­A of the NDPS Act, 1985. If the prosecution conducted inventory and took steps U/s.52­A of the NDPS

Act 1985, the certificate of the Magistrate in compliance of clause (2) of sub­section (3) of section 52­A of the NDPS Act, 1985 constitutes primary evidence for the purpose of trial, but the prosecution has failed to follow the procedure. Therefore, no weight can be attached to M.OS­1 to 32 which were not drawn before the Magistrate. To substantiate her plea, she relied on the following decisions:

1. In the case of Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal and another reported in 2016 (3) SCC 379.

2. In the case of Union of India Vs. Jarooparam reported in AIR 2013 SC 1927. 

22)There is also discrepancy in the evidence of prosecution evidence with regard to personal search of the accused. P.W­2 stated that no personal search was conducted, whereas P.W­6 stated that accused was searched in his presence at the scene of offence. P.W­2 stated the accused handed over ATM card and Toll Gate Receipt and cash, whereas

P.W­6 stated different version. The inconsistency between the evidence of

P.W­2 and P.W­6 also doubted about the seizure proceedings and the

Page No.27 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

prosecution violated the mandatory provision of 52­A of the NDPS Act, 1985. Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

23)On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor for NCB contended in his written arguments that P.W­1 issued Ex.P­3 acknowledgement for seized contraband and other materials to P.W­2.

P.W­1 never stated in his evidence that he has not received the contraband and other items as per inventory. Before commencing trial, the seized contraband was duly produced before IV Addl.Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada on 31.08.2019 and duly certified the correctness of the inventory of the seized contraband and other items and allowed to take photographs and certified the correctness of the photographs and allowed to draw representative samples and certified correctness of samples drawn for their production at the time of trial. The samples drawn in the presence of the IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Vijayawada were produced before the trial Court and marked

as M.Os­33 and 34, as such, the seized contraband need not be reproduced once again before the trial Court and the procedure laid

U/s.52­A of the NDPS Act, 1985 is duly complied. The decisions relied upon by the learned defence counsel are not applicable to the case in hand and further contended that the Seizure Officer (P.W­2) and

Investigation Officer (P.W­8) are two different officials. Hence, the prosecution complied the Mohanlal Vs. State of Punjab Judgment. In

Mukesh Singh Vs. Narcotics Branch of Delhi in SLP 39528/2018 a

Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held in para 12 that in a case where the informant himself is the Investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias and further contended that the statement of accused recorded before

Page No.28 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

Central Government by Non­Police Officer U/s.67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is voluntary statement and not confessional statement. The said statements are generally recorded in the presence of the accused. Before giving the statement the accused will be explained about his rights U/s.67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and he can sit remain silent or he can deny giving the statement. In addition to the voluntary statement of accused, it was further corroborated by statements of P.Ws­3 to 5. At the time of recording statement, accused is not in the custody of NCB. He was allowed to stay in the cabin as a gesture of providing temporary shelter for taking rest on his own request but not by force. Hence, the argument advanced by the learned defence counsel is not sustainable and the judgments relied upon by the learned defence counsel are not applicable to the instant case. The seized cash was produced before the Court along with accused at the time of remand and also before the learned IV

Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada at the time of certification of inventory and the said cash is not related to the sale proceeds of ganja, hence it will not make any impact on the subject case. Section 50 of the

NDPS Act, 1985 is duly complied during search and seizure proceedings.

The accused voluntarily handed over his ATM card and Toll Gate Receipt.

More over the seizure of the contraband is actually from the lorry not from the pocket of the accused. Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable only in the case of personal search. Since there is no personal search, the question of bias does not arise. The evidence of P.Ws­3 to 6 and drawing samples as per procedure and admission of accused in his statement about his role in procurement and trafficking of the contraband and identifying the accused by other independent witnesses and malafide intention of the accused, coupled together goes to substantiate the case of the prosecution, accused is guilty, liable to be convicted and that the

Page No.29 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

learned defence counsel submitted arguments by mis­interpreting the judgment of Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal stating that the samples were not drawn in the presence of Magistrate immediately after seizure. It was held in Md.Arif Vs. Union of India by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that

Section 52­A of the NDPS Act, 1985 does not empower the Central

Government to lay down the procedure for search of an accused which only deals with the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance. To substantiate his plea, he placed reliance on the following decisions:

1. In the case of Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotics Branch, Delhi) in

SLP (Criminal) 39528/2018.

2. In the case of Md.Arif Vs. Union of India in C.R.A.No.728/2017 on the file of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court.

3. In the case of Jeet Ram Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh in

Criminal Appeal No.688/2013.

24)Before appreciating the rival contentions of both sides, I would like to note the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act 1985 and guidelines issued by the Central Government in Standing Order No.1 of 1989 as under.

42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization:

 (l) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intellegence or any other department of the Central Government including para­military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance,

Page No.30 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset (a) enterinto and search any such building, conveyance or place; (b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry; (c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and (d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act:

[Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub­inspector: 

Provided further that] if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorization cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief.

(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub­

Page No.31 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy­two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.

43. Power of seizure and arrest in public place:

Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 may— (a) seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under this Act has been committed, and, along with such drug or substance, any animal or conveyance or article liable to confiscation under this Act, any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter

VA of this Act; (b) detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under this Act, and if such person has any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in his possession and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and any other person in his company.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the expression “public place” includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public.]

50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.— (1) When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate.

(2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub­section (1).

Page No.32 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

(3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made.

(4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female.

(5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest

Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted

Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(6) After a search is conducted under sub­section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy­two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.

52A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances .— (1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances, which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that

Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified.] (2) Where any [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] has been seized and forwarded to the officer­ in­charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub­section (1) shall prepare an

Page No.33 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

inventory of such [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substancesorconveyances]containingsuchdetails relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub­section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of— (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) taking, in the presence of such magistrate, photographs of [such drugs, substances or conveyances] and certifying such photographs as true; or © allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. 

(3) Where an application is made under sub­section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1972) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the innventory, the photographs of 1[narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] and any list of samples drawn under sub­section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.

55. Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered.—

An officer­in­charge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all

Page No.34 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer­in­charge of the police station.

Section III of Standing Order 1 of 1989 and para 3.2 to 3.9 read as under:

“3.2. All drugs invariably be stored in safes and vaults provided with dou­ ble­locking system. Agencies of the Central and State Governments, may specifically, designate their godowns for storage purposes. The godowns should be selected keeping in view their security angle, juxtaposition to courts etc. 

3.3 Such godowns, as a matter of rule, shall be placed under the over­all supervision and charge of a Gazetted Officer of the respective enforcement agency, who shall exercise utmost care, circumspection and personal su­ pervision as far as possible. Each seizing officer shall deposit the drugs fully packed and sealed in the godown within 48 hours of such seizure, with a forwarding memo indicating NDPS Crime No. as per Crime and

Prosecution (C & P Register) under the new law, name of the accused, ref­ erence of test memo, description of the drugs, total no. of packages/con­ tainers etc. 

3.4 The seizing officer, after obtaining an acknowledgement for such de­ posit in the format (Annexure­I), shall hand acknowledged over such to the Investigation Officer of the case along with the case dossiers for fur­ ther proceedings.

3.5 The officer­in­charge of the godown, before accepting the deposit of drugs, shall ensure that the same are properly packed and sealed. He shall also arrange the packages/containers (case­wise and lot­wise) for quick retrieval etc. 

3.6 The godown­in­charge is required to maintain a register wherein en­ tries of receipt should be made as per format at Annexure­II.

3.7 It shall be incumbent upon the Inspecting Officers of the various De­ partments mentioned at Annexure II to make frequent visits to the godowns for ensuring adequate security and safety and for taking mea­ sures for timely disposal of drugs. The Inspecting Officers should record their remarks/observations against Col. 15 of the Format at Annexure­II.

Page No.35 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

3.8 The Heads of the respective enforcement agencies (both Central and

State Governments) may prescribe such periodical reports and returns, as they may deem fit, to monitor the safe receipt, deposit, storage, account­ ing and disposal of seized drugs.

3.9 Since the early disposal of drugs assumes utmost consideration and importance, the enforcement agencies may obtain orders for pre­trial dis­ posal of drugs and other articles (including conveyance, if any) by having recourse to the provisions of sub­section (2) of Section 52A of the Act.” 

25)It is evident from a plain reading of para 3.2 (supra) that storage of all drugs in safes and vaults has been made mandatory and that agencies of the Central and the State Governments have been permitted to desig­ nate their godowns for storage purposes. It is also clear that keeping in view the importance of protecting the seized drugs against theft, substitu­ tion or pilferage the Central Government has prescribed that such godowns shall be placed under the overall supervision and charge of a gazetted officer of the respective enforcement agencies who shall exercise utmost care, circumspection and personal supervision over the storage fa­ cilities. The provision contained in paras 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 also are aimed at ensuring that the godown or storage facility is satisfactory and those in­ charge of the same are made accountable for its upkeep and ef­ fective management. Subsequent Notification including Notification dated 16th January, 2015 have in no way diluted the above requirement. The result is that there is a statutory framework which governs the storage of drugs and matters relating and incidental thereto. 

26)It is crystal clear from Standing Order No.1 of 1989, which prescribes the procedure to be followed while conducting seizure of the contraband. It is also crystal clear from section 52­A of the NDPS Act, 1985 that upon seizure of the contraband, same has to be forwarded

Page No.36 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

either to the Officer­in­charge of the nearest Police Station or the Officer empowered U/s.53, who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said order and make an application to the Magistrate for the purpose of (a)certifyingthecorrectnessoftheinventory; (b) certifying correctness of the such drugs, substances taken before

Magistrate as true; 

(c) to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances in the presence of magistrate and certifying the correctness of list of samples so drawn. 

Sub­section 3 of section 52­A of the NDPS Act, 1985 requires that the

Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. This implies

that the officer empowered or the officer concerned is bound to approach the Magistrate for the above purpose including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence and the correctness of list of the samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, truth of drawing samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and in the entire exercise it has to be certified by him to be correct. The question of drawing samples at the time of seizure in the absence of the Magistrate does not contemplate in the Act. There is no provision in NDPS Act for taking samples at the time of seizure. The

Hon’ble Apex Court also held in the decision in Union of India Vs. Mohan

Lal and others in Crl.A.No.652/2012 held at para 20 as follows: 

“No sooner the seizure of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in­charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act. The officer concerned shall then approach the Magistrate with an application under Section 52A(ii) of the Act, which shall be allowed by the Mag­ istrate as soon as may be required under Sub­ Section 3 of Section 52A, as discussed by us in the body of this judgment under the heading ‘seizure and sampling’. The sampling shall be done under

Page No.37 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

the supervision of the magistrate as discussed in paras 13 and 14 of this order.”

27)It is also held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of

Munna Nai, Appellant Vs. The State, Respondent in Crl.A.No.368/1991 at para No.7 as follows:

“(7) From clause (c) of Sub­Section (2) ibid, it is clear that the sample to be sent for analysis has to be taken out in presence of the

Magistrate and it is required to be duly certified by him. This new

provision was inserted by Central Act No. 2 of 1989, which came into force from 29th May, 1989. The incident of the present case took place on 7th November, 1989. Hence this amended provision was very much in force on the date of incident.”

Thus, it is crystal clear from the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal and another and Munna Nai Vs. State that the concerned officer has to recover the contraband by preparing inventory as contemplated U/s.53 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Immediately after recovery, the concerned officer has to make an application to the Magistrate for certification the correctness of the inventory and taking photos and drawing representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and those samples to be sent for chemical analysis. Whereas in the instant case, samples were drawn by P.W­2 at the time of seizure itself. No application was submitted to the concerned Magistrate U/s.52­A of the

NDPS Act, 1985 for drawing samples as contemplated U/s.52­A of the

NDPS Act, 1985. As per prosecution case, contraband was seized from the possession of the accused on 24.04.2018. The contraband, which was seized from the possession of the accused was not deposited in the godown within 48 hours as per para 3.3 of section III of Standing Order

No.1 of 1989. It is also duty of the concerned officer U/s.55 of the NDPS

Page No.38 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

Act, 1985 that he shall take charge and keep in safe custody of the seized articles pending orders of the Magistrate concerned. 

28)The seizure officer also under an obligation to obtain acknowledgement in format of Annexure­I from the incharge of the godown (as per para 3.4 of section­III of standing order 1/89). In the instant case, P.W­1 is the godown incharge to whom P.W­2 addressed letter for safe custody of four items vide Ex.P­2, Ex.P­7. P.W­1 issued

Ex.P­3 acknowledgement on 26.04.2018. It reveals only acknowledgement was given for three items i.e., envelop cover contained cash of Rs.360/­, key of the crime lorry and 64 samples. No acknowledgement was issued by P.W­1 with regard to alleged contraband. The godown incharge also required to maintain register in format of Annexure­II as per para 3.6 of the Standing Order No.1 of 1989. No such register in the prescribed

Format is produced before this court either by P.W­1 or SHO of

Gannavaram P.S. Para 3.9 of the said order also specifies that early disposal of the drugs assumes utmost consideration, importance and enforcement agencies may obtain orders for pre­trial disposal of the drugs andother articles by having recourse to the provisions of sub section (2) of section 52­A of the NDPS Act 1985, but the prosecution in the instant case did not take any steps for disposal of the alleged contraband till date.

29)As seen from record, it reveals that samples which are said to be drawn at the time of seizure were submitted to CFSL, Hyderabad vide

Ex.p­8 and the same were received by CFSL authorities on 01.05.2018.

After completion of the analysis of 32 samples, report was submitted to

P.W­1 on 29.06.2018. Ex.P­46 inventory report dated 31.08.2019 reveals that on 31.08.2019 the inventory was taken place as per requisition submitted by NCB officials. It reveals that the learned Magistrate has

Page No.39 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

drawn four samples out of the seized contraband on 31.8.2019. It is not the case of the prosecution that those samples were sent to CFSL,

Hyderabad for analysis. The four samples including M.O­33, M.O­34 were not sent for chemical analysis. The record also further reveals that investigation was completed and charge sheet filed on 15.10.2018 and cognizance was taken on 24.11.2018. It appears, basing on the samples drawn at the time of seizure on 24.04.2018 and CFSL Report dated 29.06.2018, the charge sheet was filed. No application was submitted to the concerned Magistrate U/s.52­A of the NDPS Act, 1985 immediately after seizure of the contraband on 24.04.2018. It appears that application was submitted after completion of analysis of M.Os­1 to 32 by the expert, which is gross violation of section 52­A of the NDPS Act, 1985 and

Standing Order No.1 of 1989. Thus, the very procedure followed by NCB

Officials in drawing samples at the time of seizure and submitting application U/s.52­A of the NDPS Act, 1985 after CFSL analyzed those samples dated 24.04.2018 for certification and drawing samples of M.O­ 33 and M.O­34 is unknown to the law. It is significant to note that learned IV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, categorically stated in Ex46 that the 32 bags were not weighed in her presence. It is not mentioned in Ex.P­46 that 32 gunny bags contain seal with NCB RIC

HYD SEAL No.2 (as stated in Exs.P­4 and P­13). Without weighing the bags and noticing seals on those 32bags, 64 sample envelopes, the certifying the correctness of the inventory (Ex.P­13 panchanam) cannot be believed. More over Ex.P­46 does not reveal that M.O­1 to M.O­32 and remaining 32 samples which were said to have been drawn at time seizure, were not produced before the learned Magistrate at the time of inventory. There is no whisper in Ex.P­46 about certifying the correctness of the Ex.P­13 panchnama. When the 64 samples envelops were not

Page No.40 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

produced at the time of inventory, not weighed the 32 bags contraband, not noticed any seals of NCB on those bags and non­certification about the correctness of seizer proceedings (Inventory), it is difficult to treat the

Ex.P­46 as primary evidence. Therefore, nothing is on record to say that the contraband said to have been seized from the possession of the accused is corresponding with samples (M.O­1 to M.O­32). Even it is assumed that seized contraband under Ex.P­13 panchanama from the accused is true as per evidence of P.W­2, P.W­6, but there is no clinching evidence to show that the samples M.O­1 to M.O­32 were the same samples said to have been drawn from the seized contraband.

30)As stated supra, the prosecution failed to produce any register of godown to show that the contraband was kept in a godown after recovery of the contraband from the possession of the accused. The prosecution also failed to produce any acknowledgement from SHO, Gannavaram P.S.

to show that the seized contraband was kept in the godown of

Gannavaram P.S. The prosecution did not produce any acknowledgement to show the deposit of contraband as contemplated under Standing Order

No.1 of 1989. The very case of the prosecution with regard to keeping the seized contraband in the custody of third party i.e., SHO, Gannavaram

P.S. itself is irregular, for which there is no permission granted by the concerned authorized person. The non­producing of acknowledgement or godown register which is being maintained by P.W­1 or the godown register maintained by SHO, Gannavaram P.S. clouds doubt about the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused.

31)It is the specific case of the prosecution that after chemical analysis the report was received by the P.W­2 (NCB authorities) on 29.06.2018.

Even after receipt of chemical analysis report, the NCB officials did not

Page No.41 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

take any steps for disposal of contraband. P.W­2 categorically stated in his cross­examination that the property was produced before this Court on 27.04.2018 and he was asked to produce the seized material during the course of trial, but he has not produced any such contraband of 32 bags or 34 representative samples (32+2) except M.Os­1 to 34. P.W­1 categorically stated in his cross­examination that the bulk contraband seized in this case was not produced before this Court and that the contraband seized in this case is not yet destroyed. It is to be noted that as per para 4 of the notification dated 16.01.2015, the officer incharge shall apply to the Magistrate U/s.52­A in terms of Annexure­II of the said notification and the contraband has to be disposed of within 30 days from the date of receipt of chemical analysis. Although the chemical analysis report was received on 29.06.2018, the I.O. or NCB Officials have not taken any steps for disposal of the contraband within the stipulated time of 30 days from the date of receipt of chemical analysis report. This circumstance also clouds doubt about the case of the prosecution. If really there is a seized contraband, the NCB Officials would have produced the same before this Court or would have taken steps for disposal of contraband within stipulated time as per notification dated 16.01.2015. There is no explanation from P.W­1 or P.W­2 as to why they kept quiet for a period of two years without taking steps for disposal of the contraband by approaching the Magistrate as contemplated U/s.52­A and notification dated 16.01.2015. This is also suspicious circumstances in the case of the prosecution.

32)As stated supra, there is discrepancy between the evidence of P.W­ 2, P.W­6 with regard to seizure items and conducting personal search etc.

P.W­2 stated that no personal search was done, whereas P.W­6 stated in

Page No.42 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

the cross examination that accused was searched in their presence at the scene of offence. P.W­2 stated that the accused himself handed over cash of Rs.360/­ and lorry key, ATM card and Toll Gate Receipt etc. Whereas

P.W­6 panch witness did not speak about the handing over of cash, key etc. He categorically stated that ATM card one toll gate receipt were seized from the accused. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the seizure proceedings were conducted in the presence of P.W­6, whereas

P.W­6 does not corroborate P.W­2 in all aspects. The inconsistency between evidence of P.W­2 and P.W­6 also clouds doubt about the presence of Pw6 at time of alleged seizure proceedings.

33)According to P.Ws­1 and 2, the contraband, which was seized from the crime vehicle including the samples, were kept in Gannavaram Police

Station with the permission of P.W­1. P.W­1 did not whisper about the permission granted to keep the seized contraband and seized material, samples and lorry in the custody of Gannavaram Police Station. The prosecution did not produce any document to show that P.W­1 granted permission to keep the seized contraband, the vehicle, samples and calcined alumina bags and they were kept in the police station premises of Gannavaram, except Ex.P­2, P­3, Ex.P­6 and Ex.P­7. Ex.P­2 reveals that P.W­2 addressed letter to P.W­1 to keep the seized material in the godown i.e., white colour plastic bags 32 in number and yellow colour envelope containing Indian currency notes of Rs.360/­ and 64 separate yellow colour paper envelopes each containing 24 grams of samples taken from 32 bags which are marked as S­1 to S­64 and the key of the lorry bearing No.TN51U 2677. Ex.P­3 is acknowledgement issued by P.W­1 stating that (1) cash of Rs.360/­ in yellow colour paper envelop and (2) 64 envelopes containing samples and (3) lorry key were received and

Page No.43 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

remaining contraband was kept in the Gannavaram Police Station godown. As per Ex.P­6, P.W­2 submitted requisition to P.W­1 to return the case property from the godown to produce before this Court on 27.04.2018. He sought for four items i.e.,(1) 32 white colour plastic gunny bags, (2) 64 sample packets, (3) one yellow colour envelop containing cash of Rs.360/­ and (4) one Lorry key. Again he reproduced the same before P.W­1 on 27.04.2018 stating that the property could not be produced before Court due to administrative reasons, hence requested to take back the same property (4 items), keep them in NCB godown, in which also same four items were mentioned, but P.W­1 did not issue any acknowledgement in respect of Ex.P­7 property. Then question arises, whether the P.W­1 received all the four item including 32 bags of contraband as mentioned in Ex.P­7? If not, whether all the above four items were kept in the Gannavaram Police Station godown?, for which, there is no explanation from any of the witnesses of the prosecution, which is highly suspicious circumstance in the case of prosecution. 

34)As stated above the prosecution has not produced any piece of paper to show the permission of P.W­1 to keep the seized contraband in the godown of Gannavaram Police Station, so also not produced any piece of paper to show that seized contraband was kept in the godown of

Gannavaram Police Station. Non­producing of permission proceeding of

P.W­1 to keep the contraband in godown of Gannavaram P.S. and non­ producing of Acknowledgement from incharge of godown of Gannavaram

P.S. and non producing of acknowledgement from P.W­1 to show that the contraband was received under Ex.P­7 and kept in the NCB godown,

Hyderabad are the suspicious circumstances in the case of prosecution.

There is no clinching material on record to prove any authorization to

Page No.44 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

keep the property in the custody of the Gannavaram Police Station. So also, there is no any acknowledgement from Gannavaram Police Station about depositing of the seized property in the Gannavaram Police Station, except the oral testimony of P.W­1 and P.W­2. The documents filed by prosecution vide Ex.P­3, Ex.P­6 and Ex.P­7 do not inspire confidence to believe the story of the prosecution with regard to keeping the seized contraband of 32 bags and sample packets, cash and key in the godown of N.C.B. The prosecution did not produce the seized cash and key before this Court. The non­production of seized cash amounts to mis­ appropriation and non­production of key of the lorry also clouds doubt in the case of the prosecution. As stated above, the NCB officials did not produce the remaining 32 samples out of 64 samples before this Court.

The seized contraband also not produced before this Court. However, inventory proceedings (Ex.P­46) dated 31.08.2019 reveal that the seized contraband was photographed and four samples were lifted out of seized contraband. Out of 4, only 2 samples were produced before this Court.

What happened to the remaining two samples is remained unexplained.

Keeping all these proved facts and circumstances and cumulative acts of the P.W­2 in submitting information report to P.W­1 and taking up investigation, and seizure of contraband and drawing samples on the same day without taking any recourse to follow the procedure established under Standing Order 1 of 1989 and section 52­A of the NDPS Act, 1985 and non­producing of contraband and all the samples before this Court and non­taking steps for disposal of the contraband and non­producing acknowledgement from the Incharge of the godown do not inspire confidence to believe the case of the prosecution without doubt.

Page No.45 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

35)As stated above, the prosecution failed to produce the godown register in the format of Annexure­II or the acknowledgement from the

Incharge of NCB godown or the godown Incharge of Gannavaram P.S. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v.

Sitansu Shekhar Kanungo reported in 2002 (Suppl) ACC 670 (SC) held that “non­production of the Malkhana register being one of the vital missing links, the other factors highlighted above coupled with the non­production of the malkhana register have given a fatality to the prosecution case.” It was also held in the case of State of Rajasthan V. Gurmail Singh reported in 2005 (51) ACC 928 that “non­production of the Malkhana register seizing the contraband article proves to be fatal to the prosecution case and conviction of the accused cannot be sustained.” Relying upon the above decision, Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held in para 29 in Jithendra

Singh Rathore Vs. State of U.P. as under:

“it is apparent that the recovery of the contraband article from the possession f the appellant appears to be doubtful and the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant proving the recovery against him in strict compliance of the provisions of the NDPS Act, hence his conviction and sentence by the

Trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”

In the instant case also the prosecution failed to produce the godown register from the incharge of the godown and it failed to prove the recovery and drawing samples from the contraband beyond reasonable doubt.

Hence, the above decisions can be applied to the facts of the instant case. 

36)In the case of Ashok Vs. State of M.P. there was no independent witness, panch witness turned hostile, I.O. was not examined and there was no explanation where the seized contraband was kept. Hence, benefit of doubt was given to the accused. In the instant case, independent

Page No.46 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

witness is examined, panch witness examined and he supported the case of the prosecution and I.O. also examined and it was the specific case of the prosecution that the seized contraband was kept in Gannavaram

Police Station Godown, but not produced. Therefore, the facts of the aforesaid decision are not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

37)In the case of Union of India Vs. Jarooparam, panch witness turned hostile, confession statement was recorded after arrest of the accused while in custody and the contraband was destroyed without any order of the Magistrate. In the instant case, panch witness supported the case of the prosecution. Confession statement recorded before arrest effected and the property was not destroyed, still it is available as per version of P.W­2.

Therefore, the facts of the aforesaid decision also different from the facts of the instant case. It has no application.

38)In the case of Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab and others, it was held that “section 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, 1985 which imposes a reverse burden on the accused is constitutional as the standard of proof required

for the accused to prove his innocence is not as high as that of the

prosecution. Confessional statement is admissible only U/s.138­B,

Customs Act if all the essential ingredients mentioned there in is satisfied.”

Though the facts of the aforesaid decision are different from the facts of the instant case, but the ratio held by the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to burden of proof to be followed after the prosecution proved the element of possession of the contraband, burden shifted to the accused. In the aforesaid decision, property was not traced. Hence, adverse inference was drawn U/s.114 of Evidence Act, thereby the fact of recovery is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In the instant case also seizure of contraband is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Possession is

Page No.47 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

required to be established before doctrine of reverse burden is applied.

Therefore, doctrine of reverse burden is not applicable to the case in hand.

39) In the case of Jitendra and others Vs. State of M.P. in Criminal

Appeals No.1318­1319 of 2002 panch witness turned hostile, non­ examination of I.O. and non­production of the seized drugs and filing charge sheet before receiving final report from FSL. In the instant case, panch witness is examined, I.O. is examined, however seized drugs were not produced before the Court but inventory was conducted at belated stage. The facts of the aforesaid decision are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 

40)In Mukesh Singh Vs. State in Spl.Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary

No.39528/2018, the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 12 as follows:

12. From the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, we conclude and answer the reference as under:

I. That the observations of this Court in the cases of Bhagwan Singh v.

State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SCC 15; Megha Singh v. State of

Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 709; and State by Inspector of Police, NIB, Tamil

Nadu v. Rajangam (2010) 15 SCC 369 and the acquittal of the accused by this Court on the ground that as the informant and the investigator was the same, it has vitiated the trial and the accused is entitled to acquittal are to be treated to be confined to their own facts. It cannot be said that in the aforesaid decisions, this Court laid down any general proposition of law that in each and every case where the informant is the investigator there is a bias caused to the accused and the entire prosecution case is to be disbelieved and the accused is entitled to acquittal;

II. In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the

Page No.48 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, merely because the infor­ mant is the investigator, by that itself the investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole ground that infor­ mant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. The mat­ ter has to be decided on a case to case basis. A contrary decision of this

Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 and any other decision taking a contrary view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically overruled.

41)In the instant case, P.W­2 himself is informant and he conducted seizure and drawing samples, arrested the accused and took­up investigation by issuing summons to the accused, witnesses and recorded their statements and also addressed letters to the concerned authorities for further action. He appeared before this Court and gave evidence as

P.W­2. But the accused did not attribute any motive against the PW2.

therefore, in view of the above decision, he cannot be acquitted on the sole ground that the informant and investigation officer is one and same.

42)In the decision of Jeet Ram Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau,

Chandigarh, Trial Judge acquitted the accused on the ground that there were many improvements in the case of the prosecution to held that the accused was found in possession of charas as pleaded by the prosecution, against which appeal was preferred. The Hon’ble High Court convicted the appellant/accused and setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court, against which appeal was preferred by the State. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court confirmed the conviction imposed by the Hon’ble High Court by modifying the sentence. I have perused the aforesaid decision. The facts of the aforesaid decision are totally different from the facts of the instant case. Therefore, it has no application.

Page No.49 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

43)In the case of Md.Arif Vs. Union of India, the Hon’ble High Court of

Calcutta in the aforesaid decision held as under:

“if the specified instruction are not complied by the authority under Section 52A the benefit of non­compliance may be beneficial for the accused provided that the seized drug is under safe custody but when it is proved that the seized goods or drugs are in safe custody merely because of non­compliance of under Section 52A, the appellant cannot get benefit out of it.” 

In the aforesaid decision seized narcotic drugs were presented before the

Court which were marked as exhibits, but the Court below also permitted

Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to send one set of representative sample to the chemical examiner and remaining representative samples were duly examined during trial and the chemical examiners recorded their evidence. After conclusion of the trial, seized hashish (charas) was destroyed by the competent authority issued certificate of destruction to this effect. In the instant case, seized narcotic drug was not produced

before this Court and there is no clinching evidence on record to prove

that the seized contraband was kept in safe custody of Incharge of the godown or Incharge of SHO, Gannavaram P.S. There is no record to show that samples said to have been drawn in the presence of the Magistrate on 31.08.2019 were sent to the Chemical Examiner. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the facts of the aforesaid decision are totally different from the facts of the instant case, which has no application to the facts of the instant case.

44)As discussed supra, the prosecution failed to establish the recovery of contraband and drawing samples from the said contraband beyond reasonable doubt. The possession of contraband is the essential element to draw presumptions U/s.35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Once the

Page No.50 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

prosecution is failed to establish the possession of the contraband, the doctrine of reverse burden does not apply. It also failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated U/s.52­A of the NSDPS Act, 1985 and Standing Order 1 of 1989 and Notification dated 16.01.2015 with regard to seizure of the contraband, drawing samples in the presence of the Magistrate and conducting inventory as to the correctness of the panchanama (Ex.P­13) and taking steps for disposal of contraband within the stipulated time. In view of the decision reported in Munna Nai Vs.

State reported in 1997 Crl.L.J. page 4553 and Union of India Vs. Mohan

Lal and others in Crl.A.652/2012 and section 52­A of the NDPS Act, 1985

I find the search and seizure in the case in hand are vitiated. When the search and seizure are vitiated, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.

As discussed supra, there are highly suspicious circumstances in the case of the prosecution regarding non­producing of godown register and acknowledgement from the incharge of the godown in which the contraband was kept. When there are suspicious circumstance in the case of the prosecution with regard to non­producing of permission proceeding of P.W­1 to keep the contraband in godown of Gannavaram PS and non­producing of acknowledgement from incharge of godown of

Gannavaram PS and non producing of acknowledgement from P.W­1 to show that the contraband was received under Ex.P­7 and kept in the NCB godown, Hyderabad are the suspicious circumstances in the case of prosecution, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.

45)In view of above discussion, I find the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/s.8 © r/w.20 (b)

(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution. 

Page No.51 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

46)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Therefore, accused is acquitted U/s.235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for the offence punishable U/s.8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

The accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The M.Os.1 to 34 and other unmarked property if any, shall be disposed off as per Notification dated 16.01.2015, after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Grade­I Stenographer of this Court, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court through Blue Jeans Application, on this the 20th day of January, 2021.

Sd/­ G.Durgaiah IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE­ CUM­JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

FAC.SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NDPS ACT CASES,

­CUM­METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW.1: Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi ­NONE­ PW.2: Sumit Arya PW.3: B.Krishna Rao PW.4: Aleti Sanjeeva Rao PW.5: Kapil Deo Singh PW.6: Ch.Chandrasekhar Pw.7: S.N.Rasool PW.8: S.P.Naqui

Documents marked

For prosecution

Ex.P1 Information report dt:23.04.2018 submitted by Mr. Sumit Arya (L.W.1)

Page No.52 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

Ex.P2 Letter dt:26.04.2018 submitted for deposition of property by Mr. Sumit Arya. 

Ex.P3 Godown receipt dt:26.04.2018 issued by me.

Ex.P4 Search and seizure report dt:26.04.2018 submitted by Mr. Sumit Arya.

Ex.P5 Report of arrest dt:26.04.2018 submitted by Mr. Sumit Arya.

Ex.P6Letter dt:26.04.2018 submitted by Mr. Sumit Arya regarding issue of seized material.

Ex.P7 Letter dt:27.04.2018 regarding deposition of seized material submitted by Mr. Sumit Arya.

Ex.P8 Copy of letter dt:27.04.2018 submitted to CFSL, Hyderabad regarding forwarding of samples.

Ex.P9 Notice to the accused to conduct his personal search 

Ex.P10Photocopy of RTO certificate given by the accused

Ex.P11 Carbon copy of invoice and other relating documents relating to transport of calcined alumina

Ex.P12Andhra Bank Debit card given by the accused.

Ex.P13 Panchanama proceedings dt:24.04.2018 at 11.30 A.M (2 sheets)

Ex.P14 Voluntary statement of accused

Ex.P15 Copy of arrest memo served on the accused 

Ex.P16 Arrest intimation letter dt: 25.04.2018 

Ex.P17 Letter dated 27.04.2018 of P.W­2 

Ex.P18 Acknowledgment received from CFSL. Hyderabad dt:01.05.2018.

Ex.P19 Letter to Zonal Director, Chennai Zonal Unit of NCB dt:10.05.2018

Ex.P20Letter was addressed to RTO dt: 10.05.2018 

Ex.P21 Letter to Andhra Bank, Salem dt:10.05.2018 to furnish bank account details of Ex.P­12 debit card of accused.

Ex.P22 Reply received from Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, Salem dated 05.07.2018 

Ex.P23Photocopy of details of bank account of accused

Ex.P24Three cash vouchers of M/s Sri Durga Lucky Road Lines, Vijayanagaram 

Page No.53 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

Ex.P25 Statements of B.Krishna Rao dt 22.05.2018

Ex.P26 Statements of B.Krishna Rao dt:30.05.2018

Ex.P27 Statement of Aleti Sanjeeva Rao dt:30.05.2018

Ex.P28 CFSLletter dt:05.06.2018 of CFSL, Hyderabad

Ex.P29 Chemical Analysis report from CFSL dt: 29.06.2018 along with examination report

Ex.P30 Statement of Kapil Deo Singh dt:­02.08.2018

Ex.P31 Letter dt:07.08.2018 to the Nodal Officer, Bharathi Airtel Limited, Hyderabad to provide the Customer Application Form and Call Data Record relating to mobile number 9500516179

Ex.P32 Letter dt:07.08.2018 to the Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Limited, Hyderabad to provide the Customer Application Form and Call Data Record relating to mobile number 9092558292.

Ex.P.33 Copy of photo containing P.W­3 statement. 

Ex.P34 Authorization for return of case property dt:11.09.2018. 

Ex.P35. Notice U/s.67 (c) of the NDPS Act to Mr. Md. Younus vide

dt:11.09.2018

Ex.P36 Bond for return of case property 

Ex.P37 Summons dt:14.9.2018 issued to Mr. Chintapalli Chandra Sekhar, Panch witness

Ex.P38 Statement of Mr. Chintapalli Chandra Sekhar, Panch witness

Ex.P39 Statement of Mr. V.Ramesh, Panch witness

Ex.P40 Letter of Mr.A.David dt:04.10.2018 through e­mail 

Ex.P41 and Ex.P42 are copies of Aadhar card and electricity bill sent by Mr. A.David through e­mail.

Ex.P43 BSNL Letter, copy of CRA relating to 9443418023

Ex.P44 Letter of P.W­2 to Nodal Officer, BSNL dt:07.08.2018.

Ex.P45 Certificate along with C.D.R. for the mobile No. 9500516179

Ex.P46 Inventory report dt:31.08.2019 along with photographs and CD of the photographs.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE :­ NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

Page No.54 of 54 SC 340/2018 

Dated: 20.01.2021. MSJ Court, VJA.

M.Os.1 to 32 ­ 32 light green colour paper envelopes as remnant samples received from CFSL, Hyderabad after chemical examination report.

M.Os.33 & 34 ­ Two light green colour paper envelopes marked as original and duplicate as drawn during 52­A proceedings duly sealed and signed by IV ACMM, Vijayawada.

Sd/­ G.Durgaiah IV ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE­ CUM­JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NDPS ACT CASES,

­CUM­METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

1

IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KRISHNA, VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT:­ SRI G.DURGAIAH

XIV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.

FAC.XIII ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

TUESDAY, THIS THE 2 nd DAY OF APRIL, 2019.

A.S.No.55 OF 2018 & A.S.No.56 OF 2018

A.S.No.55 OF 2018

Between:

Sri Vasu Cut Pieces, Prop. Matta Srinivasulu, S/o.Radhakrishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged 62 years, Business, Trading under the name and style of Sri Vasu Cut Pieces, Shop No.1, 2, 3 Brundavan Complex, Besant Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada. ….APPELLANT.

A N D 

Vemuluru Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Rao, S/o.Venkataratnam, Hindu, Aged 63 Years, R/o.D.No.1­3/24­25A, Srihari Nilayam, Aravind Street, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada. …RESPONDENT

This is an appeal preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 8­1­2018 passed in O.S.1109/2010 on the file of VII Addl.Senior

Civil Judge’s Court at Vijayawada. 

Between:

Vemuluru Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Rao, S/o.Venkataratnam, Hindu, Aged 63 Years, R/o.D.No.1­3/24­25A, Srihari Nilayam, Aravind Street, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada.…PLAINTIFF

A N D 

Sri Vasu Cut Pieces, Prop. Matta Srinivasulu, S/o.Radhakrishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged 62 years, Business, Trading under the name and style of Sri Vasu Cut Pieces, Shop No.1, 2, 3 Brundavan Complex, Besant Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada.  …DEFENDANT 2

A.S.No.56 OF 2018

Between:

Matta Srinivasulu, S/o.Radhakrishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged 62 years, Business, Trading under the name and style of Sri Vasu Cut Pieces, Shop No.1, 2, 3 Brundavan Complex, Besant Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada. ….APPELLANT.

A N D 

1. Vemuluru Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Rao, S/o.Venkataratnam, Hindu, Aged 63 Years, R/o.D.No.1­3/24­25A, Srihari Nilayam, Aravind Street, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada.

2. Vemuluru Srinivas, S/o.V.V.L.Narayana Rao, Hindu, Aged 35 years, R/o.D.No.1­3/24­25A, Srihari Nilayam, Aravind Street, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada. …RESPONDENTS

This is an appeal preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 8­1­2018 passed in O.S.693/2010 on the file of VII Addl.Senior

Civil Judge’s Court at Vijayawada. 

Between:

Matta Srinivasulu, S/o.Radhakrishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged 62 years, Business, Trading under the name and style of Sri Vasu Cut Pieces, Shop No.1, 2, 3 Brundavan Complex, Besant Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada. …PLAINTIFF

A N D 

1. Vemuluru Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Rao, S/o.Venkataratnam, Hindu, Aged 63 Years, R/o.D.No.1­3/24­25A, Srihari Nilayam, Aravind Street, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada.

2. Vemuluru Srinivas, S/o.V.V.L.Narayana Rao, Hindu, Aged 35 years, R/o.D.No.1­3/24­25A, Srihari Nilayam, Aravind Street, Vidyadharapuram, 

Vijayawada. .. DEFENDANTS.

3

These Appeals are coming for final hearing before me on 11­3­2019 in presence of Sri V.Hajarathaiah Gupta, Advocate for Appellant/Tenant and of Sri S.Sreenivas, Advocate for the Respondents/Landlords and upon perusing the material on record, and upon considering the submissions of both side counsels and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

A.S.No.55 OF 2018

1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful defendant against the decree and judgment dated 8­1­2018 in

O.S.No.1109/2010 on the file of VII Addl.Senior Civil Judge’s Court

at Vijayawada. 

2. The gist of the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the owner of the shop Nos. 1 to 3 in the ground floor of Brundavan

Complex, Besant Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada. By removing the internal walls and thereby making all the three shops 1 to 3 as a single unit, he let out the same to the defendant and he has been continuing as a tenant in the said building on present monthly rent of Rs.14,100/­. In the month of November 2009, the defendant has enhanced the rent up to Rs.14,100/­ and paid the rent of November 2009 on 25.1.2010 to the plaintiff and obtained a receipt from him. The defendant has also signed on the said receipt at relevant column. Prior to November 2009 he was paying rent of Rs.7,275/­ per month. The defendant has paid rent of

October 2009 on 4.1.2010 and obtained receipt No.76. Although the defendant is a month to month tenant and liable to pay monthly rents in the first week of succeeding month, he was not regular in paying the rents and fell in arrears most of the time. At one time being vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.220 of 1994 on the file of I Addl.

4

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada. Subsequently the

defendant compromised the matter with him as a result of which the suit was withdrawn. At that time the defendant had specifically agreed to enhance the rent for every 3 years by 20%, but for twice only the defendant enhanced the rent that too by 15% only and he failed to enhance the rent of Rs.7,275/­ from 1.4.2001 till October 2009. After 9 years, voluntarily the defendant enhanced the said rent of Rs.7,275/­ to Rs.14,100/­ from

November 2009 and paid the enhanced rent for the month of

November 2009. Subsequently, the defendant did not pay or tender any rent due from 1.12.2009 in spite of repeated demands made by him. Further the defendant has sublet the front side portion facing Besant Road and a portion opening into the joint path to two watch shops and getting huge rents. Thus the defendant is also trading upon the plaintiff’s property without any authority. In this connection, the plaintiff and defendant quarrelled with each other and the defendant became wild and openly proclaimed that he will not pay the enhanced rent to him and that he will put the property into litigation and continue therein without any further enhancement as long as possible by protracting the litigation. After that the defendant had sent a letter

dated 31.5.2010 along with a demand draft for Rs.43,650/­

contending falsely that the rent is Rs.7,275/­ only and the said amount sent by him represents the rents from December 2009 to

May 2010. In the said covering letter, the defendant made false allegation that there is a sale confirmation between them. He received the said letter on 5.6.2010 and shocked to note the contents and tenor thereof. Though he wanted to give a suitable 5 reply immediately he could not do so as there was a function on 6.6.2010. Meanwhile he received a cover from the defendant’s advocate wherein a copy of the plaint without any number and with some documents are therein it. The said plaint is filed with false and untrue contention. The said suit is the result of proclamation made by him with quarrelling with him as stated above. On enquiries he came to know that the defendant filed

O.S.No.693 of 2010 for specific performance of an alleged

agreement of sale. There is no sale agreement between them at any point of time. Thus, by these actions the defendant made himself a most undesirable tenant and the plaintiff decided to terminate the tenancy and got issued a quit notice dated 16.10.2010 terminating the tenancy of the defendant by the end of

July 2010 and demanded him to vacate and hand over the schedule tenanted property to him in vacant position and claiming damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/­ per month towards damages from 1.8.2010 for illegal use and occupation till delivery of possession. The defendant is liable to pay damages at the said rate in view of the prevailing rates of rents for the premises constructed and situate in similar circumstances as the defendant cannot get such an accommodation which is a business center unless he pays that much of rent and as he is also preventing the plaintiff from using the property as per his own will and pleasure. The defendant received the quit notice on 19.6.2010 and issued a reply notice dated 24.6.2010 with all false allegations. The allegations made by the defendant that he did not enhance the rent to

Rs.14.100/­ etc., were made to escape his liability and to support his claim in O.S.No.693/2010. Hence the suit.

6

3.The gist of the case of the defendant is that he has been trading in cloth business in the name and style of Sri Vasu Cut

Pieces in shop Nos. 1 to 3 of Brundavan complex, Governorpet,

Vijayawada. He was inducted as a tenant as early as in 1988 on a monthly rent of Rs.750/­ per month. It was gradually enhanced from time to time and reached the present rate of rent i.e.,

Rs.7,275/­. He has been regular and prompt in payment of rents to his landlord i.e., the plaintiff or his son whoever come to the shop and collect the rents from him. Subsequently when they were intending to sell away the schedule property and when offered to him, he came forward to purchase the same and the terms of sale were settled between them and they have agreed to sell the schedule property to him for a sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/­.

Since the schedule property was under mortgage to Corporation

Bank, they have promised that they will clear the bank loan and execute directly a sale deed in his favour and register the same after receiving the balance of sale consideration and at his expenses. Accordingly, believing their representation and their rights in the property, he has paid a sum of Rs.75,000/­ on 23.12.2004, Rs.25,000/­ on 27.12.2004, Rs.50,000/­ on 29.12.2004 and Rs.50,000/­ on 2.1.2005 to the plaintiff and his son and they duly acknowledged the receipt of the said payments.

Since then he has been expressing his readiness and willingness to pay the balance of sale consideration and requested them to execute the register sale deed in his favour. They have also handed over the Photostat copy of the dissolution deed dated 1.12.1989 under which the plaintiff got the schedule property towards his share, but they have been postponing on one or the 7 other grounds to execute and register the sale deed. In addition to the same they have been demanding to enhance the rent from

Rs.7,275/­ to Rs.16,000/­ at a time without any scale when he has been asking for execution of the sale deed, their demands to enhance the rent at such a rate is illegal and objectionable. They grew wild and began refusing to receive the rents as usual. He has rounded about them to pay the rents. Both of them instead of receiving the rents have abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. They have been proclaiming that they will throw him away from the schedule property and have been stating that since the market value of the schedule property is raised in the market they have demanded him to enhance the rate of sale consideration. Since he expressed his inability to pay as per the demands of the plaintiff and his son they have refused to receive the rents saying that if the matter is settled and he yields to their dictates they will receive the same, but under an evil design they have planned up to evict him from the schedule property in one way or the other and that is why they have avoided to receive the rents when tendered by him. Having smelt about the highhanded designs of the defendants he was constrained to remit the rent by way of Demand Draft bearing No.792995 drawn on

Indian Bank, Vijayawada along with covering letter dated 31.5.2010. Having received the same they came to the schedule property along with some unruly elements on 26.2.2010 at about 4­00 P.M. and tried to dispossess him by throwing the cloth varieties on to streets, but with the interference of the customers and passersby they went away proclaiming that they will again renew their attempts and threatened to see his end. It is learnt 8 that the defendants have got good influence in police and good support of unruly elements at their command as such he is apprehending danger from the hands of the defendants. In the above said letter dated 31.5.2010 it was clearly expressed about his readiness and they have been avoiding to execute the sale deed.

He has got every right to continue in the plaint schedule property not only as a purchaser under agreement but also as a tenant and his rights are protected and perfected under the clear provision of law. The plaintiff and his son are not entitled to take law into their lands and resort to forcible eviction from the plaint schedule property, particularly when there is an obligation on their part to clear the bank loan and to execute and register the sale deed in his favour. Since the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract, he was constrained to file O.S.No.693 of 2010 for specific performance of the agreement of sale arrived at on 23.12.2004. He was shocked to note that he has signed in the receipt for

Rs.14,100/­ because it is neither true nor correct and he suspects that the plaintiff must have fabricated the alleged receipt after receiving the copy of plaint in O.S.No. 693 of 2010 and the injunction order. After receiving the notice he was able to understand that he has been inventing grounds in his anxiety to defeat the claims of the defendant. Moreover the story invented by the plaintiff for abnormal enhancement is unbelievable and motivated besides far from truth. Further, enhancement at 95% and that too voluntarily after paying Rs.2,00,000/­ towards advance sale consideration is also the invention of the plaintiff. It is he who has tendered the actual rents to the plaintiff but he has been constantly refusing the same with malafide intention. There 9 is no iota of truth in the entire plaint. In view of the tendency of the plaintiff he has depositing the monthly rents to the credit of the proceedings in O.S.No.693 of 2010. The alleged quit notice terminating tenancy is neither in accordance with law nor based on true facts and as such it is neither valid under law nor binding on him. The ground of sub­lease is also an additional imagination of the plaintiff. Whatever the business carried on in the tenanted premises is of his own, but not of third parties and that too under the alleged sub­lease. Since the termination is baseless and against law, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the trial court:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property and also for possession as prayed for?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages at Rs.25,000/­ per month from 1.8.2010 till the date of vacation of the defendant?

3.Whether the quit notice sent by the plaintiff is not binding on the defendant?

4.Whether the defendant has right to continue as a tenant in the plaint schedule property and his rights are protected and per­ fected under law?

5.Whether the payments shown in the written statement are true and correct?

6.Whether the plaintiff agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the defendant under an agreement of sale for Rs. 9 lakhs and failed to execute the sale deed?

7.Whether the defendant is regular and sincere in payment of rents?

8.Whether the defendant has paid the rent at the rate of Rs.14,100/­ for the month of November 2009 and obtained re­ ceipt?

9.To what relief?

A.S.No.56 OF 2018

5. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the decree and judgment dated 8­1­2018 in O.S.693/2010 on the file of VII Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada.

10

6. The gist of the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had been trading in cloth business under the name and style of Sri

Vasu Cut Pieces in shop Nos. 1 to 3 of Brindavan Complex, Besant

Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada referred to plaint schedule property. The 2nd defendant is the son of the first defendant, who is the owner of the schedule property and both of them used to manage the property. The plaintiff was inducted as a tenant as early as in 1988 on a monthly rent of Rs.750/­ per month. It was gradually enhanced from time to time and reached the present rate of rent i.e., Rs.7,275/­. He has been regular and prompt in payment of rents to his landlord i.e., the defendants. Subsequently when the defendants were intending to sell away the schedule property and when offered to him, the plaintiff came forward to purchase the same and the terms of sale were settled between them and the defendants have agreed to sell the schedule property to him for a sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/­. Since the schedule property was under mortgage to Corporation Bank, they have promised that they will clear the bank loan and execute directly a sale deed in his favour and register the same after receiving the balance of sale consideration and at his expenses.

Accordingly, believing their representation and their rights in the property, he has paid a sum of Rs.75,000/­ on 23.12.2004,

Rs.25,000/­ on 27.12.2004, Rs.50,000/­ on 29.12.2004 and

Rs.50,000/­ on 2.1.2005 to the defendants and they duly acknowledged the receipt of the said payments. Since then he has been expressing his readiness and willingness to pay the balance of sale consideration and requested them to execute the register sale deed in his favour. They have also handed over the Photostat 11 copy of the dissolution deed dated 1.12.1989 under which the 1st defendant got the schedule property towards his share, but the defendants have been postponing on one or the other grounds to execute and register the sale deed. In addition to the same they have been demanding to enhance the rent from Rs.7,275/­ to

Rs.16,000/­, since he has been asking for execution of the sale deed their demands to enhance the rent at such a rate is illegal and objectionable. They grew wild and refusing to receive the rents as usual. The plaintiff has rounded about them to pay the rents.

Both the defendants instead of receiving the rents have abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences.

They have been proclaiming that they will throw him away from the schedule property and has been stating that since the market value of the schedule property is raised in the market they have demanded him to enhance the rate of sale consideration, which is illegal and objectionable. Since he expressed his inability to pay as per the demands of the defendants they have refused to receive the rents saying that if the matter is settled and the plaintiff yields to their dictates they will receive the same. But under an evil design they have planned up to evict him from the schedule property in one way or the other and that is why they have avoided to receive the rents when tendered by him. Having smelt about the highhanded designs of the defendants he was constrained to remit the rent by way of Demand Draft bearing No. 792995 drawn on

Indian Bank, Vijayawada along with covering letter dated 31.5.2010. Having received the same they came to the schedule property along with some unruly elements on 2.6.2010 at about 4­00 P.M. and tried to dispossess him by throwing the cloth 12 varieties on to streets, but with the interference of the customers and passersby they went away proclaiming that they will again renew their attempts and threatened to see his end. It is learnt that the defendants have got good influence in police and good support of unruly elements at their command as such he is apprehending danger from the hands of the defendants. In the above said letter dated 31.5.2010 it was clearly expressed about the readiness of the plaintiff and they have been avoiding to execute the sale deed. He has got every right to continue in the plaint schedule property not only as a purchase under agreement but also as a tenant and his rights are protected and perfected under the clear provision of law. The defendants are not entitled to take law into their lands and resort to forcible eviction from the plaint schedule property, particularly when there is an obligation on the part of the defendants to clear the bank loan and to execute and register the sale deed in his favour. If the defendants were allowed to carry on their attempts, he will be put to sufferance and his rights will be infringed and his claim for specific performance will be defeated and irreparable loss will be sustained by him.

Hence, he is constrained to file the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale arrived at on 23.12.2004 directing the defendants to register the sale deed in his favour after receiving the balance of sale consideration from him and he is ready with the same.

7.The gist of the case of the defendants is that the plaintiff was a tenant of this defendant for shop Nos. 1 to 3 situate in market complex famously known as Bridavan Complex, Besant road,

Vijayawada. All the three shops are road facing shops having good 13 market value and good rental value. The plaintiff is an old tenant.

The plaintiff has been paying the enhanced rents as and when taxes are enhanced. Though the plaintiff is a month to month tenant and liable to pay monthly rents in the first week of succeeding tenancy months, he is not regular in paying the rents and he could not mend himself. At one time being vexed with his attitude he filed a suit O.S.No.220 of 1994 for eviction and arrears of rent. Then the plaintiff compromised the said suit with him agreeing to enhance the rent by 20% for every three years. But against his promise he enhanced the rent for two terms only that too by 15% only and failed to enhance any rent from 1.4.2001 by which time the rent was Rs.7,275/­. As he and his family members became indebted to Banks and other creditors, he requested the plaintiff to enhance the rent as promised. But the plaintiff did not fulfill his promise and he could not take any action against him because of his disputes with the bankers and his financial position. Taking advantage of the situation, the plaintiff dragged on the matter for 9 years without enhancing any rent. It is only after several persuasions, demands and threat of legal action, the plaintiff agreed to enhance the rent up to Rs. 14,100/­ from 1.11.2009 and paid the enhanced rent of Rs.14,100/­ for the month of November 2009 and obtained a receipt bearing No. 77

dated 25.1.2010 from him by counter signing the same. With

regard to the rents from 1.12.2009 he did not pay or tender any rents. Further, without any authority the plaintiff sublet some portions of the schedule property to watch shops and getting huge rents. In that connection both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant quarrelled with each other and at that time the plaintiff proclaimed 14 that he will not pay the enhanced rent to him and that he will put the property to litigation and continue there without any further enhancement as long as possible by protracting the litigation. This suit is the result of the said proclamation made by the plaintiff.

Except for said reason there is no truth in any of the allegations in the plaint. Almost all their properties are under pledge to ING

Vysya Bank Limited and Corporation Bank. After the Bank authorities took up the matter with debt recovery tribunals these defendants and their family members came to a settlement with

Bank authorities. In the said market complex i.e., Brindavan

Complex there are four floors in total i.e., ground plus three floors.

In each floor there are several shops. There are so many owners owing separate shops. This defendant and his family members own number of shops in the complex. In the first instance they have decided to discharge the debt due to ING Vysya Bank and with the permission of the said bank authorities he and his family members sold some of their shops situate in the rear side in the very same complex by way of private sales and paid considerations to the

Bank authorities. The plaint schedule shops which belong to this defendant and some other shops belong to his family members are mortgaged to Corporation Bank, Vijayawada. The defendant and his family members thought of discharging the debt due to

Corporation Bank also in the same way they discharged their debt to ING Vysya Bank Ltd by way of private sale of their shops. At that juncture, having come to know of the intention of the defendants, the plaintiff approached them and offered to purchased the tenanted portion only i.e., shop Nos. 1 to 3 in the ground floor abutting the road for a total consideration of 15

Rs.30,00,000/­. He agreed to sell the three shops only for

Rs.30,00,000/­ subject to condition that the Corporation Bank authorities give permission for private sale as those three shops and some other shops are also under their mortgage. The plaintiff having accepted for the same agreed to purchase shop Nos. 1 to 3 only for a total consideration of Rs.30,00,000/­. At his request, the plaintiff paid Rs.75,000/­ on 23.12.2014, Rs. 25,000/­ on 27.12.2014, Rs.50,000/­ on 29.12.2004 and Rs.50,000/­ on 2.1.2015 and obtained receipts from him and his son as token advance with an understanding that the same will be returned back without interest if the Bank authorities refuse to give permission. As the plaintiff specifically undertook to pay the entire balance sale consideration of Rs.28,00,000/­ directly to the Bank as and when the bank gives permission no other terms of sale agreement are decided and no sale agreement was executed between them with the fond hope that direct sale deed can be executed after permission is given by the bank, but unfortunately, the bank authorities failed to give any permission for private sale in spite of best efforts made by him. The plaintiff also tried his level best but failed to get permission. Then in the first week of

April, 2005 the plaintiff requested him to execute an agreement of sale as the bank authorities are not giving permission and as it will take some more time. Then he refused to execute the sale agreement as no terms of sale are settled except sale consideration.

Then at the suggestion of mediators he agreed to execute a letter of understanding cum receipt of token advance of Rs.2,00,000/­ by obtaining 4 separate receipts in four installments incorporating the condition relating to obtaining bank permission and also that he 16 will return the token advance if the bank refuses to grant permission even after considerable time say two years and if they failed to get permission within 2 years. Accordingly, the plaintiff himself got a letter of understanding cum receipt drafted and after the same is verified by him he got it typed. He signed on the said letter of understanding cum receipt dated 5.4.2005 which is also signed by the mediators K.Madhava Ramaiah and A.Ramamohana

Rao as attestors. The plaintiff took the said receipt and kept the same with him promising to return the four receipts executed by him and his son for receipt of token advance of Rs.2,00,000/­, but the plaintiff did not return those receipts even after several requests stating that they were not traced. Since then both of them tried to get permission from the Bank for three years but in vain. Consequently the plaintiff demanded him to return back the token advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/­, which was duly returned to him. The plaintiff also returned the original letter cum letter of understanding to him in the presence of the above said mediators who signed on it as attestors, but he did not return the receipts issued by him and his son on the ground that they are misplaced and promised to return the same as and when traced out. As already 3 years have elapsed and as the original letter of understanding is returned and as they were in cordial terms he did not insist for the same and return the amount bonafidely.

Subsequently, as already stated, the plaintiff has enhanced the rent from 1.9.2009, but after the disputes have arisen the plaintiff has cooked up a cock and bull story taking advantage of the receipts with him and filed this suit for specific performance.

Since the plaintiff has taken back the token advance, there is no 17 concluded contract between them and hence the suit is not maintainable. For every sale transaction the sale consideration and description of the property will be fixed. The other important terms like date of performance of contract along with default clause will be decided. Apart from the same for every sale agreement some advance sale consideration amount will be taken, all these important factors are lacking in this case. It is only because there is no concluded contract between the parties, the plaintiff intended to purchase and he intended to sell subject to obtaining permission for private sale from bank authorities. Thus, there is no concluded contract between them so as to claim specific performance by either party. On this aspect only the suit is liable to be dismissed.

The value of the tenanted shops i.e., Shop Nos. 1 to 3 is Rs.

30,00,000/­ in 2005 and much more presently. These three shops are abutting the Besant Road having very good market value. If the tenanted property under the occupation of the plaintiff is let out they will fetch a rent of Rs.50,000/­ per month and an interest­free deposit of Rs.8,00,000/­ to Rs.10,00,000/­. It is not out of place to mention that no prudent man will sell 2 shops in

Besant Road i.e., plaint schedule property for an amount of

Rs.9,00,000/­ when the rear side shops were sold by him and his family members for Rs.8,00,000/­ for a single shop. The 2nd defendant has no right, title or interest in any of the plaint schedule property shops. The suit is barred by time. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

8.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the lower court for trial:

18

1. Whether the plaintiff executed letter of understanding receipt

dt. 5.4.2005?

2. Whether the defendant returned an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to the plaintiff?

3. Whether the sale price mentioned in the plaint is adequate?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale dt. 23.12.2004?

5. To what relief?

9. Both the suits were clubbed together as per order in

I.A.No.283/2010 dated 17­7­2015 by recording common evidence in O.S.1109/2010. The plaintiff in O.S.1109/2010 and defendant in O.S.693/2010 is arrayed as petitioner and the defendant in

O.S.1109/2010 and the plaintiff in O.S.693/2010 is arrayed as

defendant in the trial court.

10. In order to establish the case of the plaintiff, P.W­1 was examined and Exs.A­1 to A­5 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W­1 was examined and Exs.B­1 to B­7 were marked.

11. The court below, on hearing both parties and upon perusing the material, evidence let in by the parties to the suit, the trial court passed the impugned common judgment by decreeing the suit with costs in O.S.1109/2010 and by dismissing the suit in

O.S.693/2010 without costs, against which the present appeals

were preferred by the unsuccessful defendant in O.S.1109/2010 and unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.693/2010, contending that the common judgment of the trial court are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The trial court ought to have held that although there is no written registered lease, the terms and conditions were acted upon. The trial court ought to have considered the understanding between the parties but not quit notice. The trial court ought to have decreed the suit in

O.S.693/2010 as plaintiff paid part of sale consideration to the

19 defendant. The observation of trial court that the appellant committed default in payment of rent for six months is erroneous.

When there is clear pleading in the plaint that the appellant had been ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the observation of lower court is beyond the pleadings. The trial court ought to have considered the bank statement filed along with plaint in O.S.693/2010 that the appellant was having amount to pay balance of sale consideration. The trial court ought to have considered that the respondent categorically admitted about receipt of letter along with demand draft dated 31­5­2010 and receipt of summons in O.S.693/2010 and after receipt of summons only, he got issued Ex.A­2 notice. The trial court ought to have considered that the respondent could not be able to assign a single reason for terminating the tenancy of appellant. The trial court ought to have held that the respondent has not approached the court with clean hands. The trial court ought to have decided that alleged quit notice Ex.A­1 is neither valid nor tenable and binding in accordance with law and ought to have dismissed the suit in

O.S.1109/2010. The trial court ought to have held that the

respondent is not entitled for eviction of appellant. The trial court ought to have held that since appellant filed suit in O.S.693/2010 for specific performance of agreement of sale, the respondent filed suit in O.S.1109/2010.

12. Both the appeals were filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in

O.S.693/2010 and unsuccessful defendant in O.S.1109/2010 with

similar appeal grounds. Hence, the appeal grounds in both the appeals are not reproduced separately. The appellant in both the appeals filed memo requesting to hear both the appeals together 20 stating that both the matters are jointly tried, common judgment was pronounced by the trial court. The learned counsel for respondent reported no objection. Having consider the request of the appellant/tenant, both the appeals were heard together. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as the appellant/tenant and respondent/landlord.

13. Given, the appeal grounds and on hearing the rival contentions and upon perusal of material and impugned finding in the common judgment of court below, the following points are arise for consideration are:

1) Whether the judgment of the trial court dated 8­1­2018 for eviction of the Appellant is liable to be set aside?

2) Whether Appellant is entitled to ask for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23­12­2004?

3) Whether the common judgment of the trial court dated 8­1­2018 is sustainable under law?

4) To what relief? 

14. POINT No.1:­

1) Whether the judgment of the trial court dated 8­1­2018 for eviction of the Appellant is liable to be set aside?

The learned counsel for appellant/tenant contended that there is no written lease agreement. There was an understanding between the parties in continuing the tenancy by enhancing rent from time to time since 1988. There is no dispute with regard to payment of rent prior to filing of this suit. Even subsequent to filing of the suit also appellant has been depositing rents. The respondent himself refused to receive the rents for not complying the illegal demand of the respondent for enhancing the rent upto 21

Rs.16,000/­ per month. The respondent created Ex.A­1 receipt as if the rent was enhanced from Rs.7,275/­ per month to

Rs.14,100/­ per month from the month of November 2009, which is a fabricated document. The respondent did not take any steps to refer the Ex.A­1 to the handwriting expert to prove the case of the respondent. When the appellant has been paying rents regularly and the respondent agreed to sell the schedule property to the appellant for Rs.9,00,000/­ by receiving advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ under Exs.B­2 to B­5 and he refused to receive the rent which was sent with Ex.B­6 letter, the appellant has got right to continue in the schedule property as a purchaser and tenant of plaint schedule property. The very issuing of quit notice

Ex.A­2 without assigning any reason is illegal as such, the respondent is not entitled to ask for eviction of appellant. He further contended that the trial court observation that the appellant committed default in payment of rent is erroneously.

The trial court ought to have decided that the quit notice is not valid and not binding on the appellant and the entire discussion is one sided and not on merits. The observation of trial court is beyond pleadings. He also relied on the decision reported in the case of Jugal Kishore Kundu (deceased by L.R’s and others) Vs.

Narayan Chandra Kundu and another reported in AIR 1982

CALCUTTA 342.

 15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents contended that the appeal grounds are not sustainable under law. In the absence of registered lease, the tenancy is only a month to month tenancy, terminable within one month notice. The appellant committed default in payment of rents from December 2009 onwards, irrespective of the dispute with regard to the 22 enhancement of rent. Hence, the respondent got issued quit notice Ex.A­2. After receiving quit notice, the appellant did not pay the rents nor vacated the premises as such, he became a tenant holding over from August 2010. D.W­1 also admitted in the cross­examination that he did not pay rents from December 2009 to May 2010. The landlord need not assign any reason in the quit notice. Therefore, the trial court rightly held that the appellant committed default in payment of rent after termination of tenancy by quit notice Ex.A­2, he is not entitled to continue in the schedule property. To substantiate his plea, he placed reliance on a decision reported in the case of Jiwan Dass Vs. Life

Insurance Corporation of India reported in 1994, Part­3 SCC 694.

16. It is not in dispute, the appellant in both the appeals is tenant and respondent in both the appeals is the landlord. The appellant filed O.S.693/2010 against the landlord and his son for specific performance of oral agreement of sale dated 23­12­2014.

The same was dismissed by the trial court vide its common judgment dated 8­1­2018. The respondent/landlord filed

O.S.1109/2010 for eviction of the appellant/tenant and recovery

of arrears of rent, damages with costs and the same was decreed by the trial court vide its common judgment dated 8­1­2018.

Aggrieved by the common judgment dated 8­1­2018, the appellant/tenant preferred appeals in A.S.55/2018 &

A.S.56/2018. It is also not in dispute, the plaint schedule

property in O.S.1109/2010 consisting of three shops i.e., shop

No.1, 2, 3 in Brundavan Shopping Complex. The plaint schedule in O.S.693/2010 is consisting of six shops i.e., shop No.1, 2, 3 of ground floor, room No.40, 41, 42 in first floor and six lodging 23 rooms i.e., room No.311, 312, 313 and room No.411, 412, 413 in

Brundavan Shopping Complex. The appellant/tenant has been continuing in the shop No.1, 2, 3 of the plaint schedule in

O.S.1109/2010 since 1988. In the beginning the rent was

Rs.750/­ p.m. It was enhanced from time to time. It is also not in dispute, the appellant/tenant paid rent upto October 2009 @

Rs.7,275/­ per month. The dispute arose between the parties with regard to enhancement of rent from November, 2009 and payment of enhanced rent.

17. According to the appellant, the respondent demanded to enhance the rent from Rs.7,275/­ per month to Rs.16,000/­ per month, for which the appellant did not agree. Hence, the respondent refused to receive rents from the month of December, 2009 and the respondent grew wild against the appellant and abused him and threatened him with dire consequences and also demanded to enhance the rate of sale consideration which was entered into on 23­12­2004 and the respondent also planned to evict the appellant from the schedule property in one way or other, for that reason only he avoided to receive the rents, when the appellant tendered rents to the respondent. Having smelt about the high handed designs of the respondent, he was constrained to remit the rent by way of demand draft along with covering letter dated 31­5­2010. After receiving said demand draft with covering letter, the respondent along with some unruly elements came to the schedule property on 2­6­2010 and tried to dispossess the appellant.

24

18.According to the respondent, the appellant is not regular in paying rents and at one time, he was vexed with the attitude of appellant/tenant and he filed O.S.220/1994 and the same was ended in compromise. In the said compromise, the appellant/tenant agreed to enhance the rent by 20% for every three years, but he enhanced the rent by 15% on two occasions and failed to enhance the rent from 1­4­2001. The existing rent by 1­4­2001 was Rs.7,275/­ per month. After several demands the appellant/tenant agreed to enhance the rent from Rs.7,275/­ per month to Rs.14,100/­ per month from 1­9­2009 and the appellant paid enhanced rent of Rs.14,100/­ for the month of November, 2009 under receipt No.77 on 25­1­2010 and further contended that appellant also sub­let the rented premises. Under the circumstances, the respondent got issued quit notice (Ex.A­2) on 16­6­2010 by returning the demand draft.

19.As seen from the evidence of P.W­1, he deposed that the tenant paid enhanced rent from the month of November, 2009. To substantiate the version, he filed Ex.A­1 which is an attested xerox copy of receipt No.77 dated 25­1­2010. The tenant/appellant denied the Ex.A­1 receipt stating that it is a fabricated one. D.W­1 (appellant) was cross­examined at length. Noting is elicited from cross of D.W­1 to substantiate the case of respondent (landlord) that the appellant paid enhanced rent under Ex.A­1. The original of Ex.A­1 was not filed before the court and no steps were taken to produce the original of Ex.A­1 so as to refer the original of Ex.A­1 for comparison with the admitted signatures of the appellant to the hand writing expert. Thus, except the sole testimony of

P.W­1/landlord, there is no corroborative evidence on record to 25 prove the enhancement of rent and payment of enhanced rent for the month of November, 2009. On the other hand, P.W­1 admitted in the cross­examination as follows:

“­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Whenever the defendant pays part of the rent, my son used to issue a temporary receipt and on receipt of the full rent, he used to issue printed receipt. The rough receipt shown to me was issued by my son towards rent of November 2009 for Rs.7,275/­.”

The said receipt was produced by the appellant/tenant, which is marked as Ex.B­7. Thus, the aforesaid portion of evidence of

P.W­1 and Ex.B­7 coupled together goes to falsify the case of the respondent/landlord with regard to payment of enhanced rent for the month of November, 2009. On the other hand, it goes to substantiate the case of the appellant/tenant that he paid rent for the month of November 2009 @ Rs.7,275/­. When the rent for the month of November, 2009 was paid @ Rs.7,275/­, the question of payment of enhanced rent @ Rs.14,100/­ under Ex.A­1 for the same month of November, 2009 does not arise. If rally, the rent is enhanced from Rs.7,275/­ to Rs.14,100/­ from the month of

November, 2009, the respondent would not issue receipt Ex.B­7 towards payment of rent @ Rs.7,275/­ for the month of November, 2009. So, this circumstance also probablise the same view that the plea of respondent with regard to enhancement of rent from

Rs.7,275/­ to Rs.14,100/­ and payment of enhanced rent for the month of November, 2009 under Ex.A­1 is false. However, it is crystal clear from the pleadings and evidence of both sides, the rent to the schedule premises was paid upto November, 2009. 

26

20.It is not in dispute, the appellant/tenant sent demand draft for Rs.43,650/­ towards rent for the months of December, 2009 to

May 2010 with covering letter which is marked as Ex.A­5/Ex.B­6.

The said demand draft was returned to the appellant along with the quit notice Ex.A­2. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent/landlord encashed the demand draft for Rs.43,650/­.

Thus, Ex.B­6 itself reveals that the appellant committed default in payment of rent from the month of December, 2009 to May 2010.

D.W­1 also admitted in the cross­examination that he did not pay rent for the month of December 2009 till May 2010 and he also explained the reason for not paying rent in his cross­examination that since the plaintiff did not issue receipt for the rent of

November, 2009, he did not pay rents from December 2009 to till

May 2010. It is significant to note that the appellant himself filed

Ex.B­7 receipt to show that the respondent/landlord issue Ex.B­7 receipt towards payment of rent for the month of November, 2009.

When the receipt was issued by the landlord acknowledging the rent for the month of November, 2009, the reason assigned by the

D.W­1 for not paying rent from December, 2009 to May 2010 is not sustainable. Thus, it is crystal clear from Ex.B­6, Ex.B­7 and evidence of D.W­1 that the appellant committed default in payment of rent from the month of December 2009 to May 2010.

21.It is also not in dispute, the respondent previously filed

O.S.220/1994 against the appellant for eviction, when the

appellant committed default in payment of arrears of rent and the same was ended in compromise. According to P.W­1 at the time of compromise, the defendant had specifically agreed to enhance the rent for every three years by 20%, but for twice only the defendant 27 enhanced the rent by 15% and he paid the enhanced rent of

Rs.7,275/­ from 1­4­2001 to October 2009. D.W­1 also categorically stated in his cross­examination as follows:

“It is true the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rents. It is true the plaintiff filed

O.S.220/1994 on the file of Addl.Senior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada, for eviction. As on the date of filing of the said suit, I was paying monthly rent of Rs.3,000/­. It is true the said suit was withdrawn after coming to an understanding that the rent will be enhanced by 20% in every 3 years. It is true that even though, it was agreed to enhance the rent by 20%, the rent was enhanced @ 15% on two occasions. It is true, as on 1­4­2001 the rent payable was Rs.7,275/­ per month. Thereafter the rent was not enhanced.”

Thus, it is crystal clear from the above said portion of evidence of

D.W­1 and P.W­1 that previously also he committed default in payment of rent and he promissed to enhance the rent by 20% in every three years, but contrary to his promise, he enhanced the rent by 15% on two occasions only and he did not enhance the existing rent of Rs.7,275/­ per month from 1­4­2001 onwards.

Thus, he paid same rent @ Rs.7,275/­ per month for a period of more than nine years till the date of Ex.B­7. In other words, the existing rent as on the date of Ex.B­7 and issuing of quit notice

Ex.A­2 was very low, although he promissed to enhance the rent by 20% for every three years, but he intentionally avoided to enhance the rent by 20% for every three years as agreed by him and continued to pay rent at the low rate i.e., Rs.7,275/­ per month for a period of more than nine years. When the tenant is paying rent at low market rate, the owner is entitled to deal with his property in his own way profitable to its use and occupation.

28

Therefore, the tenant/appellant who paid rent at low rate for a period of more than nine years, by deviating his promise to enhance the rent by 20% for every three years, is not entitled to continue in the premises and he is liable to be evicted from the premises. Under these circumstances, issuing of quit notice

Ex.A­2 is not illegal. It is not the case of the appellant that the landlord did not follow the mandate of section 106 of Transfer of

Property Act. The law is well settled in the case of Jiwan Dass Vs.

Life Insurance Corporation of India reported in 1994 Part­3 SCC page 694 that section 106 Transfer of Property Act does not contemplate of giving reason for termination of tenancy. The purport of issuing quit notice U/s.106 Transfer of Property Act is only to inform the lessee of the intention on the part of lesser to resume the premises. With regard to alleged oral agreement dated 23­12­2004 to be discussed infra, even it is assumed that there was an oral agreement between the appellant and respondent with regard to sale of schedule property, the mere oral agreement itself does not entitle the appellant/tenant to continue in possession of the schedule property unless and until, there is a condition in the agreement to allow the tenant to continue in the possession of schedule property irrespective of payment of rents. It is not the case of the appellant that irrespective of payment of rents, there was a condition in the agreement to allow the appellant to continue in the possession of schedule property indefinitely. Therefore, I find there is no considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for appellant with regard to legality of issuing quit notice. In the case of Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal and another, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in para 8 as under:

29 “The High Court, in this case, in its obvious zeal to cut delay and hardship that may ensue by relegating the plaintiffs to one more round of litigation, has rendered a judgment which violates several fundamental rules of civil procedure. The rules breached are:”

(i) “No amount of evidence can be looked into, upon a plea which was never put forward in the pleadings. A question which did arise from the pleadings and which was not the subject matter of an issue, cannot be decided by the court.”

(ii) “A court cannot make out a case not pleaded. The court should confine its decision to the question raised in pleadings.

Nor can it grant a relief which is not claimed and which does not flow from the facts and the cause of action alleged in the plaint.”

(iii) “A factual issue cannot be raised or considered for the first time in a second appeal.” “Civil procedure code is an elaborate codification on the principles of natural justice to be applied to civil litigation. The provisions are so elaborate that many a time, fulfillment of the procedural requirements of the code may itself contribute to delay. But any anxiety to cut the delay or further litigation, should not be a ground to float the settled fundamental rules of civil procedure. Be that as it may. We will briefly set out the reasons for the aforesaid conclusions.” 

In the instant case except vague arguments that the trial court observation and discussion is beyond the pleadings, there is no specific appeal ground with regard to findings of the trial court beyond pleadings. Therefore, the facts of the above said case are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the case of Jugal

Kishore Kundu (deceased by L.R’s and others) Vs. Narayan

Chandra Kundu and another reported in AIR 1982 CALCUTTA 342, there is a specific pleading that after purchasing land, 30 building was constructed on the land with his own money, whereas the trial court held that the building was constructed with the money of joint fund of three brothers. In the instant case, there is no finding contrary to the pleadings, as such, the facts of the aforesaid decisions have no application to the facts of the instant case. Keeping all these circumstances into mind, I find the trial court rightly held that the appellant committed default in payment of rent and he is not entitled to continue in the plaint schedule property after termination of the tenancy, as such, no interference in the finding of the trial court is required. Therefore, I find the appellant failed to establish his entitlement to ask for setting aside the judgment of the trial court dated 8­1­2018 with regard to eviction of appellant. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. 

22.POINT No.2:

2) Whether Appellant is entitled to ask for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23­12­2004?

The learned counsel for appellant contended that there is no dispute with regard to agreement of sale. The dispute is with regard to consideration and number of shops. The landlord offered to sell three shops in the ground floor, three shops in first floor and six lodging rooms in the second and third floor for

Rs.9,00,000/­. Out of the sale consideration, Rs.2,00,000/­ was paid towards advance under Exs.B­2 to B­5 receipts and landlord also agreed to discharge the loan to the Corporation Bank.

Subsequently, he respondent demanded to enhance the rent from

Rs.7,275/­ to Rs.16,000/­, for which the appellant did not oblige.

Hence, he grew wild and refused to receive the rents and also 31 trying to evict the appellant by rowdy elements. Since the respondent/landlord admitted the agreement to sell the shops and admitted the receiving the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ , the appellant is entitled to ask for specific performance of agreement of sale. The learned counsel for appellant further contended that the lower court found the advance sale consideration was paid to landlord and observed that the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ was not returned, as such, the lower court ought to have considered the bank statement which showing the bank balance of the appellant to pay balance sale consideration, it ought to have decreed the suit in favour of the appellant.

23.On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent contended that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff who approached the court must prove each of his contention with regard to the sale transaction and conditions thereon, but there is no consistency with regard to the description of the schedule property and sale consideration and unexplained delay of more than six years in filing the suit and that there is no concluding contract. The plaintiff/D.W­1 evidence reveals that he is not aware of the extent of the property said to have been purchased under alleged oral agreement and the loan of the bank to which the schedule property was mortgaged and the period within which the alleged agreement to be performed. Moreover, the tenant committed default in payment of rent is not entitled to ask for specific performance. The appellant also failed to establish the specific terms of the contract and he approached the court with unclean hands, as such he is not entitled for specific performance.

32

To substantiate his plea, he also placed reliance on the following decisions:

1. In the case of M.Rangaiah Vs. T.V.Satyanarayana Rao and another reported in 2009(5) ALD 663

2. In the case of Baddam Prathap Reddy Vs. Chennadi Jalapathi

Reddy and another reported in 2008(5) ALD 200

3. In the case of A.Ganapathy Vs. S.Venkatesan reported in 2007(1) CTC 57

4. In the case of Manjunadh Anandappa Vs.Tammanasa and others in Civil Appeal No.5662/1998 dated 13­3­2003.

24.It is true, there is no dispute with regard to the oral agreementbetweentheappellant/tenantand respondents/landlords to sell some property of the respondent/landlord, and passing of earnest money Rs.2,00,000/­ under Exs.B­2 to B­5 receipts from appellant/tenant to respondent/landlord. It is also not in dispute, the appellant/tenant sent demand draft for Rs.43,650/­ with Ex.B­6 letter to the respondent and the respondent received the same and returned the demand draft with Ex.A­2 notice to the appellant.

25.It is also not in dispute, the schedule property was mortgaged to the Corporation Bank by the respondent. As on the date of alleged agreement of sale, the bank loan had been in existence.

26.According to the appellant, the respondent agreed to sell shop No.1, 2, 3, in the ground floor, shop No.40, 41, 42 in the first floor and lodging rooms bearing No.311, 312, 313, and 411, 412, 33 413 in the second floor and third floor of the Brundavan Shopping

Complex of the respondent for Rs.9,00,000/­. According to the respondent, he agreed to sell shop No.1, 2, 3 of the plaint schedule, which are in the occupation of the appellant/tenant for

Rs.30,00,000/­, subject to granting permission by the Corporation

Bank. There was no written agreement of sale, but there was an understanding letter dated 5­4­2005 between both the parties with regard to repayment of advance payment. He failed to obtain permission within three years. Even after three years the bank did not grant permission, hence, the respondent returned the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ to the appellant. On that the appellant returned the understanding letter dated 5­4­2005 but did not return the Exs.B­2 to B­5 stating that they were not traced.

Taking advantage of availability of Exs.B­2 to B­5 with the appellant, he filed this suit for specific performance after six years.

As seen from the evidence of P.W­1 and D.W­1, their evidence in chief reiterates their respective pleadings in the plaint and written statement in O.S.693/2010. There is no independent corroborative evidence to support their respective contentions.

27.Admittedly, there is no written agreement of sale. According to P.W­1 there was a letter of understanding dated 5­4­2005 between the parties for refund of the advance amount in the event of failure in getting permission from Corporation Bank and the said understanding letter was attested by one K.Madhava

Ramaiah, A.Ramamohana Rao. The respondent failed to produce the alleged understanding letter dated 5­4­2005. So also did not choose to examine the attestors of the said letter to prove the letter of understanding dated 5­4­2005. According to P.W­1/landlord, 34 the understanding letter dated 5­4­2005 was returned to him at the time of repayment of advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/­. Then question arises? When there was an understanding letter dated 5­ 4­2005, what prevented him to produce it before the court? and what prevented him to examine the attestors of the said letter? for which there is no explanation. Thus, non­producing of material document dated 5­4­2005 and non­examination of material witnesses, gives an adverse inference against the respondent that the examination of those witnesses goes against the case of the respondent. The respondent did not produce any corroborative evidence to prove that he repaid the Rs.2,00,000/­ advance amount to the appellant. He did not obtain any acknowledgement from the appellant/tenant to show the payment of Rs.2,00,000/­, so also did not mention the date on which the Rs.2,00,000/­ was returned to the appellant. It is evident from the evidence of P.W­1 and D.W­1, there is a practice of issuing receipts for payment of rent and advance amount etc. Then question arises? When there is a practice of issuing or obtaining acknowledgement for payment of amounts between the appellant and respondent, what prevented the respondent to obtain receipt or acknowledgement from the appellant at the time of return of Rs.2,00,000/­ to the appellant, for which there is no satisfactory explanation from P.W­1.

Admittedly there was previous litigation between the appellant and respondent vide O.S.220/1994 and the same was ended in compromise. The appellant did not comply the terms of the compromise with regard to enhancement of rent by 20% for every three years. Then question arises? How the respondent believed the appellant for not returning Exs.B­2 to B­5 on the ground that 35 they were not traced. Even if they were not traced, what prevented him to obtain receipt from the appellant at the time of payment of

Rs.2,00,000/­?, for which there is no satisfactory explanation.

Thus, the conduct of respondent in keeping quiet without demanding for acknowledgement or receipt from the appellant at the time of alleged repayment of Rs.2,00,000/­ is not consistent with the conduct of a man of prudence and does not inspire confidence to believe the version of P.W­1 for not obtaining acknowledgement from the appellant/tenant at the time of refund of Rs.2,00,000/­. However, in a suit for equitable relief of specific performance of contract of sale, it is for the plaintiff to establish that there is an agreement of sale for a specific property and for specific consideration with a specified terms and conditions to be enforced within a stipulated time and it must be in accordance with form 47, 48 of appendix­A of C.P.C. and section 16(c) of the

Specific Relief Act.

28.As seen from the evidence of D.W­1, except the sole testimony of D.W­1, there is no corroborative evidence on record to support the case of the appellant with regard to terms of sale agreement.

29.With regard to sale consideration, P.W­1 deposed that the oral sale agreement is for Rs.30,00,000/­. According to D.W­1, the oral sale is for Rs.9,00,000/­. With regard to description of the property, appellant contended that the respondent agreed to sell six shops, six lodging rooms for Rs.9,00,000/­. According to respondent/landlord, he agreed to sell three shops which are in the occupation of appellant/tenant for Rs.30,00,000/­. As seen 36 from the evidence of D.W­1, his evidence goes to support the case of the appellant with regard to purchasing six shops and six lodging rooms under oral agreement of sale dated 23­12­2004, whereas in the cross­examination, D.W­1 stated that he agreed to be purchased shop No.1, 2, 3 for Rs.9,00,000/­. He also stated in his written statement in O.S.1109/2010 at para 4 as follows:

“Subsequently when they were intending to sell away the plaint schedule property (3 shop rooms in the ground floor) and when offered to the defendant and that he came forward to purchase the same.”

Thus, the evidence of D.W­1 in his cross and pleadings in his written statement which was filed in O.S.1109/2010, are inconsistent with the pleadings in O.S.693/2010 and evidence of

D.W­1 in chief.

30.As seen from Exs.B­2 and B­3, which are filed by the appellant to prove that he made payments to respondent under

Exs.B­2 and B­3 towards advance, in which the shop No.1, 2, 3 were mentioned, but the other shops i.e., shop No.40, 41, 42 and lodge rooms 311, 312, 313 and 411, 412, 413 were not mentioned.

The appellant also filed Ex.B­6 which is covering letter addressed to the respondent under which the arrears of rent of Rs.43,650/­ was sent by way of demand draft, in which also shop No.1, 2, 3 were mentioned, the other shop numbers were not mentioned.

Thus, the own documents of the appellant i.e., Exs.B­2, B­3 and

Ex.B­6 coupled together go to falsify the case of appellant that the respondent agreed to sell the six shops bearing No.1, 2, 3, 40, 41, 42 and six lodge rooms bearing No.311, 312, 313, 411, 412, 413.

If really the respondent agreed to sell six shops and six lodge 37 rooms to the appellant under oral agreement, he would have mentioned the shop numbers and lodge room numbers in Exs.B­2 to B­6. Thus, the own documents of the appellant i.e., Exs.B­2, B­ 3 and B­6 and his own pleadings in the written statement filed in

O.S.1109/2010 and his evidence in cross goes to falsify the case of

the appellant that he purchased six shops and six lodging rooms under oral agreement dated 23­12­2004. In the light of Exs.B­2,

B­3 and B­6 and pleadings of the appellant in written statement filed in O.S.1109/2010 and evidence of D.W­1 in cross referred above, it can be safely come to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent agreed to sell the plaint schedule property consisting of six shops and six lodge rooms under oral agreement.

31.With regard to sale consideration, except conflicting oral evidence of P.W­1 and D.W­1, there is no corroborative evidence on record to prove the exact sale consideration under the oral agreement dated 23­12­2004. It is not in dispute, the respondent was in financial crisis during the year 2004, due to which the respondent offered to sell some shops to the appellant and he already sold some shops to others in the year 2004. The appellant himself filed Ex.B­1 which is the registration extract of the sale deed dated 28­12­2014 executed by the respondent in favour of some third parties in respect of shop No.9, 48, 305, 405. It is to be noticed D.W­1 stated in the cross­examination that in or about 2004, he came to know that one of the back side shop i.e., shop

No.4 was sold for Rs.3,00,000/­, the extent of the said shop and his shops with a dimension of 10 x 10 feet. Admittedly three shops of the appellant are situated front side of the building. When the 38 back side shop (single shop No.4) was sold for Rs.3,00,000/­ in the year 2004, how the respondent agreed to sell six shops with a same dimensions of shop No.4 and six lodging rooms for

Rs.9,00,000/­, for which there is no satisfactory explanation from

D.W­1. If the version of D.W­1 is taken into consideration, the value of a six shops comes to Rs.18,00,000/­ (Rs.3,00,000/­ per each shop). No man of prudent agrees to sell six shops worth of

Rs.18,00,000/­ and six lodging rooms for meager amount of

Rs.9,00,000/­ in the year 2004. There is no satisfactory explanation from D.W­1 as to why the respondent agreed to sell six shops and six lodging rooms for meager amount of Rs.9,00,000/­, which is very low to the existing market rate (as per the version of

D.W­1 in the cross), for which there is no explanation. In the light of evidence of D.W­1 in the cross with regard to disposing of shop

No.4 i.e., one shop of respondent for Rs.3,00,000/­, the plea of the appellant with regard to sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/­ for six shops and six lodging rooms cannot be believed without doubt.

Thus, the appellant failed to establish that the respondent agreed to sell six shops and six lodging rooms of the plaint schedule for

Rs.9,00,000/­. 

32.With regard to the date of agreement and terms of agreement, D.W­1 stated two days prior to 23­12­2004, negotiations were taken place and understanding was arrived on 23­12­2004. It is admitted case of both the parties that the schedule property was mortgaged with Corporation Bank by the plaintiff. The title deed of schedule property was deposited with

Corporation Bank. Without redeeming the mortgage debt and return of original title deed of schedule property, no purchaser 39 agrees to purchase such a property. It is not the case of the appellant that he is not aware of the mortgage transaction between the respondent and Corporation Bank. Then question arises?

What is the condition to be performed with regard to discharge of bank loan? According to appellant, the respondent promissed to clear the bank loan and execute sale deed directly in his favour after receiving balance sale consideration. According to the respondent, he agreed to sell the three shops only for

Rs.30,00,000/­, subject to condition that the Corporation Bank authorities give permission to private sale as those three shops and some other shops were also under their mortgage and that the appellant accepted the same, agreed to purchase shop No.1, 2, 3.

At his request, the appellant paid Rs.2,00,000/­ under Exs.B­2 to

B­5 towards advance with an understanding that the same will be returned back without interest if the bank authorities refused to give permission and that the plaintiff specifically undertook to pay the entire sale consideration Rs.28,00,000/­ directly to the bank as and when the bank gives permission. Inspite of their best efforts, the bank authorities failed to give permission, whereas D.W­1 stated in his cross­examination as follows:

“No specific understanding or agreement was entered into to discharge the loan in the bank within a particular time or the period within which the sale deed has to be executed in my favour. There was also no understanding for payment of balance sale consideration within a particular time. I did not even think of any time limit for getting a registered document from the plaintiff being his tenant. The loan was taken in the name of plaintiff. It was a commercial loan. About 6 months prior to 23­12­2004, the Corporation Bank issued notices seizing the properties of the plaintiff.” 40

Thus, it is crystal clear from the above said portion of evidence of

D.W­1 that he got knowledge about issuing of notice to seize the properties of respondent by the bank six months prior to the oral agreement of sale. When the schedule property was mortgaged to the bank and the bank issued a notice to seize the property of the respondent, no man of prudent purchase property which was under seizure of the bank, without any specific condition as to discharging of bank loan under agreement of sale. It is admitted case of both the parties that the respondent agreed to sell the schedule shops to the appellant and some shops to some others to discharge his loans. When the respondent was indebted, how he agreed to discharge the bank loan and execute sale deed in the name of appellant? How the appellant kept quiet for a period of 4 or 5 years without insisting for discharging of bank loan and execute registered sale deed in the name of appellant?, for which there is no explanation. On the other hand, D.W­1 pleaded ignorance in his evidence at page 5 as follows:

“After making payments under Exs.B­2 to B­5, I did not enquire with the bank about the outstanding debt or whether the plaintiff paid the amount to the bank or not. Inspite of my repeated requests, the plaintiff did not inform me about the outstanding amount due to the bank. About 4 or 5 years after making payments, I started demand the plaintiff vehemently about the registration of document, for which he did not give proper answer. When I demanded the plaintiff to execute a registered sale deed on 2­6­2010 he abused me in filthy language. Thereafter I got issued lawyer notice to the plaintiff, demanding the plaintiff to execute a registered sale deed. I do not remember whether I stated so in the pleadings or affidavit or filed the notice before the court.” 41

Thus, the said portion of evidence of D.W­1 reveals that after payment of earnest money under Exs.B­2 to B­5, he kept quiet for a period of 4 or 5 years and he did not enquire about the outstanding loan of the bank. When the appellant purchased the property under oral agreement, no man of prudent keep quiet without enquiring about the outstanding amount and without insisting the vendor to discharge the bank loan and kept quiet for a period of 4 or 5 years. This circumstance also probablise the case of respondent. According to D.W­1, he demanded the respondent to execute regd. Sale deed on 2­6­2010. On that he abused him in filthy language, thereafter he got issued lawyer notice to the respondent demanding the plaintiff to execute registered sale deed. No such notice is filed before the court.

However, he admitted in the cross­examination that except Ex.B­6 there is no correspondence with regard to terms agreed between them. Ex.B­6 does not disclose the date of agreement and sale consideration and there is no recital in Ex.B­6 that he has been ready to pay balance sale consideration and demanding the respondent to execute registered sale deed. Thus, it is crystal clear that the appellant did not issue any legal notice by expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract and demanding the respondent to execute registered sale deed after receiving balance sale consideration. Admittedly the appellant got issued Ex.B­6 letter with a demand draft towards payment of arrears of rent on 31­5­2010 i.e., after five years of agreement of sale, but there is no whisper in Ex.B­6 about his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract dated 23­12­2004, so also there is no demand from the appellant requesting the 42 respondent to discharge the bank loan and execute registered sale deed in favour of the appellant on receiving balance sale consideration. The appellant did not file his bank statement to show his bank balance to pay the remaining sale consideration.

Thus, except the pleadings in the plaint, there is no clinching evidence on record to prove that the appellant/plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

33.The law is well settled in the case of M.Rangaiah Vs.

T.V.Satyanarayana Rao and another reported in 2009(5) ALD 663 at para 9 to 13 as follows:

Para 9“The Act provides for the remedy of specific performance under Chapter II thereof. Section 20 of the Act makes it amply clear that the relief of specific performance of obligation under an agreement of sale, is discretionary in nature. Having said that, it proceeds to stipulate the guidelines to be kept in view, while exercising the discretion, so vested in the Court. Apart from that, the law requires certain conditions to be complied with by a plaintiff in a suit of this nature, before he claims the relief of specific performance. For instance, he must express his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. Section 16© of the Act, makes this aspect very clear.”

Para 10 “Though the Code is mostly procedural in nature, it has some attributes of substantive law. These aspects are mostly inbuilt in the procedure itself. The Code is divided into various parts. The first part comprises of

Sections 1 to 158. The Schedule comprises of Orders I to LI. In a way, the orders provide for elaboration of the substantive provisions, contained in Sections 1 to 158.

In addition to that, the Code prescribes the Forms to be used by the parties as well as the Courts, with 43 reference to relevant provisions of law, under

Appendices ‘A’ to ‘H’, each, denoted to subject like, pleadings, process, execution, appeals etc., Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix­A relate to suits for specific performance. In both the forms, two requirements are prescribed as essential: The first is, that the plaintiff must have demanded or requested the defendant to perform the contract in accordance with the agreement, and the second is that the plaintiff must state that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The relevant clauses read as under:

Form No.47:

­­­­­­­­­­

2. “The plaintiff has applied to the defendant specifically to perform the agreement on his part, but the defendant has not done so.”

3. “The plaintiff has been and still is ready and willing specifically to perform the agreement on his part of which the defendant has had noticed.”

Form No.48 ­­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­­

3. “On the ……………. day of 19/20 ……….., the plaintiff tendered ………….rupees to the defendant, and demanded a transfer of the said property by a sufficient instrument.”

4. “The defendant has not executed any instrument of transfer.”

5. “The plaintiff is still ready and willing to pay the purchase­ money of the said property to the defendant.”

Para 11 “The difference between these two Forms is that, the first one applies to a suit, which is filed without waiting for the response of the defendant, whereas the other form is meant for cases where the defendant has expressed his refusal.” 44

Para 12“The requirements, mentioned above, are almost substantive in nature. The Legislature had made its intention very clear, to the effect that before a suit for specific performance of an agreement is filed, the plaintiff must issue notice to the defendant calling upon him to perform his part of contract. In the instant case, the respondent did not issue such a notice and straight away filed the suit.”

Para 13“The other requirement is, about the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract. This is made mandatory not only in the Code, but also under Section 16© of the Act. What is essential is the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract. This may include, not only payment of balance of consideration, but also compliance with the other conditions, that are stipulated under the agreement. The respondent no doubt mentioned in para 7 of the plaint, that he is ready and willing to pay the balance of consideration within the agreed period of time. That, however, does not constitute compliance with Section 16© of the Code. He did not say that he is willing to perform his part of contract.” 

34. In the case of Baddam Prathap Reddy Vs. Chennadi

Jalapathi Reddy and another reported in 2008(5) ALD 200 it was held at para 18 as follows:

“Mere allegation that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract would not sufficient for enforcement of contract.”

In the instant case also, the plaintiff/appellant has not issued any legal notice prior to filing of the suit by expressing his readiness 45 and willingness to perform has part of contract. Even he addressed letter to the respondent, after 5 years of agreement, but he did not express his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract in Ex.B­6. According to D.W­1, he deposited the balance sale consideration in the bank but did not produce any proof to show the bonafidy of the appellant in discharging his part of contract. All these circumstances clearly reveal that he did not comply the mandatory provisions of section 16© of Specific Relief

Act and requirement of form 47, 48 of appendix­A of CPC.

35. In the case of A.Ganapathy Vs. S.Venkatesan reported in 2007(1) CTC 57 it was held at para 19 as follows:

“In a case of specific performance it is settled law, and indeed it cannot be doubted, that the jurisdiction to order specific performance of a contract is based on the existence of a valid and enforceable contract. The Law of Contract is based on the ideal of freedom of contract and it provides the limiting principles within which the parties are free to make their own contracts. Where a valid and enforceable contract has not been made, the court will not make a contract for them.

Specific performance will not be ordered if the contract itself suffers from some defect which makes the contract invalid or unenforceable. The discretion of the court will be there even though the contract is otherwise valid and enforceable and it can pass a decree of specific performance even before there has been any breach of the contract, it is therefore necessary first to see whether there has been a valid and enforceable contract and then to see the nature and obligation arising out of it. The contract being the foundation of the obligation the order of specific performance is to enforce that obligation.” “It is settled law that if a contract is to be made, the intention of the offeree to accept the offer must be expressed without leaving room for doubt as to the fact of acceptance or to the 46  coincidence of the terms of acceptance with those of the offer.

The rule is that the acceptance must be absolute and must correspond with the terms of the offer. If the two minds were not ad idem in respect of the property to be sold, there cannot be said to have been a contract for specific performance. If the parties themselves were not ad idem as to the subject matter of the contract, the court cannot order specific performance.”

In the instant case, the appellant failed to establish that the respondent agreed to sell six shops and six lodging rooms for sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/­ and there is no specific condition in the agreement to discharge the loan in the bank with in a particular time and period, within which sale deed has to be executed in his favour and there was no condition for payment of sale consideration within a particular time. When the appellant failed to prove that the respondent agreed to sell six shops and six lodging rooms for Rs.9,00,000/­ and the balance of consideration to be paid within a stipulated time and there is no condition to discharge the mortgage the loan of respondent within a stipulated time, how such an vague oral agreement is enforceable? Thus, the appellant failed to establish any valid enforceable contract.

Moreover, the appellant approached the court with unclean hands by exaggerating the facts with regard to description of the agreement property and sale consideration. When the plaintiff approached the court for equitable relief of specific performance, he has to approach the court with clean hands. As stated above, the plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands and he also failed to comply mandatory provisions of section 16© of Specific

Relief Act and form 47, 48 of Appendix­A of C.P.C. Therefore, the above decisions can be applied to the facts of the instant case. As 47 stated supra, the appellant is able to establish the payment of

Rs.2,00,000/­ to respondent under oral agreement. I may say suit for specific performance cannot be decreed on the sole ground that appellant is able to establish the payment of earnest money, when the appellant failed to (1) establish the valid and enforceable contract of sale and (2) approach the court with clean hands and (3) comply the mandatory provisions of section 16© of Specific

Relief Act and form 47, 48 of Appendix­A of C.P.C. Keeping all these proved facts and circumstances and above decisions, I find that the plaintiff/appellant is not entitled to ask for specific performance of agreement of sale. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.

36.POINT No.3:

3) Whether the common judgment of the trial court dated 8­1­2018 is sustainable under law?

As discussed supra, the appellant failed to establish his entitlement to ask for setting aside the eviction order and for specific performance of contract of sale dated 23­12­2004. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment of trial court

dated 8­1­2018, as such, the judgment of the trial court dated

8­1­2018 is not liable to be set aside and it is sustainable under law. Accordingly, the point is answered. 

37. POINT No.4: To what relief?

As discussed supra, the appellant failed to establish his entitlement to ask for setting aside the judgment of the trail court

dated 8­1­2018. On the other hand, the respondent is able to

establish that the both the appeals are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

48

38. In the result, A.S.55/2018 & A.S.56/2018 are dismissed by confirming the common judgment passed in O.S.1109/2010 &

O.S.693/2010 dated 8­1­2018 on the file of VII Addl.Senior Civil

Judge’s Court at Vijayawada. In the circumstances of the appeals,

there shall be no order as to costs. 

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 2nd day of April, 2019.

XIV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

FAC.XIII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

­NIL­

XIV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

FAC.XIII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

Copy to

The VII Addl.Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KRISHNA, VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT:­ SRI G.DURGAIAH

XIV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.

FAC.XIII ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

TUESDAY, THIS THE 2 nd DAY OF APRIL, 2019.

A.S.No.55 OF 2018 & A.S.No.56 OF 2018

A.S.No.55 OF 2018

Between:

Sri Vasu Cut Pieces, Prop. Matta Srinivasulu, S/o.Radhakrishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged 62 years, Business, Trading under the name and style of Sri Vasu Cut Pieces, Shop No.1, 2, 3 Brundavan Complex, Besant Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada. ….APPELLANT.

A N D 

Vemuluru Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Rao, S/o.Venkataratnam, Hindu, Aged 63 Years, R/o.D.No.1­3/24­25A, Srihari Nilayam, Aravind Street, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada. …RESPONDENT

This is an appeal preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 8­1­2018 passed in O.S.1109/2010 on the file of VII Addl.Senior

Civil Judge’s Court at Vijayawada. 

Between:

Vemuluru Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Rao, S/o.Venkataratnam, Hindu, Aged 63 Years, R/o.D.No.1­3/24­25A, Srihari Nilayam, Aravind Street, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada.…PLAINTIFF

A N D 

Sri Vasu Cut Pieces, Prop. Matta Srinivasulu, S/o.Radhakrishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged 62 years, Business, Trading under the name and style of Sri Vasu Cut Pieces, Shop No.1, 2, 3 Brundavan Complex, Besant Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada.  …DEFENDANT 2

A.S.No.56 OF 2018

Between:

Matta Srinivasulu, S/o.Radhakrishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged 62 years, Business, Trading under the name and style of Sri Vasu Cut Pieces, Shop No.1, 2, 3 Brundavan Complex, Besant Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada. ….APPELLANT.

A N D 

1. Vemuluru Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Rao, S/o.Venkataratnam, Hindu, Aged 63 Years, R/o.D.No.1­3/24­25A, Srihari Nilayam, Aravind Street, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada.

2. Vemuluru Srinivas, S/o.V.V.L.Narayana Rao, Hindu, Aged 35 years, R/o.D.No.1­3/24­25A, Srihari Nilayam, Aravind Street, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada. …RESPONDENTS

This is an appeal preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 8­1­2018 passed in O.S.693/2010 on the file of VII Addl.Senior

Civil Judge’s Court at Vijayawada. 

Between:

Matta Srinivasulu, S/o.Radhakrishna Murthy, Hindu, Aged 62 years, Business, Trading under the name and style of Sri Vasu Cut Pieces, Shop No.1, 2, 3 Brundavan Complex, Besant Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada. …PLAINTIFF

A N D 

1. Vemuluru Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Rao, S/o.Venkataratnam, Hindu, Aged 63 Years, R/o.D.No.1­3/24­25A, Srihari Nilayam, Aravind Street, Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada.

2. Vemuluru Srinivas, S/o.V.V.L.Narayana Rao, Hindu, Aged 35 years, R/o.D.No.1­3/24­25A, Srihari Nilayam, Aravind Street, Vidyadharapuram, 

Vijayawada. .. DEFENDANTS.

3

These Appeals are coming for final hearing before me on 11­3­2019 in presence of Sri V.Hajarathaiah Gupta, Advocate for Appellant/Tenant and of Sri S.Sreenivas, Advocate for the Respondents/Landlords and upon perusing the material on record, and upon considering the submissions of both side counsels and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

A.S.No.55 OF 2018

1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful defendant against the decree and judgment dated 8­1­2018 in

O.S.No.1109/2010 on the file of VII Addl.Senior Civil Judge’s Court

at Vijayawada. 

2. The gist of the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the owner of the shop Nos. 1 to 3 in the ground floor of Brundavan

Complex, Besant Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada. By removing the internal walls and thereby making all the three shops 1 to 3 as a single unit, he let out the same to the defendant and he has been continuing as a tenant in the said building on present monthly rent of Rs.14,100/­. In the month of November 2009, the defendant has enhanced the rent up to Rs.14,100/­ and paid the rent of November 2009 on 25.1.2010 to the plaintiff and obtained a receipt from him. The defendant has also signed on the said receipt at relevant column. Prior to November 2009 he was paying rent of Rs.7,275/­ per month. The defendant has paid rent of

October 2009 on 4.1.2010 and obtained receipt No.76. Although the defendant is a month to month tenant and liable to pay monthly rents in the first week of succeeding month, he was not regular in paying the rents and fell in arrears most of the time. At one time being vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.220 of 1994 on the file of I Addl.

4

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada. Subsequently the

defendant compromised the matter with him as a result of which the suit was withdrawn. At that time the defendant had specifically agreed to enhance the rent for every 3 years by 20%, but for twice only the defendant enhanced the rent that too by 15% only and he failed to enhance the rent of Rs.7,275/­ from 1.4.2001 till October 2009. After 9 years, voluntarily the defendant enhanced the said rent of Rs.7,275/­ to Rs.14,100/­ from

November 2009 and paid the enhanced rent for the month of

November 2009. Subsequently, the defendant did not pay or tender any rent due from 1.12.2009 in spite of repeated demands made by him. Further the defendant has sublet the front side portion facing Besant Road and a portion opening into the joint path to two watch shops and getting huge rents. Thus the defendant is also trading upon the plaintiff’s property without any authority. In this connection, the plaintiff and defendant quarrelled with each other and the defendant became wild and openly proclaimed that he will not pay the enhanced rent to him and that he will put the property into litigation and continue therein without any further enhancement as long as possible by protracting the litigation. After that the defendant had sent a letter

dated 31.5.2010 along with a demand draft for Rs.43,650/­

contending falsely that the rent is Rs.7,275/­ only and the said amount sent by him represents the rents from December 2009 to

May 2010. In the said covering letter, the defendant made false allegation that there is a sale confirmation between them. He received the said letter on 5.6.2010 and shocked to note the contents and tenor thereof. Though he wanted to give a suitable 5 reply immediately he could not do so as there was a function on 6.6.2010. Meanwhile he received a cover from the defendant’s advocate wherein a copy of the plaint without any number and with some documents are therein it. The said plaint is filed with false and untrue contention. The said suit is the result of proclamation made by him with quarrelling with him as stated above. On enquiries he came to know that the defendant filed

O.S.No.693 of 2010 for specific performance of an alleged

agreement of sale. There is no sale agreement between them at any point of time. Thus, by these actions the defendant made himself a most undesirable tenant and the plaintiff decided to terminate the tenancy and got issued a quit notice dated 16.10.2010 terminating the tenancy of the defendant by the end of

July 2010 and demanded him to vacate and hand over the schedule tenanted property to him in vacant position and claiming damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/­ per month towards damages from 1.8.2010 for illegal use and occupation till delivery of possession. The defendant is liable to pay damages at the said rate in view of the prevailing rates of rents for the premises constructed and situate in similar circumstances as the defendant cannot get such an accommodation which is a business center unless he pays that much of rent and as he is also preventing the plaintiff from using the property as per his own will and pleasure. The defendant received the quit notice on 19.6.2010 and issued a reply notice dated 24.6.2010 with all false allegations. The allegations made by the defendant that he did not enhance the rent to

Rs.14.100/­ etc., were made to escape his liability and to support his claim in O.S.No.693/2010. Hence the suit.

6

3.The gist of the case of the defendant is that he has been trading in cloth business in the name and style of Sri Vasu Cut

Pieces in shop Nos. 1 to 3 of Brundavan complex, Governorpet,

Vijayawada. He was inducted as a tenant as early as in 1988 on a monthly rent of Rs.750/­ per month. It was gradually enhanced from time to time and reached the present rate of rent i.e.,

Rs.7,275/­. He has been regular and prompt in payment of rents to his landlord i.e., the plaintiff or his son whoever come to the shop and collect the rents from him. Subsequently when they were intending to sell away the schedule property and when offered to him, he came forward to purchase the same and the terms of sale were settled between them and they have agreed to sell the schedule property to him for a sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/­.

Since the schedule property was under mortgage to Corporation

Bank, they have promised that they will clear the bank loan and execute directly a sale deed in his favour and register the same after receiving the balance of sale consideration and at his expenses. Accordingly, believing their representation and their rights in the property, he has paid a sum of Rs.75,000/­ on 23.12.2004, Rs.25,000/­ on 27.12.2004, Rs.50,000/­ on 29.12.2004 and Rs.50,000/­ on 2.1.2005 to the plaintiff and his son and they duly acknowledged the receipt of the said payments.

Since then he has been expressing his readiness and willingness to pay the balance of sale consideration and requested them to execute the register sale deed in his favour. They have also handed over the Photostat copy of the dissolution deed dated 1.12.1989 under which the plaintiff got the schedule property towards his share, but they have been postponing on one or the 7 other grounds to execute and register the sale deed. In addition to the same they have been demanding to enhance the rent from

Rs.7,275/­ to Rs.16,000/­ at a time without any scale when he has been asking for execution of the sale deed, their demands to enhance the rent at such a rate is illegal and objectionable. They grew wild and began refusing to receive the rents as usual. He has rounded about them to pay the rents. Both of them instead of receiving the rents have abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. They have been proclaiming that they will throw him away from the schedule property and have been stating that since the market value of the schedule property is raised in the market they have demanded him to enhance the rate of sale consideration. Since he expressed his inability to pay as per the demands of the plaintiff and his son they have refused to receive the rents saying that if the matter is settled and he yields to their dictates they will receive the same, but under an evil design they have planned up to evict him from the schedule property in one way or the other and that is why they have avoided to receive the rents when tendered by him. Having smelt about the highhanded designs of the defendants he was constrained to remit the rent by way of Demand Draft bearing No.792995 drawn on

Indian Bank, Vijayawada along with covering letter dated 31.5.2010. Having received the same they came to the schedule property along with some unruly elements on 26.2.2010 at about 4­00 P.M. and tried to dispossess him by throwing the cloth varieties on to streets, but with the interference of the customers and passersby they went away proclaiming that they will again renew their attempts and threatened to see his end. It is learnt 8 that the defendants have got good influence in police and good support of unruly elements at their command as such he is apprehending danger from the hands of the defendants. In the above said letter dated 31.5.2010 it was clearly expressed about his readiness and they have been avoiding to execute the sale deed.

He has got every right to continue in the plaint schedule property not only as a purchaser under agreement but also as a tenant and his rights are protected and perfected under the clear provision of law. The plaintiff and his son are not entitled to take law into their lands and resort to forcible eviction from the plaint schedule property, particularly when there is an obligation on their part to clear the bank loan and to execute and register the sale deed in his favour. Since the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract, he was constrained to file O.S.No.693 of 2010 for specific performance of the agreement of sale arrived at on 23.12.2004. He was shocked to note that he has signed in the receipt for

Rs.14,100/­ because it is neither true nor correct and he suspects that the plaintiff must have fabricated the alleged receipt after receiving the copy of plaint in O.S.No. 693 of 2010 and the injunction order. After receiving the notice he was able to understand that he has been inventing grounds in his anxiety to defeat the claims of the defendant. Moreover the story invented by the plaintiff for abnormal enhancement is unbelievable and motivated besides far from truth. Further, enhancement at 95% and that too voluntarily after paying Rs.2,00,000/­ towards advance sale consideration is also the invention of the plaintiff. It is he who has tendered the actual rents to the plaintiff but he has been constantly refusing the same with malafide intention. There 9 is no iota of truth in the entire plaint. In view of the tendency of the plaintiff he has depositing the monthly rents to the credit of the proceedings in O.S.No.693 of 2010. The alleged quit notice terminating tenancy is neither in accordance with law nor based on true facts and as such it is neither valid under law nor binding on him. The ground of sub­lease is also an additional imagination of the plaintiff. Whatever the business carried on in the tenanted premises is of his own, but not of third parties and that too under the alleged sub­lease. Since the termination is baseless and against law, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the trial court:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property and also for possession as prayed for?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages at Rs.25,000/­ per month from 1.8.2010 till the date of vacation of the defendant?

3.Whether the quit notice sent by the plaintiff is not binding on the defendant?

4.Whether the defendant has right to continue as a tenant in the plaint schedule property and his rights are protected and per­ fected under law?

5.Whether the payments shown in the written statement are true and correct?

6.Whether the plaintiff agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the defendant under an agreement of sale for Rs. 9 lakhs and failed to execute the sale deed?

7.Whether the defendant is regular and sincere in payment of rents?

8.Whether the defendant has paid the rent at the rate of Rs.14,100/­ for the month of November 2009 and obtained re­ ceipt?

9.To what relief?

A.S.No.56 OF 2018

5. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the decree and judgment dated 8­1­2018 in O.S.693/2010 on the file of VII Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada.

10

6. The gist of the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had been trading in cloth business under the name and style of Sri

Vasu Cut Pieces in shop Nos. 1 to 3 of Brindavan Complex, Besant

Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada referred to plaint schedule property. The 2nd defendant is the son of the first defendant, who is the owner of the schedule property and both of them used to manage the property. The plaintiff was inducted as a tenant as early as in 1988 on a monthly rent of Rs.750/­ per month. It was gradually enhanced from time to time and reached the present rate of rent i.e., Rs.7,275/­. He has been regular and prompt in payment of rents to his landlord i.e., the defendants. Subsequently when the defendants were intending to sell away the schedule property and when offered to him, the plaintiff came forward to purchase the same and the terms of sale were settled between them and the defendants have agreed to sell the schedule property to him for a sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/­. Since the schedule property was under mortgage to Corporation Bank, they have promised that they will clear the bank loan and execute directly a sale deed in his favour and register the same after receiving the balance of sale consideration and at his expenses.

Accordingly, believing their representation and their rights in the property, he has paid a sum of Rs.75,000/­ on 23.12.2004,

Rs.25,000/­ on 27.12.2004, Rs.50,000/­ on 29.12.2004 and

Rs.50,000/­ on 2.1.2005 to the defendants and they duly acknowledged the receipt of the said payments. Since then he has been expressing his readiness and willingness to pay the balance of sale consideration and requested them to execute the register sale deed in his favour. They have also handed over the Photostat 11 copy of the dissolution deed dated 1.12.1989 under which the 1st defendant got the schedule property towards his share, but the defendants have been postponing on one or the other grounds to execute and register the sale deed. In addition to the same they have been demanding to enhance the rent from Rs.7,275/­ to

Rs.16,000/­, since he has been asking for execution of the sale deed their demands to enhance the rent at such a rate is illegal and objectionable. They grew wild and refusing to receive the rents as usual. The plaintiff has rounded about them to pay the rents.

Both the defendants instead of receiving the rents have abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences.

They have been proclaiming that they will throw him away from the schedule property and has been stating that since the market value of the schedule property is raised in the market they have demanded him to enhance the rate of sale consideration, which is illegal and objectionable. Since he expressed his inability to pay as per the demands of the defendants they have refused to receive the rents saying that if the matter is settled and the plaintiff yields to their dictates they will receive the same. But under an evil design they have planned up to evict him from the schedule property in one way or the other and that is why they have avoided to receive the rents when tendered by him. Having smelt about the highhanded designs of the defendants he was constrained to remit the rent by way of Demand Draft bearing No. 792995 drawn on

Indian Bank, Vijayawada along with covering letter dated 31.5.2010. Having received the same they came to the schedule property along with some unruly elements on 2.6.2010 at about 4­00 P.M. and tried to dispossess him by throwing the cloth 12 varieties on to streets, but with the interference of the customers and passersby they went away proclaiming that they will again renew their attempts and threatened to see his end. It is learnt that the defendants have got good influence in police and good support of unruly elements at their command as such he is apprehending danger from the hands of the defendants. In the above said letter dated 31.5.2010 it was clearly expressed about the readiness of the plaintiff and they have been avoiding to execute the sale deed. He has got every right to continue in the plaint schedule property not only as a purchase under agreement but also as a tenant and his rights are protected and perfected under the clear provision of law. The defendants are not entitled to take law into their lands and resort to forcible eviction from the plaint schedule property, particularly when there is an obligation on the part of the defendants to clear the bank loan and to execute and register the sale deed in his favour. If the defendants were allowed to carry on their attempts, he will be put to sufferance and his rights will be infringed and his claim for specific performance will be defeated and irreparable loss will be sustained by him.

Hence, he is constrained to file the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale arrived at on 23.12.2004 directing the defendants to register the sale deed in his favour after receiving the balance of sale consideration from him and he is ready with the same.

7.The gist of the case of the defendants is that the plaintiff was a tenant of this defendant for shop Nos. 1 to 3 situate in market complex famously known as Bridavan Complex, Besant road,

Vijayawada. All the three shops are road facing shops having good 13 market value and good rental value. The plaintiff is an old tenant.

The plaintiff has been paying the enhanced rents as and when taxes are enhanced. Though the plaintiff is a month to month tenant and liable to pay monthly rents in the first week of succeeding tenancy months, he is not regular in paying the rents and he could not mend himself. At one time being vexed with his attitude he filed a suit O.S.No.220 of 1994 for eviction and arrears of rent. Then the plaintiff compromised the said suit with him agreeing to enhance the rent by 20% for every three years. But against his promise he enhanced the rent for two terms only that too by 15% only and failed to enhance any rent from 1.4.2001 by which time the rent was Rs.7,275/­. As he and his family members became indebted to Banks and other creditors, he requested the plaintiff to enhance the rent as promised. But the plaintiff did not fulfill his promise and he could not take any action against him because of his disputes with the bankers and his financial position. Taking advantage of the situation, the plaintiff dragged on the matter for 9 years without enhancing any rent. It is only after several persuasions, demands and threat of legal action, the plaintiff agreed to enhance the rent up to Rs. 14,100/­ from 1.11.2009 and paid the enhanced rent of Rs.14,100/­ for the month of November 2009 and obtained a receipt bearing No. 77

dated 25.1.2010 from him by counter signing the same. With

regard to the rents from 1.12.2009 he did not pay or tender any rents. Further, without any authority the plaintiff sublet some portions of the schedule property to watch shops and getting huge rents. In that connection both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant quarrelled with each other and at that time the plaintiff proclaimed 14 that he will not pay the enhanced rent to him and that he will put the property to litigation and continue there without any further enhancement as long as possible by protracting the litigation. This suit is the result of the said proclamation made by the plaintiff.

Except for said reason there is no truth in any of the allegations in the plaint. Almost all their properties are under pledge to ING

Vysya Bank Limited and Corporation Bank. After the Bank authorities took up the matter with debt recovery tribunals these defendants and their family members came to a settlement with

Bank authorities. In the said market complex i.e., Brindavan

Complex there are four floors in total i.e., ground plus three floors.

In each floor there are several shops. There are so many owners owing separate shops. This defendant and his family members own number of shops in the complex. In the first instance they have decided to discharge the debt due to ING Vysya Bank and with the permission of the said bank authorities he and his family members sold some of their shops situate in the rear side in the very same complex by way of private sales and paid considerations to the

Bank authorities. The plaint schedule shops which belong to this defendant and some other shops belong to his family members are mortgaged to Corporation Bank, Vijayawada. The defendant and his family members thought of discharging the debt due to

Corporation Bank also in the same way they discharged their debt to ING Vysya Bank Ltd by way of private sale of their shops. At that juncture, having come to know of the intention of the defendants, the plaintiff approached them and offered to purchased the tenanted portion only i.e., shop Nos. 1 to 3 in the ground floor abutting the road for a total consideration of 15

Rs.30,00,000/­. He agreed to sell the three shops only for

Rs.30,00,000/­ subject to condition that the Corporation Bank authorities give permission for private sale as those three shops and some other shops are also under their mortgage. The plaintiff having accepted for the same agreed to purchase shop Nos. 1 to 3 only for a total consideration of Rs.30,00,000/­. At his request, the plaintiff paid Rs.75,000/­ on 23.12.2014, Rs. 25,000/­ on 27.12.2014, Rs.50,000/­ on 29.12.2004 and Rs.50,000/­ on 2.1.2015 and obtained receipts from him and his son as token advance with an understanding that the same will be returned back without interest if the Bank authorities refuse to give permission. As the plaintiff specifically undertook to pay the entire balance sale consideration of Rs.28,00,000/­ directly to the Bank as and when the bank gives permission no other terms of sale agreement are decided and no sale agreement was executed between them with the fond hope that direct sale deed can be executed after permission is given by the bank, but unfortunately, the bank authorities failed to give any permission for private sale in spite of best efforts made by him. The plaintiff also tried his level best but failed to get permission. Then in the first week of

April, 2005 the plaintiff requested him to execute an agreement of sale as the bank authorities are not giving permission and as it will take some more time. Then he refused to execute the sale agreement as no terms of sale are settled except sale consideration.

Then at the suggestion of mediators he agreed to execute a letter of understanding cum receipt of token advance of Rs.2,00,000/­ by obtaining 4 separate receipts in four installments incorporating the condition relating to obtaining bank permission and also that he 16 will return the token advance if the bank refuses to grant permission even after considerable time say two years and if they failed to get permission within 2 years. Accordingly, the plaintiff himself got a letter of understanding cum receipt drafted and after the same is verified by him he got it typed. He signed on the said letter of understanding cum receipt dated 5.4.2005 which is also signed by the mediators K.Madhava Ramaiah and A.Ramamohana

Rao as attestors. The plaintiff took the said receipt and kept the same with him promising to return the four receipts executed by him and his son for receipt of token advance of Rs.2,00,000/­, but the plaintiff did not return those receipts even after several requests stating that they were not traced. Since then both of them tried to get permission from the Bank for three years but in vain. Consequently the plaintiff demanded him to return back the token advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/­, which was duly returned to him. The plaintiff also returned the original letter cum letter of understanding to him in the presence of the above said mediators who signed on it as attestors, but he did not return the receipts issued by him and his son on the ground that they are misplaced and promised to return the same as and when traced out. As already 3 years have elapsed and as the original letter of understanding is returned and as they were in cordial terms he did not insist for the same and return the amount bonafidely.

Subsequently, as already stated, the plaintiff has enhanced the rent from 1.9.2009, but after the disputes have arisen the plaintiff has cooked up a cock and bull story taking advantage of the receipts with him and filed this suit for specific performance.

Since the plaintiff has taken back the token advance, there is no 17 concluded contract between them and hence the suit is not maintainable. For every sale transaction the sale consideration and description of the property will be fixed. The other important terms like date of performance of contract along with default clause will be decided. Apart from the same for every sale agreement some advance sale consideration amount will be taken, all these important factors are lacking in this case. It is only because there is no concluded contract between the parties, the plaintiff intended to purchase and he intended to sell subject to obtaining permission for private sale from bank authorities. Thus, there is no concluded contract between them so as to claim specific performance by either party. On this aspect only the suit is liable to be dismissed.

The value of the tenanted shops i.e., Shop Nos. 1 to 3 is Rs.

30,00,000/­ in 2005 and much more presently. These three shops are abutting the Besant Road having very good market value. If the tenanted property under the occupation of the plaintiff is let out they will fetch a rent of Rs.50,000/­ per month and an interest­free deposit of Rs.8,00,000/­ to Rs.10,00,000/­. It is not out of place to mention that no prudent man will sell 2 shops in

Besant Road i.e., plaint schedule property for an amount of

Rs.9,00,000/­ when the rear side shops were sold by him and his family members for Rs.8,00,000/­ for a single shop. The 2nd defendant has no right, title or interest in any of the plaint schedule property shops. The suit is barred by time. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

8.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the lower court for trial:

18

1. Whether the plaintiff executed letter of understanding receipt

dt. 5.4.2005?

2. Whether the defendant returned an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to the plaintiff?

3. Whether the sale price mentioned in the plaint is adequate?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale dt. 23.12.2004?

5. To what relief?

9. Both the suits were clubbed together as per order in

I.A.No.283/2010 dated 17­7­2015 by recording common evidence in O.S.1109/2010. The plaintiff in O.S.1109/2010 and defendant in O.S.693/2010 is arrayed as petitioner and the defendant in

O.S.1109/2010 and the plaintiff in O.S.693/2010 is arrayed as

defendant in the trial court.

10. In order to establish the case of the plaintiff, P.W­1 was examined and Exs.A­1 to A­5 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W­1 was examined and Exs.B­1 to B­7 were marked.

11. The court below, on hearing both parties and upon perusing the material, evidence let in by the parties to the suit, the trial court passed the impugned common judgment by decreeing the suit with costs in O.S.1109/2010 and by dismissing the suit in

O.S.693/2010 without costs, against which the present appeals

were preferred by the unsuccessful defendant in O.S.1109/2010 and unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.693/2010, contending that the common judgment of the trial court are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The trial court ought to have held that although there is no written registered lease, the terms and conditions were acted upon. The trial court ought to have considered the understanding between the parties but not quit notice. The trial court ought to have decreed the suit in

O.S.693/2010 as plaintiff paid part of sale consideration to the

19 defendant. The observation of trial court that the appellant committed default in payment of rent for six months is erroneous.

When there is clear pleading in the plaint that the appellant had been ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the observation of lower court is beyond the pleadings. The trial court ought to have considered the bank statement filed along with plaint in O.S.693/2010 that the appellant was having amount to pay balance of sale consideration. The trial court ought to have considered that the respondent categorically admitted about receipt of letter along with demand draft dated 31­5­2010 and receipt of summons in O.S.693/2010 and after receipt of summons only, he got issued Ex.A­2 notice. The trial court ought to have considered that the respondent could not be able to assign a single reason for terminating the tenancy of appellant. The trial court ought to have held that the respondent has not approached the court with clean hands. The trial court ought to have decided that alleged quit notice Ex.A­1 is neither valid nor tenable and binding in accordance with law and ought to have dismissed the suit in

O.S.1109/2010. The trial court ought to have held that the

respondent is not entitled for eviction of appellant. The trial court ought to have held that since appellant filed suit in O.S.693/2010 for specific performance of agreement of sale, the respondent filed suit in O.S.1109/2010.

12. Both the appeals were filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in

O.S.693/2010 and unsuccessful defendant in O.S.1109/2010 with

similar appeal grounds. Hence, the appeal grounds in both the appeals are not reproduced separately. The appellant in both the appeals filed memo requesting to hear both the appeals together 20 stating that both the matters are jointly tried, common judgment was pronounced by the trial court. The learned counsel for respondent reported no objection. Having consider the request of the appellant/tenant, both the appeals were heard together. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as the appellant/tenant and respondent/landlord.

13. Given, the appeal grounds and on hearing the rival contentions and upon perusal of material and impugned finding in the common judgment of court below, the following points are arise for consideration are:

1) Whether the judgment of the trial court dated 8­1­2018 for eviction of the Appellant is liable to be set aside?

2) Whether Appellant is entitled to ask for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23­12­2004?

3) Whether the common judgment of the trial court dated 8­1­2018 is sustainable under law?

4) To what relief? 

14. POINT No.1:­

1) Whether the judgment of the trial court dated 8­1­2018 for eviction of the Appellant is liable to be set aside?

The learned counsel for appellant/tenant contended that there is no written lease agreement. There was an understanding between the parties in continuing the tenancy by enhancing rent from time to time since 1988. There is no dispute with regard to payment of rent prior to filing of this suit. Even subsequent to filing of the suit also appellant has been depositing rents. The respondent himself refused to receive the rents for not complying the illegal demand of the respondent for enhancing the rent upto 21

Rs.16,000/­ per month. The respondent created Ex.A­1 receipt as if the rent was enhanced from Rs.7,275/­ per month to

Rs.14,100/­ per month from the month of November 2009, which is a fabricated document. The respondent did not take any steps to refer the Ex.A­1 to the handwriting expert to prove the case of the respondent. When the appellant has been paying rents regularly and the respondent agreed to sell the schedule property to the appellant for Rs.9,00,000/­ by receiving advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ under Exs.B­2 to B­5 and he refused to receive the rent which was sent with Ex.B­6 letter, the appellant has got right to continue in the schedule property as a purchaser and tenant of plaint schedule property. The very issuing of quit notice

Ex.A­2 without assigning any reason is illegal as such, the respondent is not entitled to ask for eviction of appellant. He further contended that the trial court observation that the appellant committed default in payment of rent is erroneously.

The trial court ought to have decided that the quit notice is not valid and not binding on the appellant and the entire discussion is one sided and not on merits. The observation of trial court is beyond pleadings. He also relied on the decision reported in the case of Jugal Kishore Kundu (deceased by L.R’s and others) Vs.

Narayan Chandra Kundu and another reported in AIR 1982

CALCUTTA 342.

 15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents contended that the appeal grounds are not sustainable under law. In the absence of registered lease, the tenancy is only a month to month tenancy, terminable within one month notice. The appellant committed default in payment of rents from December 2009 onwards, irrespective of the dispute with regard to the 22 enhancement of rent. Hence, the respondent got issued quit notice Ex.A­2. After receiving quit notice, the appellant did not pay the rents nor vacated the premises as such, he became a tenant holding over from August 2010. D.W­1 also admitted in the cross­examination that he did not pay rents from December 2009 to May 2010. The landlord need not assign any reason in the quit notice. Therefore, the trial court rightly held that the appellant committed default in payment of rent after termination of tenancy by quit notice Ex.A­2, he is not entitled to continue in the schedule property. To substantiate his plea, he placed reliance on a decision reported in the case of Jiwan Dass Vs. Life

Insurance Corporation of India reported in 1994, Part­3 SCC 694.

16. It is not in dispute, the appellant in both the appeals is tenant and respondent in both the appeals is the landlord. The appellant filed O.S.693/2010 against the landlord and his son for specific performance of oral agreement of sale dated 23­12­2014.

The same was dismissed by the trial court vide its common judgment dated 8­1­2018. The respondent/landlord filed

O.S.1109/2010 for eviction of the appellant/tenant and recovery

of arrears of rent, damages with costs and the same was decreed by the trial court vide its common judgment dated 8­1­2018.

Aggrieved by the common judgment dated 8­1­2018, the appellant/tenant preferred appeals in A.S.55/2018 &

A.S.56/2018. It is also not in dispute, the plaint schedule

property in O.S.1109/2010 consisting of three shops i.e., shop

No.1, 2, 3 in Brundavan Shopping Complex. The plaint schedule in O.S.693/2010 is consisting of six shops i.e., shop No.1, 2, 3 of ground floor, room No.40, 41, 42 in first floor and six lodging 23 rooms i.e., room No.311, 312, 313 and room No.411, 412, 413 in

Brundavan Shopping Complex. The appellant/tenant has been continuing in the shop No.1, 2, 3 of the plaint schedule in

O.S.1109/2010 since 1988. In the beginning the rent was

Rs.750/­ p.m. It was enhanced from time to time. It is also not in dispute, the appellant/tenant paid rent upto October 2009 @

Rs.7,275/­ per month. The dispute arose between the parties with regard to enhancement of rent from November, 2009 and payment of enhanced rent.

17. According to the appellant, the respondent demanded to enhance the rent from Rs.7,275/­ per month to Rs.16,000/­ per month, for which the appellant did not agree. Hence, the respondent refused to receive rents from the month of December, 2009 and the respondent grew wild against the appellant and abused him and threatened him with dire consequences and also demanded to enhance the rate of sale consideration which was entered into on 23­12­2004 and the respondent also planned to evict the appellant from the schedule property in one way or other, for that reason only he avoided to receive the rents, when the appellant tendered rents to the respondent. Having smelt about the high handed designs of the respondent, he was constrained to remit the rent by way of demand draft along with covering letter dated 31­5­2010. After receiving said demand draft with covering letter, the respondent along with some unruly elements came to the schedule property on 2­6­2010 and tried to dispossess the appellant.

24

18.According to the respondent, the appellant is not regular in paying rents and at one time, he was vexed with the attitude of appellant/tenant and he filed O.S.220/1994 and the same was ended in compromise. In the said compromise, the appellant/tenant agreed to enhance the rent by 20% for every three years, but he enhanced the rent by 15% on two occasions and failed to enhance the rent from 1­4­2001. The existing rent by 1­4­2001 was Rs.7,275/­ per month. After several demands the appellant/tenant agreed to enhance the rent from Rs.7,275/­ per month to Rs.14,100/­ per month from 1­9­2009 and the appellant paid enhanced rent of Rs.14,100/­ for the month of November, 2009 under receipt No.77 on 25­1­2010 and further contended that appellant also sub­let the rented premises. Under the circumstances, the respondent got issued quit notice (Ex.A­2) on 16­6­2010 by returning the demand draft.

19.As seen from the evidence of P.W­1, he deposed that the tenant paid enhanced rent from the month of November, 2009. To substantiate the version, he filed Ex.A­1 which is an attested xerox copy of receipt No.77 dated 25­1­2010. The tenant/appellant denied the Ex.A­1 receipt stating that it is a fabricated one. D.W­1 (appellant) was cross­examined at length. Noting is elicited from cross of D.W­1 to substantiate the case of respondent (landlord) that the appellant paid enhanced rent under Ex.A­1. The original of Ex.A­1 was not filed before the court and no steps were taken to produce the original of Ex.A­1 so as to refer the original of Ex.A­1 for comparison with the admitted signatures of the appellant to the hand writing expert. Thus, except the sole testimony of

P.W­1/landlord, there is no corroborative evidence on record to 25 prove the enhancement of rent and payment of enhanced rent for the month of November, 2009. On the other hand, P.W­1 admitted in the cross­examination as follows:

“­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Whenever the defendant pays part of the rent, my son used to issue a temporary receipt and on receipt of the full rent, he used to issue printed receipt. The rough receipt shown to me was issued by my son towards rent of November 2009 for Rs.7,275/­.”

The said receipt was produced by the appellant/tenant, which is marked as Ex.B­7. Thus, the aforesaid portion of evidence of

P.W­1 and Ex.B­7 coupled together goes to falsify the case of the respondent/landlord with regard to payment of enhanced rent for the month of November, 2009. On the other hand, it goes to substantiate the case of the appellant/tenant that he paid rent for the month of November 2009 @ Rs.7,275/­. When the rent for the month of November, 2009 was paid @ Rs.7,275/­, the question of payment of enhanced rent @ Rs.14,100/­ under Ex.A­1 for the same month of November, 2009 does not arise. If rally, the rent is enhanced from Rs.7,275/­ to Rs.14,100/­ from the month of

November, 2009, the respondent would not issue receipt Ex.B­7 towards payment of rent @ Rs.7,275/­ for the month of November, 2009. So, this circumstance also probablise the same view that the plea of respondent with regard to enhancement of rent from

Rs.7,275/­ to Rs.14,100/­ and payment of enhanced rent for the month of November, 2009 under Ex.A­1 is false. However, it is crystal clear from the pleadings and evidence of both sides, the rent to the schedule premises was paid upto November, 2009. 

26

20.It is not in dispute, the appellant/tenant sent demand draft for Rs.43,650/­ towards rent for the months of December, 2009 to

May 2010 with covering letter which is marked as Ex.A­5/Ex.B­6.

The said demand draft was returned to the appellant along with the quit notice Ex.A­2. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent/landlord encashed the demand draft for Rs.43,650/­.

Thus, Ex.B­6 itself reveals that the appellant committed default in payment of rent from the month of December, 2009 to May 2010.

D.W­1 also admitted in the cross­examination that he did not pay rent for the month of December 2009 till May 2010 and he also explained the reason for not paying rent in his cross­examination that since the plaintiff did not issue receipt for the rent of

November, 2009, he did not pay rents from December 2009 to till

May 2010. It is significant to note that the appellant himself filed

Ex.B­7 receipt to show that the respondent/landlord issue Ex.B­7 receipt towards payment of rent for the month of November, 2009.

When the receipt was issued by the landlord acknowledging the rent for the month of November, 2009, the reason assigned by the

D.W­1 for not paying rent from December, 2009 to May 2010 is not sustainable. Thus, it is crystal clear from Ex.B­6, Ex.B­7 and evidence of D.W­1 that the appellant committed default in payment of rent from the month of December 2009 to May 2010.

21.It is also not in dispute, the respondent previously filed

O.S.220/1994 against the appellant for eviction, when the

appellant committed default in payment of arrears of rent and the same was ended in compromise. According to P.W­1 at the time of compromise, the defendant had specifically agreed to enhance the rent for every three years by 20%, but for twice only the defendant 27 enhanced the rent by 15% and he paid the enhanced rent of

Rs.7,275/­ from 1­4­2001 to October 2009. D.W­1 also categorically stated in his cross­examination as follows:

“It is true the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rents. It is true the plaintiff filed

O.S.220/1994 on the file of Addl.Senior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada, for eviction. As on the date of filing of the said suit, I was paying monthly rent of Rs.3,000/­. It is true the said suit was withdrawn after coming to an understanding that the rent will be enhanced by 20% in every 3 years. It is true that even though, it was agreed to enhance the rent by 20%, the rent was enhanced @ 15% on two occasions. It is true, as on 1­4­2001 the rent payable was Rs.7,275/­ per month. Thereafter the rent was not enhanced.”

Thus, it is crystal clear from the above said portion of evidence of

D.W­1 and P.W­1 that previously also he committed default in payment of rent and he promissed to enhance the rent by 20% in every three years, but contrary to his promise, he enhanced the rent by 15% on two occasions only and he did not enhance the existing rent of Rs.7,275/­ per month from 1­4­2001 onwards.

Thus, he paid same rent @ Rs.7,275/­ per month for a period of more than nine years till the date of Ex.B­7. In other words, the existing rent as on the date of Ex.B­7 and issuing of quit notice

Ex.A­2 was very low, although he promissed to enhance the rent by 20% for every three years, but he intentionally avoided to enhance the rent by 20% for every three years as agreed by him and continued to pay rent at the low rate i.e., Rs.7,275/­ per month for a period of more than nine years. When the tenant is paying rent at low market rate, the owner is entitled to deal with his property in his own way profitable to its use and occupation.

28

Therefore, the tenant/appellant who paid rent at low rate for a period of more than nine years, by deviating his promise to enhance the rent by 20% for every three years, is not entitled to continue in the premises and he is liable to be evicted from the premises. Under these circumstances, issuing of quit notice

Ex.A­2 is not illegal. It is not the case of the appellant that the landlord did not follow the mandate of section 106 of Transfer of

Property Act. The law is well settled in the case of Jiwan Dass Vs.

Life Insurance Corporation of India reported in 1994 Part­3 SCC page 694 that section 106 Transfer of Property Act does not contemplate of giving reason for termination of tenancy. The purport of issuing quit notice U/s.106 Transfer of Property Act is only to inform the lessee of the intention on the part of lesser to resume the premises. With regard to alleged oral agreement dated 23­12­2004 to be discussed infra, even it is assumed that there was an oral agreement between the appellant and respondent with regard to sale of schedule property, the mere oral agreement itself does not entitle the appellant/tenant to continue in possession of the schedule property unless and until, there is a condition in the agreement to allow the tenant to continue in the possession of schedule property irrespective of payment of rents. It is not the case of the appellant that irrespective of payment of rents, there was a condition in the agreement to allow the appellant to continue in the possession of schedule property indefinitely. Therefore, I find there is no considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for appellant with regard to legality of issuing quit notice. In the case of Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal and another, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in para 8 as under:

29 “The High Court, in this case, in its obvious zeal to cut delay and hardship that may ensue by relegating the plaintiffs to one more round of litigation, has rendered a judgment which violates several fundamental rules of civil procedure. The rules breached are:”

(i) “No amount of evidence can be looked into, upon a plea which was never put forward in the pleadings. A question which did arise from the pleadings and which was not the subject matter of an issue, cannot be decided by the court.”

(ii) “A court cannot make out a case not pleaded. The court should confine its decision to the question raised in pleadings.

Nor can it grant a relief which is not claimed and which does not flow from the facts and the cause of action alleged in the plaint.”

(iii) “A factual issue cannot be raised or considered for the first time in a second appeal.” “Civil procedure code is an elaborate codification on the principles of natural justice to be applied to civil litigation. The provisions are so elaborate that many a time, fulfillment of the procedural requirements of the code may itself contribute to delay. But any anxiety to cut the delay or further litigation, should not be a ground to float the settled fundamental rules of civil procedure. Be that as it may. We will briefly set out the reasons for the aforesaid conclusions.” 

In the instant case except vague arguments that the trial court observation and discussion is beyond the pleadings, there is no specific appeal ground with regard to findings of the trial court beyond pleadings. Therefore, the facts of the above said case are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the case of Jugal

Kishore Kundu (deceased by L.R’s and others) Vs. Narayan

Chandra Kundu and another reported in AIR 1982 CALCUTTA 342, there is a specific pleading that after purchasing land, 30 building was constructed on the land with his own money, whereas the trial court held that the building was constructed with the money of joint fund of three brothers. In the instant case, there is no finding contrary to the pleadings, as such, the facts of the aforesaid decisions have no application to the facts of the instant case. Keeping all these circumstances into mind, I find the trial court rightly held that the appellant committed default in payment of rent and he is not entitled to continue in the plaint schedule property after termination of the tenancy, as such, no interference in the finding of the trial court is required. Therefore, I find the appellant failed to establish his entitlement to ask for setting aside the judgment of the trial court dated 8­1­2018 with regard to eviction of appellant. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. 

22.POINT No.2:

2) Whether Appellant is entitled to ask for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23­12­2004?

The learned counsel for appellant contended that there is no dispute with regard to agreement of sale. The dispute is with regard to consideration and number of shops. The landlord offered to sell three shops in the ground floor, three shops in first floor and six lodging rooms in the second and third floor for

Rs.9,00,000/­. Out of the sale consideration, Rs.2,00,000/­ was paid towards advance under Exs.B­2 to B­5 receipts and landlord also agreed to discharge the loan to the Corporation Bank.

Subsequently, he respondent demanded to enhance the rent from

Rs.7,275/­ to Rs.16,000/­, for which the appellant did not oblige.

Hence, he grew wild and refused to receive the rents and also 31 trying to evict the appellant by rowdy elements. Since the respondent/landlord admitted the agreement to sell the shops and admitted the receiving the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ , the appellant is entitled to ask for specific performance of agreement of sale. The learned counsel for appellant further contended that the lower court found the advance sale consideration was paid to landlord and observed that the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ was not returned, as such, the lower court ought to have considered the bank statement which showing the bank balance of the appellant to pay balance sale consideration, it ought to have decreed the suit in favour of the appellant.

23.On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent contended that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff who approached the court must prove each of his contention with regard to the sale transaction and conditions thereon, but there is no consistency with regard to the description of the schedule property and sale consideration and unexplained delay of more than six years in filing the suit and that there is no concluding contract. The plaintiff/D.W­1 evidence reveals that he is not aware of the extent of the property said to have been purchased under alleged oral agreement and the loan of the bank to which the schedule property was mortgaged and the period within which the alleged agreement to be performed. Moreover, the tenant committed default in payment of rent is not entitled to ask for specific performance. The appellant also failed to establish the specific terms of the contract and he approached the court with unclean hands, as such he is not entitled for specific performance.

32

To substantiate his plea, he also placed reliance on the following decisions:

1. In the case of M.Rangaiah Vs. T.V.Satyanarayana Rao and another reported in 2009(5) ALD 663

2. In the case of Baddam Prathap Reddy Vs. Chennadi Jalapathi

Reddy and another reported in 2008(5) ALD 200

3. In the case of A.Ganapathy Vs. S.Venkatesan reported in 2007(1) CTC 57

4. In the case of Manjunadh Anandappa Vs.Tammanasa and others in Civil Appeal No.5662/1998 dated 13­3­2003.

24.It is true, there is no dispute with regard to the oral agreementbetweentheappellant/tenantand respondents/landlords to sell some property of the respondent/landlord, and passing of earnest money Rs.2,00,000/­ under Exs.B­2 to B­5 receipts from appellant/tenant to respondent/landlord. It is also not in dispute, the appellant/tenant sent demand draft for Rs.43,650/­ with Ex.B­6 letter to the respondent and the respondent received the same and returned the demand draft with Ex.A­2 notice to the appellant.

25.It is also not in dispute, the schedule property was mortgaged to the Corporation Bank by the respondent. As on the date of alleged agreement of sale, the bank loan had been in existence.

26.According to the appellant, the respondent agreed to sell shop No.1, 2, 3, in the ground floor, shop No.40, 41, 42 in the first floor and lodging rooms bearing No.311, 312, 313, and 411, 412, 33 413 in the second floor and third floor of the Brundavan Shopping

Complex of the respondent for Rs.9,00,000/­. According to the respondent, he agreed to sell shop No.1, 2, 3 of the plaint schedule, which are in the occupation of the appellant/tenant for

Rs.30,00,000/­, subject to granting permission by the Corporation

Bank. There was no written agreement of sale, but there was an understanding letter dated 5­4­2005 between both the parties with regard to repayment of advance payment. He failed to obtain permission within three years. Even after three years the bank did not grant permission, hence, the respondent returned the advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ to the appellant. On that the appellant returned the understanding letter dated 5­4­2005 but did not return the Exs.B­2 to B­5 stating that they were not traced.

Taking advantage of availability of Exs.B­2 to B­5 with the appellant, he filed this suit for specific performance after six years.

As seen from the evidence of P.W­1 and D.W­1, their evidence in chief reiterates their respective pleadings in the plaint and written statement in O.S.693/2010. There is no independent corroborative evidence to support their respective contentions.

27.Admittedly, there is no written agreement of sale. According to P.W­1 there was a letter of understanding dated 5­4­2005 between the parties for refund of the advance amount in the event of failure in getting permission from Corporation Bank and the said understanding letter was attested by one K.Madhava

Ramaiah, A.Ramamohana Rao. The respondent failed to produce the alleged understanding letter dated 5­4­2005. So also did not choose to examine the attestors of the said letter to prove the letter of understanding dated 5­4­2005. According to P.W­1/landlord, 34 the understanding letter dated 5­4­2005 was returned to him at the time of repayment of advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/­. Then question arises? When there was an understanding letter dated 5­ 4­2005, what prevented him to produce it before the court? and what prevented him to examine the attestors of the said letter? for which there is no explanation. Thus, non­producing of material document dated 5­4­2005 and non­examination of material witnesses, gives an adverse inference against the respondent that the examination of those witnesses goes against the case of the respondent. The respondent did not produce any corroborative evidence to prove that he repaid the Rs.2,00,000/­ advance amount to the appellant. He did not obtain any acknowledgement from the appellant/tenant to show the payment of Rs.2,00,000/­, so also did not mention the date on which the Rs.2,00,000/­ was returned to the appellant. It is evident from the evidence of P.W­1 and D.W­1, there is a practice of issuing receipts for payment of rent and advance amount etc. Then question arises? When there is a practice of issuing or obtaining acknowledgement for payment of amounts between the appellant and respondent, what prevented the respondent to obtain receipt or acknowledgement from the appellant at the time of return of Rs.2,00,000/­ to the appellant, for which there is no satisfactory explanation from P.W­1.

Admittedly there was previous litigation between the appellant and respondent vide O.S.220/1994 and the same was ended in compromise. The appellant did not comply the terms of the compromise with regard to enhancement of rent by 20% for every three years. Then question arises? How the respondent believed the appellant for not returning Exs.B­2 to B­5 on the ground that 35 they were not traced. Even if they were not traced, what prevented him to obtain receipt from the appellant at the time of payment of

Rs.2,00,000/­?, for which there is no satisfactory explanation.

Thus, the conduct of respondent in keeping quiet without demanding for acknowledgement or receipt from the appellant at the time of alleged repayment of Rs.2,00,000/­ is not consistent with the conduct of a man of prudence and does not inspire confidence to believe the version of P.W­1 for not obtaining acknowledgement from the appellant/tenant at the time of refund of Rs.2,00,000/­. However, in a suit for equitable relief of specific performance of contract of sale, it is for the plaintiff to establish that there is an agreement of sale for a specific property and for specific consideration with a specified terms and conditions to be enforced within a stipulated time and it must be in accordance with form 47, 48 of appendix­A of C.P.C. and section 16(c) of the

Specific Relief Act.

28.As seen from the evidence of D.W­1, except the sole testimony of D.W­1, there is no corroborative evidence on record to support the case of the appellant with regard to terms of sale agreement.

29.With regard to sale consideration, P.W­1 deposed that the oral sale agreement is for Rs.30,00,000/­. According to D.W­1, the oral sale is for Rs.9,00,000/­. With regard to description of the property, appellant contended that the respondent agreed to sell six shops, six lodging rooms for Rs.9,00,000/­. According to respondent/landlord, he agreed to sell three shops which are in the occupation of appellant/tenant for Rs.30,00,000/­. As seen 36 from the evidence of D.W­1, his evidence goes to support the case of the appellant with regard to purchasing six shops and six lodging rooms under oral agreement of sale dated 23­12­2004, whereas in the cross­examination, D.W­1 stated that he agreed to be purchased shop No.1, 2, 3 for Rs.9,00,000/­. He also stated in his written statement in O.S.1109/2010 at para 4 as follows:

“Subsequently when they were intending to sell away the plaint schedule property (3 shop rooms in the ground floor) and when offered to the defendant and that he came forward to purchase the same.”

Thus, the evidence of D.W­1 in his cross and pleadings in his written statement which was filed in O.S.1109/2010, are inconsistent with the pleadings in O.S.693/2010 and evidence of

D.W­1 in chief.

30.As seen from Exs.B­2 and B­3, which are filed by the appellant to prove that he made payments to respondent under

Exs.B­2 and B­3 towards advance, in which the shop No.1, 2, 3 were mentioned, but the other shops i.e., shop No.40, 41, 42 and lodge rooms 311, 312, 313 and 411, 412, 413 were not mentioned.

The appellant also filed Ex.B­6 which is covering letter addressed to the respondent under which the arrears of rent of Rs.43,650/­ was sent by way of demand draft, in which also shop No.1, 2, 3 were mentioned, the other shop numbers were not mentioned.

Thus, the own documents of the appellant i.e., Exs.B­2, B­3 and

Ex.B­6 coupled together go to falsify the case of appellant that the respondent agreed to sell the six shops bearing No.1, 2, 3, 40, 41, 42 and six lodge rooms bearing No.311, 312, 313, 411, 412, 413.

If really the respondent agreed to sell six shops and six lodge 37 rooms to the appellant under oral agreement, he would have mentioned the shop numbers and lodge room numbers in Exs.B­2 to B­6. Thus, the own documents of the appellant i.e., Exs.B­2, B­ 3 and B­6 and his own pleadings in the written statement filed in

O.S.1109/2010 and his evidence in cross goes to falsify the case of

the appellant that he purchased six shops and six lodging rooms under oral agreement dated 23­12­2004. In the light of Exs.B­2,

B­3 and B­6 and pleadings of the appellant in written statement filed in O.S.1109/2010 and evidence of D.W­1 in cross referred above, it can be safely come to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent agreed to sell the plaint schedule property consisting of six shops and six lodge rooms under oral agreement.

31.With regard to sale consideration, except conflicting oral evidence of P.W­1 and D.W­1, there is no corroborative evidence on record to prove the exact sale consideration under the oral agreement dated 23­12­2004. It is not in dispute, the respondent was in financial crisis during the year 2004, due to which the respondent offered to sell some shops to the appellant and he already sold some shops to others in the year 2004. The appellant himself filed Ex.B­1 which is the registration extract of the sale deed dated 28­12­2014 executed by the respondent in favour of some third parties in respect of shop No.9, 48, 305, 405. It is to be noticed D.W­1 stated in the cross­examination that in or about 2004, he came to know that one of the back side shop i.e., shop

No.4 was sold for Rs.3,00,000/­, the extent of the said shop and his shops with a dimension of 10 x 10 feet. Admittedly three shops of the appellant are situated front side of the building. When the 38 back side shop (single shop No.4) was sold for Rs.3,00,000/­ in the year 2004, how the respondent agreed to sell six shops with a same dimensions of shop No.4 and six lodging rooms for

Rs.9,00,000/­, for which there is no satisfactory explanation from

D.W­1. If the version of D.W­1 is taken into consideration, the value of a six shops comes to Rs.18,00,000/­ (Rs.3,00,000/­ per each shop). No man of prudent agrees to sell six shops worth of

Rs.18,00,000/­ and six lodging rooms for meager amount of

Rs.9,00,000/­ in the year 2004. There is no satisfactory explanation from D.W­1 as to why the respondent agreed to sell six shops and six lodging rooms for meager amount of Rs.9,00,000/­, which is very low to the existing market rate (as per the version of

D.W­1 in the cross), for which there is no explanation. In the light of evidence of D.W­1 in the cross with regard to disposing of shop

No.4 i.e., one shop of respondent for Rs.3,00,000/­, the plea of the appellant with regard to sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/­ for six shops and six lodging rooms cannot be believed without doubt.

Thus, the appellant failed to establish that the respondent agreed to sell six shops and six lodging rooms of the plaint schedule for

Rs.9,00,000/­. 

32.With regard to the date of agreement and terms of agreement, D.W­1 stated two days prior to 23­12­2004, negotiations were taken place and understanding was arrived on 23­12­2004. It is admitted case of both the parties that the schedule property was mortgaged with Corporation Bank by the plaintiff. The title deed of schedule property was deposited with

Corporation Bank. Without redeeming the mortgage debt and return of original title deed of schedule property, no purchaser 39 agrees to purchase such a property. It is not the case of the appellant that he is not aware of the mortgage transaction between the respondent and Corporation Bank. Then question arises?

What is the condition to be performed with regard to discharge of bank loan? According to appellant, the respondent promissed to clear the bank loan and execute sale deed directly in his favour after receiving balance sale consideration. According to the respondent, he agreed to sell the three shops only for

Rs.30,00,000/­, subject to condition that the Corporation Bank authorities give permission to private sale as those three shops and some other shops were also under their mortgage and that the appellant accepted the same, agreed to purchase shop No.1, 2, 3.

At his request, the appellant paid Rs.2,00,000/­ under Exs.B­2 to

B­5 towards advance with an understanding that the same will be returned back without interest if the bank authorities refused to give permission and that the plaintiff specifically undertook to pay the entire sale consideration Rs.28,00,000/­ directly to the bank as and when the bank gives permission. Inspite of their best efforts, the bank authorities failed to give permission, whereas D.W­1 stated in his cross­examination as follows:

“No specific understanding or agreement was entered into to discharge the loan in the bank within a particular time or the period within which the sale deed has to be executed in my favour. There was also no understanding for payment of balance sale consideration within a particular time. I did not even think of any time limit for getting a registered document from the plaintiff being his tenant. The loan was taken in the name of plaintiff. It was a commercial loan. About 6 months prior to 23­12­2004, the Corporation Bank issued notices seizing the properties of the plaintiff.” 40

Thus, it is crystal clear from the above said portion of evidence of

D.W­1 that he got knowledge about issuing of notice to seize the properties of respondent by the bank six months prior to the oral agreement of sale. When the schedule property was mortgaged to the bank and the bank issued a notice to seize the property of the respondent, no man of prudent purchase property which was under seizure of the bank, without any specific condition as to discharging of bank loan under agreement of sale. It is admitted case of both the parties that the respondent agreed to sell the schedule shops to the appellant and some shops to some others to discharge his loans. When the respondent was indebted, how he agreed to discharge the bank loan and execute sale deed in the name of appellant? How the appellant kept quiet for a period of 4 or 5 years without insisting for discharging of bank loan and execute registered sale deed in the name of appellant?, for which there is no explanation. On the other hand, D.W­1 pleaded ignorance in his evidence at page 5 as follows:

“After making payments under Exs.B­2 to B­5, I did not enquire with the bank about the outstanding debt or whether the plaintiff paid the amount to the bank or not. Inspite of my repeated requests, the plaintiff did not inform me about the outstanding amount due to the bank. About 4 or 5 years after making payments, I started demand the plaintiff vehemently about the registration of document, for which he did not give proper answer. When I demanded the plaintiff to execute a registered sale deed on 2­6­2010 he abused me in filthy language. Thereafter I got issued lawyer notice to the plaintiff, demanding the plaintiff to execute a registered sale deed. I do not remember whether I stated so in the pleadings or affidavit or filed the notice before the court.” 41

Thus, the said portion of evidence of D.W­1 reveals that after payment of earnest money under Exs.B­2 to B­5, he kept quiet for a period of 4 or 5 years and he did not enquire about the outstanding loan of the bank. When the appellant purchased the property under oral agreement, no man of prudent keep quiet without enquiring about the outstanding amount and without insisting the vendor to discharge the bank loan and kept quiet for a period of 4 or 5 years. This circumstance also probablise the case of respondent. According to D.W­1, he demanded the respondent to execute regd. Sale deed on 2­6­2010. On that he abused him in filthy language, thereafter he got issued lawyer notice to the respondent demanding the plaintiff to execute registered sale deed. No such notice is filed before the court.

However, he admitted in the cross­examination that except Ex.B­6 there is no correspondence with regard to terms agreed between them. Ex.B­6 does not disclose the date of agreement and sale consideration and there is no recital in Ex.B­6 that he has been ready to pay balance sale consideration and demanding the respondent to execute registered sale deed. Thus, it is crystal clear that the appellant did not issue any legal notice by expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract and demanding the respondent to execute registered sale deed after receiving balance sale consideration. Admittedly the appellant got issued Ex.B­6 letter with a demand draft towards payment of arrears of rent on 31­5­2010 i.e., after five years of agreement of sale, but there is no whisper in Ex.B­6 about his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract dated 23­12­2004, so also there is no demand from the appellant requesting the 42 respondent to discharge the bank loan and execute registered sale deed in favour of the appellant on receiving balance sale consideration. The appellant did not file his bank statement to show his bank balance to pay the remaining sale consideration.

Thus, except the pleadings in the plaint, there is no clinching evidence on record to prove that the appellant/plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

33.The law is well settled in the case of M.Rangaiah Vs.

T.V.Satyanarayana Rao and another reported in 2009(5) ALD 663 at para 9 to 13 as follows:

Para 9“The Act provides for the remedy of specific performance under Chapter II thereof. Section 20 of the Act makes it amply clear that the relief of specific performance of obligation under an agreement of sale, is discretionary in nature. Having said that, it proceeds to stipulate the guidelines to be kept in view, while exercising the discretion, so vested in the Court. Apart from that, the law requires certain conditions to be complied with by a plaintiff in a suit of this nature, before he claims the relief of specific performance. For instance, he must express his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. Section 16© of the Act, makes this aspect very clear.”

Para 10 “Though the Code is mostly procedural in nature, it has some attributes of substantive law. These aspects are mostly inbuilt in the procedure itself. The Code is divided into various parts. The first part comprises of

Sections 1 to 158. The Schedule comprises of Orders I to LI. In a way, the orders provide for elaboration of the substantive provisions, contained in Sections 1 to 158.

In addition to that, the Code prescribes the Forms to be used by the parties as well as the Courts, with 43 reference to relevant provisions of law, under

Appendices ‘A’ to ‘H’, each, denoted to subject like, pleadings, process, execution, appeals etc., Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix­A relate to suits for specific performance. In both the forms, two requirements are prescribed as essential: The first is, that the plaintiff must have demanded or requested the defendant to perform the contract in accordance with the agreement, and the second is that the plaintiff must state that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The relevant clauses read as under:

Form No.47:

­­­­­­­­­­

2. “The plaintiff has applied to the defendant specifically to perform the agreement on his part, but the defendant has not done so.”

3. “The plaintiff has been and still is ready and willing specifically to perform the agreement on his part of which the defendant has had noticed.”

Form No.48 ­­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­­

3. “On the ……………. day of 19/20 ……….., the plaintiff tendered ………….rupees to the defendant, and demanded a transfer of the said property by a sufficient instrument.”

4. “The defendant has not executed any instrument of transfer.”

5. “The plaintiff is still ready and willing to pay the purchase­ money of the said property to the defendant.”

Para 11 “The difference between these two Forms is that, the first one applies to a suit, which is filed without waiting for the response of the defendant, whereas the other form is meant for cases where the defendant has expressed his refusal.” 44

Para 12“The requirements, mentioned above, are almost substantive in nature. The Legislature had made its intention very clear, to the effect that before a suit for specific performance of an agreement is filed, the plaintiff must issue notice to the defendant calling upon him to perform his part of contract. In the instant case, the respondent did not issue such a notice and straight away filed the suit.”

Para 13“The other requirement is, about the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract. This is made mandatory not only in the Code, but also under Section 16© of the Act. What is essential is the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract. This may include, not only payment of balance of consideration, but also compliance with the other conditions, that are stipulated under the agreement. The respondent no doubt mentioned in para 7 of the plaint, that he is ready and willing to pay the balance of consideration within the agreed period of time. That, however, does not constitute compliance with Section 16© of the Code. He did not say that he is willing to perform his part of contract.” 

34. In the case of Baddam Prathap Reddy Vs. Chennadi

Jalapathi Reddy and another reported in 2008(5) ALD 200 it was held at para 18 as follows:

“Mere allegation that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract would not sufficient for enforcement of contract.”

In the instant case also, the plaintiff/appellant has not issued any legal notice prior to filing of the suit by expressing his readiness 45 and willingness to perform has part of contract. Even he addressed letter to the respondent, after 5 years of agreement, but he did not express his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract in Ex.B­6. According to D.W­1, he deposited the balance sale consideration in the bank but did not produce any proof to show the bonafidy of the appellant in discharging his part of contract. All these circumstances clearly reveal that he did not comply the mandatory provisions of section 16© of Specific Relief

Act and requirement of form 47, 48 of appendix­A of CPC.

35. In the case of A.Ganapathy Vs. S.Venkatesan reported in 2007(1) CTC 57 it was held at para 19 as follows:

“In a case of specific performance it is settled law, and indeed it cannot be doubted, that the jurisdiction to order specific performance of a contract is based on the existence of a valid and enforceable contract. The Law of Contract is based on the ideal of freedom of contract and it provides the limiting principles within which the parties are free to make their own contracts. Where a valid and enforceable contract has not been made, the court will not make a contract for them.

Specific performance will not be ordered if the contract itself suffers from some defect which makes the contract invalid or unenforceable. The discretion of the court will be there even though the contract is otherwise valid and enforceable and it can pass a decree of specific performance even before there has been any breach of the contract, it is therefore necessary first to see whether there has been a valid and enforceable contract and then to see the nature and obligation arising out of it. The contract being the foundation of the obligation the order of specific performance is to enforce that obligation.” “It is settled law that if a contract is to be made, the intention of the offeree to accept the offer must be expressed without leaving room for doubt as to the fact of acceptance or to the 46  coincidence of the terms of acceptance with those of the offer.

The rule is that the acceptance must be absolute and must correspond with the terms of the offer. If the two minds were not ad idem in respect of the property to be sold, there cannot be said to have been a contract for specific performance. If the parties themselves were not ad idem as to the subject matter of the contract, the court cannot order specific performance.”

In the instant case, the appellant failed to establish that the respondent agreed to sell six shops and six lodging rooms for sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/­ and there is no specific condition in the agreement to discharge the loan in the bank with in a particular time and period, within which sale deed has to be executed in his favour and there was no condition for payment of sale consideration within a particular time. When the appellant failed to prove that the respondent agreed to sell six shops and six lodging rooms for Rs.9,00,000/­ and the balance of consideration to be paid within a stipulated time and there is no condition to discharge the mortgage the loan of respondent within a stipulated time, how such an vague oral agreement is enforceable? Thus, the appellant failed to establish any valid enforceable contract.

Moreover, the appellant approached the court with unclean hands by exaggerating the facts with regard to description of the agreement property and sale consideration. When the plaintiff approached the court for equitable relief of specific performance, he has to approach the court with clean hands. As stated above, the plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands and he also failed to comply mandatory provisions of section 16© of Specific

Relief Act and form 47, 48 of Appendix­A of C.P.C. Therefore, the above decisions can be applied to the facts of the instant case. As 47 stated supra, the appellant is able to establish the payment of

Rs.2,00,000/­ to respondent under oral agreement. I may say suit for specific performance cannot be decreed on the sole ground that appellant is able to establish the payment of earnest money, when the appellant failed to (1) establish the valid and enforceable contract of sale and (2) approach the court with clean hands and (3) comply the mandatory provisions of section 16© of Specific

Relief Act and form 47, 48 of Appendix­A of C.P.C. Keeping all these proved facts and circumstances and above decisions, I find that the plaintiff/appellant is not entitled to ask for specific performance of agreement of sale. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.

36.POINT No.3:

3) Whether the common judgment of the trial court dated 8­1­2018 is sustainable under law?

As discussed supra, the appellant failed to establish his entitlement to ask for setting aside the eviction order and for specific performance of contract of sale dated 23­12­2004. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment of trial court

dated 8­1­2018, as such, the judgment of the trial court dated

8­1­2018 is not liable to be set aside and it is sustainable under law. Accordingly, the point is answered. 

37. POINT No.4: To what relief?

As discussed supra, the appellant failed to establish his entitlement to ask for setting aside the judgment of the trail court

dated 8­1­2018. On the other hand, the respondent is able to

establish that the both the appeals are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

48

38. In the result, A.S.55/2018 & A.S.56/2018 are dismissed by confirming the common judgment passed in O.S.1109/2010 &

O.S.693/2010 dated 8­1­2018 on the file of VII Addl.Senior Civil

Judge’s Court at Vijayawada. In the circumstances of the appeals,

there shall be no order as to costs. 

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 2nd day of April, 2019.

XIV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

FAC.XIII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

­NIL­

XIV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

FAC.XIII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

Copy to

The VII Addl.Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada.

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT,

VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: - KUM. C.YAMINI,

SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHILA COURT, VIJAYAWADA.

Tuesday, this the 25th day of April, 2017.

SESSIONS CASE No.262/2014

(P.R.C.No.45 of 2013 on the file of the court of I-Addl.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada)

1.Name of the 1. Kolli Ajay Ramakanth, S/o Durga accused Prasad, Age 31 years, Kamma, Vinay Apartments, Flat No.17, 4th floor, Gayatrinagar, Vijayawada.

2. Kolli Nirmala, W/o Durga Prasad, Age 58 years, Kamma, Vinay Apartments, Flat No.17, 4th floor, Gayatrinagar, Vijayawada.

2. Charges U/s. 498-A, 306, 304-B IPC and U/s. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A.1. U/s. 498-A r/w. 34 IPC, 306 r/w. 34 IPC and 304-B r/w. 34 IPC and U/s.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. 34 IPC and U/s. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. 34 IPC against A.2.

3. Finding of the A.1 is acquitted U/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the

Judge offences U/s. 304-B IPC and section 3 & 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act and A.2 is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s. 304-B IPC r/w. 34 IPC, section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. A.1 is convicted U/s. 235(2) Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s. 498-A and 306 IPC and A.2 is convicted U/s. 498-A r/w. 34 IPC and 306 r/w. 34 IPC.

4. Sentence or order In the result, A.1 is acquitted U/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences U/s. 304-B IPC and section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and A.2 is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s. 304-B IPC r/w. 34 IPC, section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. A.1 is convicted U/s. 235(2) Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s. 498-A and 306 IPC and A.2 is convicted U/s. 498-A r/w. 34 IPC and 306 r/w. 34 IPC.

2

A.1 is sentenced to suffer R.I. for One year and shall pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default S.I. for 15 days for the offence U/s. 306 IPC and A.1 is sentenced to suffer R.I. for Six months and shall pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default S.I. for 15 days for the offence U/s. 498-A IPC and both the sentences shall run concurrently. A.2 is sentenced to suffer R.I. for One year and shall pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default S.I. for 15 days for the offence U/s. 306 r/w. 34 IPC and further sentenced to suffer R.I. for Six months and shall pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default S.I. for 15 days for the offence U/s. 498- A r/w. 34 IPC and both the sentences shall run concurrently. M.O.1 Chunny pieces and unmarked worthless property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over after confirming that no appeal is pending. The remand period if any shall be given set off U/s. 428 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. 5.Prosecution Addl. Public Prosecutor, Sessions Judge‟s conducted By: Court, Vijayawada. 6.Name of the Sri N.Durga Prasad, Advocate. Advocate for accused.

7. Cr.No. & Name of Cr.No.35/2013 of Machavaram Police the Police station. Station, Vijayawada.

8. PRC No. & Name of I-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate the Committal Court Court, Vijayawada in PRC.No.45/2013

J U D G M E N T

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Zone,

Vijayawada City filed charge sheet against both the accused for the offences U/s.498-A, 306, 304-B r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act in Crime No.35/2013 of

Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City.

2) The brief facts of the prosecution case as per charge sheet is that the marriage between the deceased and A.1 has been solemnized on 8.10.2008 at Autonagar Association Hall, 3

Vijayawada and at the time of marriage the P.Ws.1 and 2 ie., parents of deceased gave Ac.7.00 of land and 65 sovereigns of gold to the deceased in connection with the marriage of A.1 and deceased in addition to marriage expenses to the accused and at the time of marriage, the accused stated that A.1 is working as a software Engineer and getting Rs.1 Lakh as salary, but after the marriage it came to know that A1 has no job. A.1 and deceased led marital life happily for some time, due to legal wedlock between A1 and the deceased a female child by name Sloka aged about 3 years was born and after birth of child to A.1, A.2 used to harass, humiliate and taunt the deceased to comply the unlawful demand of additional dowry. A.1 addicted to drinking and subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty to bring additional dowry from her parents with active support and instigation of A.2 and on one occasion, A.1 brought the deceased to the house of P.W.1 and left at his house and when the deceased parents failed to fulfill the unlawful demand of

additional dowry P.W.1 gave some amount and send back the

deceased to the matrimonial home. But the accused did not change their attitude and renewed their unlawful demand of

additional dowry. Thereafter, P.W.1 paid an amount of Rs.5

lakhs to the accused during the month of January, 2013 and

P.W.1 registered Ac.0-96 cents land in the presence of P.W.6 and in that connection, A.1 ill-treated and harassed the deceased on the ground that P.W.1 not got it registered the land on his name and the accused subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty after paying Rs.5 Lakhs additional dowry to the accused 4 and registering land on the name of the deceased. The deceased informed the cruel treatment of accused to P.W.1 on 18.1.13 and on 19.1.2013 morning, the accused beat, harassed and humiliated the deceased for failure to fulfill their unlawful demand of additional dowry. The deceased made a phone to

P.W.1 on 19.1.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., and informed the same and thereby the deceased perplexed with the cruel acts of the accused and that the accused would not stop their harassment inspite of paying huge amount of dowry to them and the harassment would be continued in her life time and made up mind to do away her life and in pursuance of her pre determined mind to do away her life, on 19.1.2013 committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with the circumstances created by the accused by their willful conduct to drive her to commit suicide and on receipt of information, L.Ws.4 to 6 rushed to the house of deceased and found the dead body of the deceased and on 19.1.2013 P.W.1 came to the Police Station and presented report and on receipt of report the investigation officer investigated the crime by examining the witnesses and by observing the scene of offence and the M.E.M, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and the doctor conducted post mortem examination and after receipt of final opinion and after arrest of accused the investigation officer filed charge sheet against the accused.

3) The I-Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

before whom charge sheet is filed furnished copies to the

accused as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to 5 the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada by following the procedure laid down U/s. 209 Cr.P.C.

4) The Metropolitan Sessions Judge, after taking the case on file committed the case to this court for disposal according to law. After appearance of accused and on hearing, charges U/s. 498-A, 306, 304-B IPC and U/s. 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act are framed against A.1 and charges U/s. 498-A r/w. 34 IPC, 306 r/w. 34 IPC and 304-B r/w. 34 IPC and U/s.3 of

Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. 34 IPC and U/s. 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act r/w. 34 IPC are framed against A.2 and read over the said charges and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) In order to prove its case, prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17 and M.O.1.

6) After closure of prosecution evidence the accused are examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C., from the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same.

7) On behalf of the accused D.Ws.1 & 2 are examined and got marked Exs.D1 and D2.

8) Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

(i) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A.1 for the offence U/s. 498-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

(ii) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A.2 for the offence U/s. 498-A r/w. 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

6

(iii) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A.1 for the offence U/s. 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

(iv) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A.2 for the offence U/s. 306 r/w. 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

(v) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A.1 for the offence U/s. 304-B IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

(vi) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A.2 for the offence U/s. 304-B r/w. 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

(vii) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A.1 for the offence U/s. 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?

(viii) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A.2 for the offence U/s. 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

(ix) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A.1 for the offence U/s. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?

(x) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A.2 for the offence U/s. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT Nos. (i) & (x):-

9) Since point Nos. (i) & (x) are interrelated, they are dealt together.

10) Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contended that prosecution established that the death of the deceased is caused other than the natural circumstances within 10 years of her marriage and soon before the death of the deceased she was subjected to cruelty by both accused in connection with dowry 7 and thereby the prosecution proved the ingredients U/s. 304-B

IPC. To substantiate his contention he relied on the decisions reported in:

1) (2012)11 SCC. 397

2) 2011(2) ALD (Crl.) 469 A.P.

11) The learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments and the main gist is that

NO DOWRY AGREEMENT AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE

ALLIANCE IN BETWEEN THE ACCUSWED AND P.W.1:

a) It is submitted that, p.w.1 mentioned in the Ex.P.1 report that at the time of marriage, he gave 4 acres of land and 65 sovereigns of gold arguments to his deceased daughter towards her pasupukumkuma. Thereafter, he gave 2 acres of land and also later 1 acre of land to her which totally 7 acres of land towards her pasupukumkuma. Further, he gave some amount to the A1 towards marriage expenses.

b) In the evidence, P.W.1 stated that he gave the total 7 acres of land and 65 sovereigns of gold to both the accused and

Rs.10 lakhs cash to the both the accused and father of A1.

c) But, P.W.1, never stated either in Ex.P1, P2 or in 161

Cr.P.C statements that the land and gold ornaments agave to both accused and also did not state that Rs.10 lakhs cash given to the both accused and father of A1. As such the same is a material omission and which amounts to a contradiction.

d) However, in cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that he gifted 7 acres of land each to each of his daughters and requested them to get it registered and his other two daughters got register after their marriage and his deceased daughter did not got it registered.

e) The Ex.P.1 report coupled with admission of PW1 reveals that the P.W1 voluntarily intending to gift 7 acres of land to his deceased daughter like his elder daughters. That too P.W.1 clearly mentioned in Ex.P1 that the land and gold ornaments 8 given to the deceased towards her pasupukumkuma and also he stated in Ex.P1 that some amount given to the A1 towards marriage expenses. As such the said voluntarily and customary presentations are not come under the purview of the dowry.

Here it is grate significant to note the according to PW.1 admission, he did not transfer the said Ac.7-00 cents to his diseased daughter till her death except 0-96 cents on 10-01- 2013. In view of his admission, PW.1 gave total Ac.7 of land towards pasupukunkama, he is far away from the truth.

f) In view of the above, the accused relying upon the citation which was reported in 2007(1) ALD (Crl.) 1024 AP wherein, it was held that no agreement between parties to the marriage with regard to dowry in absence of any agreement to pay dowry or at after time of marriage, it cannot be said that husband harassed and demanded deceased to bring dowry in connection with the marriage from her parents – demand for amount after marriage will not fall within the meaning of dowry even if all to her requirements of Sec.304(B) satisfied.

ELDERS WERE NOT EXAMINED:

g) P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that he raised the issue of his deceased daughter before the elder viz., Krishna and the elders convinced A1 and again accused repeated the same and on that he along with one Venkataratnam, Krishna and father of

A1 convinced by paying Rs.5 lakhs to both the accused.

h) But the PW1 never stated in Ex.P1 report about the said incident and participation of elders and payment of Rs.5 lakhs.

In their presence Further, he did not mention the said facts in his statement i.e. Ex.P2 recorded by the Deputy Tahsildar (PW10) during inquest. Whereas, he stated in 161 Cr.P.C. statements that he discussed the matter before the elders and not mentioned their names.

i) In view of the same, PW1 raised the issue before the elders and payment of Rs.5 lakhs to both the accused by convincing father of A1 in the presence of elders one

Venkataratnam and Krishna which was deposed by the PW1 in 9 his evidence is nothing but material omission and cannot be taken into consideration.

j) Further, the investigation officer PW12 categorically admitted that he did not examine any elder either at the time of fixation of the marriage and the elders who participated in the mediation with the accused. If really any mediation took place in the presence of alleged elders Venkataratnam and Krishna, PW1 would reveal the same in the Ex.P1 report and also the Ex.P2 statement. As such the payment of amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the both accused in the presence of elders viz., Venkataratnam and

Krishna is nothing but improvement Moreover, the alleged elders were not cited as a witnesses and thereby failed to examine the said elders as a witnesses to prove the contention of the PW.1.

k) In view of the above the harassment for additional dowry subsequent to the marriage by the accused and the payment of

Rs.5 lakhs to the both accused is far away from the truth.

l) As such, adverse inference can be drawn against the

Prosecution case for non examination of material witnesses who are said to have been elders in the mediation.

m) On this aspect accused are relying upon the citation which was reported in 2009(1) ALD (Crl.) (5) A.P where in it was held that where the elders who participated in the mediation have to be cited as witnesses.

NO NEIGHBORS OR ANY INMATES OF ADJACENT FLATS

WERE NOT EXAMINED.

n) As per the prosecution case, the accused are demanding

additional dowry by harassing her by beating her and continued

the said harassment and on the date of alleged incident, that the accused beat, harassed and humiliated the deceased for failure to fulfill their unlawful demand of additional dowry and there by created by their willful conduct to drive the deceased to commit suicide.

o) PW.1 deposed in his evidence that his deceased daughter called over phone on 18-01-2013 stating that accused were beating her and asking her to die and his wife called him 10 over phone on 19-01-2013 informing that she was hearing sounds in the house of their deceased daughter and that they may be beating their deceased daughter.

p) But, PW1 never stated the said facts of beating her deceased daughter and asking her to die and his wife P.W2 stated to him that she was hearing sounds in the house of deceased daughter and that there may be a beating their deceased daughter either in the Ex.P1 report or in the 161 Cr.P.C statement. Further, P.W1 did not state the same in Ex.P.2 which was recorded by the PW.10 during the inquest. As such the said facts are also material omission and cannot be taken into consideration.

q) If really any such type of incidents were happened in the marital home, the inmates of the adjacent flats have notice the same, as the marital home situated in fourth floor of Vinay

Apartments and the same is visible and hearable to other flats in the floor.

r) In this case, the investigation officer i.e., PW12 failed to examine them in order to cite the said witnesses in the charge sheet and thereby prosecution failed to examine the neighbourers or any inmates of adjacent flats of the marital home. In view of the same, no independent evidence to show the harassment of deceased by the accused for dowry.

Moreover, PW9 who conducted the post mortem of the deceased clearly admitted that except injury on neck i.e., ligature mark, no other injuries are found on the dead body of the deceased. As such the allegation of beating the deceased by A1 on the date of incident is false. As such the said omission of the PW.1 relating to the beating and harassment of the deceased by the accused is nothing but false and the same was invented for the purpose of case and evidence only.

s) On this aspect the accused are relying upon the citation which was reported in 2014(1) ALD (Crl.) 942 AP wherein it was held that no neighbor examined to establish dispute between accused husband and decseased soon before her death – 11 circumstances stated by the material witnesses do not point out guilty of accused by disclosing any proximity and link between cruelty based on dowry demand and death of deceased – not a fit case to draw presumption U/s 113(B) of evidence Act.

THERE ARE SO MANY OMISSIONS IN THE EVIDENC EOF

PW1 TO 4 AND CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EVIDENCE OF

PW4.

t) The Deputy Thasildar PW10 who recorded the earlier statements of the witnesses during the inquest of deceased and in the evidence of PW10 admitted that PW1 did not state ether in

Ex.P2 report that he gave 7 acres of and land 65 sovereigns of gold to both the accused and father of A1 and also PW1 did not state that he paid any cash to the accused at the time of marriage towards marriage expenses and also he did not state that he called A1 and convinced him and sent her deceased daughter and thereafter every 2 or 3 months accused continued the same by stating that they are asking his deceased daughter go out from the house by leaving her daughter and he along with one Venkataratnam Krishna and father of A1 convinced by paying

Rs.5 lakhs to both the accused and the accused did not send his deceased daughter for sankranthi festival and over phone her deceased daughter stated that A2 and others were beating and asking her to die and she also informed the same to his wife and on that he stated to her that they will come there on the next day and over phone his wife stating that she was hearing sounds in the house of their deceased daughter and that they may be beating their deceased daughter and the accused harassed her deceased daughter for not bringing cash instead of the land.

u) Further PW10 admitted that PW2 did not state in Ex.P4 statement recorded that they gave Rs.10 laksh cash to A1 towards marriage expenses on the date of marriage and so that they were convert into cash and also resisted her daughter to come to her house and A2 harassed her daughter that if the land is given on A1‟s name he might have discharged the debts and she also heard the shouts of both the accused and her deceased 12 daughter cried over phone and her deceased daughter further informed that when she want to come out the accused are not giving her child and PW2 asked her to come out and will bring her daughter subsequently and that A2 harassed that if deceased brought land how they can rotate the cash and PW2 heard the same over phone and while PW2 was speaking over the phone disconnected the same and on that due to fear she informed the same to her husband as she did not turn up phone subsequently.

v) Further PW10 admitted that PW3 did not state in Ex.,P5 statement that they paid marriage expenses of Rs.10 lakhs to A1 and her father paid additional dowry and she do not know its particulars and to her knowledge her father paid Rs.5 laksh and she came to know that her deceased sister was beaten by A1.

w) PW4 admitted that it is true that he did not state either in 161 Cr.P.C statement or in Ex.P6 statement recorded by PW10 that PW1 purchased lorries to A1 and used to pay the installments of lorries and at about 10 am PW2 telephoned to

PW1 and informed that A1 beating the deceased. But PW4 denied the contradictions which are D1 and D2 marked in the statement of PW4 ie., Ex.P6 and in view of the above omissions, it is clear that PW1 to 4 have developed their version in the evidence. Moreover, there is no corroboration in between the

PWs 1 to 4. Further PW.1 is the father and PW2 is mother .PW3 is the sister and PW4 is the maternal uncle of the deceased. As such they are nothing but interested witnesses and it requires some sort of corroboration by way of independent witnesses.

Except the testimony of PWs 1 to 4, there is absolutely nothing on record to establish the fact that there was harassment for dowry. Moreover, the testimony of PWs 1to 4 does not inspire any confidence. In view of the same their evidence cannot be taken into consideration.

x) On this aspect, the accused are relying upon the citation which was reported in 2009(1) ALD(Crl) 5 AP wherein it was held that every suicidal death of married woman within 7 years of marriage, cannot be held to be slowly due to dowry 13 harassment- to constitute offence, triple ingredients of section have to be satisfied – testimony of relative witnesses- though not unworthy of any credence on accused of their propinquity with deceased such evidence needs some sort of corroboration by some independent evidence- absolutely no independent evidence show harassment for dowry.

y) Further the contradictions in the statement of PW4 ie.,

Ex.P6 which is D1 reveals that when PW4 came to the house of accused, no one present in the house of the first instance on the date of alleged incident. Further D2 discloses that PW4 called

PW1 and others through phone to come to the accused house.

According to D1 the accused was not present at the scene of offence at the time of incident. Further according to D2 the PW4 alone visited the scene of offence at the first instance and then called PW12 and others. As such his evidence that on 19-01- 2013 PW1 along with PW4 and others went to the scene of offence is nothing but false.

NO HARASEMENT OF DOWRY BY THE ACCUSED SOON

BEFORE THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED:

z) As per the definition of “Dowry Death” in Section 304(B)

IPC and the wording in the presumptive Section 113(b) of the evidence Act, one of the essential ingredient amongst others, in both the provisions is that‟ the concerned woman must have been soon before her death” subject to cruelty or harassment “for or in connection with the demand of dowry.” aa) Section 2 of Dowry prohibition Act, 1961 defines “dowry” as under Section 2. Definition of Dowry- in this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage, or

b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person to either party to the marriage or to any other person.

at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties but does not include dower or mehr 14 in the case of persons to whom the Muslim personal Law (shariat) applies.

Explanation 1- for the removal of doubts it is hereby declare that any presents made at the time of marriage t the either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed dowry within themeaning of section, unlessthey are mode as consideration for the marriage of the said parties.

Explanation 2- the expression “valuable security” as the same meaning in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code.

ab) As per the definition of the dowry any property or valuable security given or agreed to given to one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage. But in this case

PW1 clearly stated in Ex.P1 report that he gave total 7 acres of land to the deceased daughter at the time of marriage towards pasupukunkuma. Further he presented 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments to his deceased daughter and also cash given to the accused No.1 for marriage expenses. As per the explanation-1 of the definition of the dowry, the presentation of gold ornaments and cash given to the accused for marriage expenses will not be treated as a dowry. Further according to the admission in the cross of PW1 that he intends to gift 7 acres of land to the deceased daughter likewise other daughters and he did not affect the registration of the same infavour of the deceased. In view of the above, 7 acres of land said to have been given his deceased daughter towards her pasupukunkuma was not come under purview of the definition of the dowry. Further there is no demand whatsoever by the accused party to insist any cash towards dowry at the time of marriage as a pre condition by the accused for marriage alliance. PW1 and nowhere mentioned either in the report Ex.P1 and PW2 or in 161 statement that the demand of Ac.7.00 of land and 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments as a pre condition to marry the deceased by the accused. As such it is clear that there is no dowry agreement in between the accused and PW1. If it is so, there is no question of demanding 15 or additional dowry whatever it may be by the accused does not arise and the death of the deceased towards dowry harassment by the accused also does not arise.

ac) In this case PW10 deposed that it is true that PW1 did not state before him ex.P1 that accused did not send his deceased daughter for Sankanthi festival but her deceased daughter called over phone on 18-01-2013 stating that A2 and others were beating her and asked her to die and she also informed the same to his wife and on that he stated to her that they will come there on the next day and on the date of incident at about 11am his wife called him over phone stating that she was hearing sounds in the house of her deceased daughter and that they may be beating their deceased daughter and they harassed their deceased daughter for not bringing cash instead of the land.

ad) PW10 deposed that thePW2 did not state before him in Ex.P3 that the accused one converted were convert into cash and also resisted her daughter to come to her house and that A2 harassed the deceased that if the land is given in A1‟s name he might have discharged the debts and A1 beat her deceased daughter and she started that both the accused are harassing her and she also heard the shouts of both the accused and their deceased daughter cried over phone and on that she stated to her that her husband will come and she further informed that when the deceased want to come out, they are not giving her child and PW2 asked her to come out and will bring her daughter subsequently and that A2 harassed that if deceased brought land how they can rotate the cash and heard the same over phone and while PW2 was speaking the phone disconnected and on that due to fear, PW2 informed the same to her husband as she did not turn up phone subsequently.

ae) PW10 deposed that it is true that PW3 did to state that both the accused disputed why that land was given in the name of her deceased sister without giving cash and she come to know that her deceased sister was beaten by A1.

16 af) The above said evidence of PWs.1 to 3 reveals the aspect of harassment soon before her death is entire omission.

They did not state the same in their earlier statements. They have exaggerated than their earlier version by adding improvements in order to show that the accused were harassed the deceased soon before her death. If, really any such type of harassment on the date of incident by the accused, the other inmates of the flats would heard the same. But, no inmates of the other flats were examined by the prosecution. Whereas, the accused have examined D.W1 and 2 who are inmates of the other flats in the same floor of the marital home and they deposed that the accused No.1 and the deceased were having cordial relations in their marital life and no disputes arose in between them at any point of time regarding dowry or whatever it ;may be and the evidence of D.W2 clearly establishes that the accused No.1 left the marital home at about 7 or 7.30 am and A2 is residing at Medarametla along with her husband during the said period and according to DW2 the deceased took her child at about 8 or 8.30 am on the date of incident to drop her child in the school and she returned after half an hour to the house. It shows that the A1 and A2 are not in the house at the time of incident and as such the question of harassment and beating by the accused does not arise.

CORDIAL RELATIONS IN BETWEEN A1 AND PW1 UP TO

THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED.

ag) It is submitted that the PW1 admitted that fathers of A1 used to run nava nirman engineering and he used to lend proclainer, lorries etc., and whenever A1 and his father business requires any repairs of the vehicles, he used got it repairs and as

A1 used to come to PW1 for his works, and he has touch with him than his other son in laws and A1 visited frequently ion view of above works. Further PW4 admitted that PW1 used to see A1 as his son. In view of the above, there is a good relationship in between PW1 and A1 till the death of the deceased. As such the 17 alleged demand of additional dowry and also harassment towards deceased by the accused is not at all possible.

PW4 ALONE WENT TO THE SCENE OF OFFENCE AT THE

FIRST INSTANCE.

ah) PW10 deposed that it is true that PW4 himself went to the scene of offence on the date of incident and observed nobody is there in the house and he made a phone call to PW1 and other to come to scene of offence. The same were marked as Ex.D1 and D2 in the statement of Ex.P6. According to the said contradictions it is clear that PW4 alone went to the scene of offence at the first instance.

ACCUSED WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE HOUSE ON THE

DATE OF INCIDENT.

ai) It is submitted that the 2nd accused is residing at

Medarametla of Prakasam District as her husband doing contract works at that place during the time of incident. The DW2 deposed that accused No.2 is residing at Medarametala. For that

DW2 deposed that accused No.1 left the house on the date of incident at about 7.00 or 7.30 am and the deceased alone in the house at the time of incident. In view of the same, accused were not present at the time of incident. As such the question of harassment towards the deceased does not arise.

NO EXTERNAL INJURIES ON THE BODY OF DECEASED.

ak) It is submitted that as per prosecution the accused beat the deceased on the date of incident in order to fulfill their illegal demand of dowry and subsequently the deceased commit suicide by hanging. According to the admission of Doctor i.e., PW9 that except injury on neck i.e. ligature mark, no other injuries are found on the dead body of deceased. In the view of the above, the alleged beating the deceased by the accused is far away from the truth.

PW1 MIGHT HAVE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEATH OF THE

DECEASED.

al) It is submitted that the PW1 admitted that he has landed properties of 28.15 cents at Nidamarru area and apart 18 from that 5 or 6 House sites and as gifted 2 acres of land to PW3 (2nd daughter) on 02-08-2006 and he also gifted 2 acres of land to his eldest daughter on 13-02-2007 and also gifted 484 sq.

yards land to her and also gifted Ac.2.06 cents to elder daughter and also the Autonagar site is allotted on her name and they have also added the property in the Autonagar to the elder daughter which is in the of PW2 and also gifted 206 sq. yards house site at Ramavarppadu to PW3 in the year 2006 or 2007 and he gifted 7 acres land to each of his daughters and requested them and to got it registered and his other 2 daughters got it registered after their marriage and his decease daughter did not got it registered.

NO PROOF FOR PRHONE CONVERSATIONS IN BETWEEN

DECEASED AND PW1 AND 2.

am) It is submitted that as per the prosecution, the deceased made a phone call to PW1 on 18-01-2013 and also deceased made a phone call to PW2 on 19-01-2013 prior to her death. PW1 admitted that his deceased daughter phone number is 9866475793. But the investigation officer i.e., PW12 did not collect the call data in order to prove that the deceased made a phone calls to the PW1 and 2. As such, the phone conversations in between the deceased and PW1 and 2 are false.

THE DESCEASED USED TO MOVE FREELY ALONG WITH

CHILD DURING THE PERIOD OF INCIDENT.

an) As per the evidence of PW2 that her deceased daughter informed that when she wants to come out, they are not giving her child and PW2 asked her to come out and will bring her daughter subsequently. The said evidence is improvement that her earlier statements and as such which is material omission.

The Ex.P13 which is the statement of D.Vinay Babu reveals that on 19-01-2013 at about 8.30 am the deceased took her child in the car by driving the same in order to drop her child at school.

Further the PW1 admitted that by the time of offence, his granddaughter through the deceased daughter used to attend kinder garden school. Further Dw2 deposed that the deceased 19 left the house along with the child to school at about 8.00 or 8.30 am. In view of the above, the deceased used to move freely along with the child during the period of incident. As such the allegation that accused demanded the deceased by leave the child with them is nothing but false.

ACCUSED REBUT THE PRESUMPTION BY ADDUCING

EVIDENCE OF DW1 &2.

ao) It is submitted that thought the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts, the accused have examined DW1 & 2 to prove their contentions. The DW1 & 2 are residents of separate

Flats in the 4th floor of Vinay apartment and the scene offence

Flat also situated in the same floor. The DW1 is a inspector of police in excise department, and he deposed that there is no disputes what so ever between the deceased and the accused

No.1 and they were having cordial relations in the family life.

The DW2 is doing purohit and on the date of incident the accused

No.1 left the home at 7.00 or 7.30 am and the deceased took her child to drop at the school at 8.00 or 8.30 am and the deceased alone is at the house during the time of incident and somebody who is relative of deceased came there at 10.00 am and found no body were present in the marital home. Further he deposed that the deceased and accused No.1 was not having any disputes in between them. The evidence of DW1 & 2 goes to show that there was no harassment towards deceased by the accused at any point of time much less on the date of incident.

ap) The accused relying upon the citation which was reported idn 2011(1) ALD (Criminal) 337 A.P where in it was held “equal treatment to be given to prosecuitonhj witnesses as well as defense witnesses – if it seems that there is a ring of truth in the version of defense witness and it appears to be more probable, Court can base its decision on evidences of defense witness to record a finding (Para No.15).

PW.11 DELIBERATELY DENY THE SUGTGESTION WITH

REGARD TO9 ARREST OF THE ACCUSED.

20 aq) It is submitted that the PW11 is the then S.I of Police of

Machavaram P.S who registered the case and in cross examination he denied the suggestion that on receiving instructions from ACP i.e. P.W.12, he served 41 Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and arrested both the accused at about 1.00 p.m. on the day itself at the scene of offence and produced both the accused before the ACP at 4.00 p.m. The accused filed the remand report during 313 Cr.P.C. examination. The said remand report clearly reveals the said fact. But, the PW11 deliberately deny the same. As such the testimony of the PW11 is doubtful.

THERE IS A DELAY IN GIVING REPORT.

ar) It is submitted that the post-mortem of the deceased conducted at 5.15 p.m. by the PW9 and issued Ex.P10 post- mortem report. The Ex.P10 discloses that the approximate time of death of deceased is about 12 to 18 hours prior to P.M.

examination. Accordingly the deceased committed suicide by 9.00 or 9.30 a.m. on phone call of P.W4 the P.W1 came to the scene of offence at about 10 a.m. But the P.W1 gave report to the police at 1.00 p.m. with delay of 3 hours. As such there is every possibility to contact well versed in this regard and after due deliberations only the report was given.

PW.12 EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE COLLECTION OF

THE PARTICULARS OF THE LAND IS FALSE.

as)It is submitted that in cross examination PW12 admitted that though he has collected the evidence that when 4 acres, 2 acres, 1 acre of land was given at the time of marriage, he has not produce the same. PW1 admission clearly reveals that he has gifted 7 acres of land to each of his daughters and his deceased daughter did not got it register. The admission of PW1 in this regard clearly shows that the 7 acres land not at register in the name of the deceased. In view of the same the evidence of P.W12 in this regard that he collected the documents is nothing but false.

21

LAPSES IN THE INVESTIGATION DONE BY PW12.

at) PW12 did not examine the scribe of the inquest report.

Further the PW12 did not examine the scribe of statements recorded during the inquest. As per the citation reported in 2012(2) ALD (Criminal) 892 AP where in it was held that “failure to obtain signature of scribe and to examine him – fatal to prosecution”. As such the inquest report i.e., Ex.P9 cannot be looked into and also Ex.P2, P4 to P6 are not valid under law.

au) PW12 did not examine the scribe of the 161 cr.P.C.

statement. In cross he denied the suggestion that the scribe of 161 Cr.P.C statement an Ex.P8 observation report is one and the same person. When on observation of writings of 161 Cr.P.C.

statements and Ex.P.8 observation report goes to show that the writings are one and the same aw) PW12 deposed that he prepared the observation report of scene of offence i.e., Ex.P8. Whereas in cross examination he admitted that another observation report of scene of offence which was marked as Ex.P17. Both the Ex.P8 and P17 were prepared at one and the same time. But, there is signature of

PW12 on the second observation report i.e. Ex.P17. It shows that some of his officer prepared the Ex.P17 and basing on that

Ex.P8 was prepared by PW12. As such the investigation of PW12 is nothing but table investigation.

ay) The PW12 did not obtain the cell phone call list in this case. As there is no phone conversation in between the deceased and PW1 and 2, the PW12 unable to obtain the said call list. If really there were conversations as stated by prosecution, the

PW12 would obtain the same in order to corroboration to the said aspect.

THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION DO NOT INSPIRE

ANY CONFIDENCE.

22 aw) After careful scrutiny of the entire material on record it is clear that there is no evidence with regard to the demand for dowry or subjecting the deceased to cruelty, on in connection with dowry other than general, vague and inconsistent statements and also improvement of their allegations by way of omissions of interested and motivated witnesses PW1 to 4 being the family members of the deceased. It may not be out of place to mention that there are material contradictions which are D1 and D2 in the evidence of PW4 and also serious omissions in the statements of PW1 to 4, as can be seen from their evidence.

Further, it is clear that PW1 to 4, who are no other than the family members of the deceased, on account of the deceased having died by hanging, obviously were angry against the accused and had every reason to involve the accused for the offence U/s.304(B) of IPC. The prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the charge U/s.306 or 304(B) of IPC or 498-A of IPC framed against the accused by acceptable and unimpeachable to call the death of the deceased as “dowry death” and that husband of the deceased A1 and his mother A2 caused the death of the deceased. Further in view of the failure of the prosecution to discharge its initial burden, the question of applicability of presumption U/s.113(b) of evidence Act does not arise. Thus, considered that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove any one of the circumstances against the accused and chain of circumstances were broken at every stage without connecting the accused to the commission of the alleged crime as the prosecution primary fact all these circumstances much less beyond all the reasonable doubt bringing, home the guilty to the accused and to prove that the accused had committed the crime.

ax) Therefore, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and in support of his contention he relied on the decisions reported in:

1)2007 (1) ALD (Crl.) 1024 A.P.

2)2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 582 A.P.

23

3)2014 ALD (Crl.) 942 A.P.

4)2009 (1) AL.D (Crl.) 5 A.P.

5)2011 (1) ALD (Crl.) 337.

6)2012 (2) ALD (Crl.) 892 A.P.

12) Evidence of P.W.9 doctor, who conducted Post Mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased coupled with

Ex.P.10 Post mortem report, Ex.P.11 RFSL report and Ex.P.12 final opinion reveals that obliquely placed ligature mark measuring about 28 cms X 4 cms over front and sides of neck above thyroid cartilage below chin Dry and hard Hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage are intact and the cause of death of deceased is due to asphyxia due to hanging and P.W.9 admitted in his cross that except the injury on the neck i.e., ligature mark, no other injuries are found on the dead body of the deceased.

13) Thus, from the above, it is clear that the cause of death of the deceased is due to asphyxia and due to hanging and the next aspect to be considered herein is who is responsible for causing the hanging of deceased.

14) P.W.5 is the photographer, who photographed the scene of offence along with dead body of the deceased under

Ex.P.7.

15) P.W.11 is the Investigating officer, who registered the crime for the offence U/s. 304-B IPC under Ex.P.15 printed FIR on receiving Ex.P.1 report from P.W.1

16) Evidence of P.W.12 Investigation Officer coupled with

P.W.7 mediator reveals that scene of offence is observed on 24 19.1.13 at 1.00 p.m., and seized M.O.1 Chunny from the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P.8 observation report.

17) Evidence of P.W.8 V.R.O., who stood as mediator for inquest and P.W.10 Dy. Tahasildar, who held inquest over the dead body of the deceased reveals that inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P.9 inquest report and during inquest P.Ws.1 to 4 and another examined and recorded their statements under Exs.P.2 to P.6 and Ex.P.13 statement and after completion of inquest he send the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination.

18) P.Ws.12 and 13 are the investigating officers, who investigated the crime.

19) The other evidence remained before this court is evidence of P.W.1, who is father of deceased and evidence of

P.W.2, who is mother of deceased and P.Ws.3 & 4 relatives of deceased and P.W.6 independent witness.

20) Evidence of P.W.1 is that he is resident of

Ayyappanagar, Vijayawada and he is running Automobile

Engineering work shop and LW2/Ratna Kumari is his wife and

LW3/Nagamallika is his 2nd daughter and he know LW4/Eswara

Prasad, LW5/Pedababu and LW6/Sivarama Krishna and deceased

Kolli Vijaya Durga Gayatri is his 3rd daughter and A1 is her husband and A2 is mother of A1 and he performed the marriage of his deceased daughter with A1 on 8-10-2008 at Auto

Technician Association Hall, Vijayawada by giving Ac.7.00 of land and 65 sovereigns of gold to both the accused and

Rs.10,00,000/- cash to both the accused and father of A1 and 25 during the wedlock, his deceased daughter gave birth to one daughter namely Sloka and his deceased daughter and A1 lived happily for one and half year and subsequently his deceased daughter informed him that both the accused are disputing for

additional dowry by harassing her by beating her and on that, he

called A1 and convinced him and sent his deceased daughter and thereafter for every two or three months, accused continued the same by stating that they are asking his deceased daughter to go out from the house by leaving her daughter and on that he raised the issue before the elders namely Krishna and elders convinced

A1 and again accused repeated the same and on that, he along with one Venkata Ratnam, Krishna and father of A1 convinced by paying Rs. 5,00,000/- to both the accused and in the year 2013, they also gave additional Ac.0.96 cents on the name of his deceased daughter and registered the same on 10-1-2013 and they did not send his deceased daughter for Sankranthi festival, but his deceased daughter called over phone on 18-1-2013 stating that A2 and others were beating her and asking her to die and she also informed the same to his wife and on that he stated to her that they will come there on the next day and on 19.1.2013 at about 11.00 am, they wife called him over phone stating that she was hearing sounds in the house of his deceased daughter and that they may be beating his deceased daughter and on that she informed that she will send him and by 12 noon, he went to the house of his deceased daughter, both the accused were present outside the house and about to go out from the house and deceased was hanging to ceiling fan and immediately 26 he removed the knot assuming that she may be alive, but she died and on that he reported the crime to the police and his deceased daughter died due to harassment caused by both the accused on her and police examined him and recorded his statement and Ex.P1 is the said Report and Ex.P2 statement is recorded his Mandal Executive Magistrate during inquest and it contains his signature and Ex.P3 is the certified copy of document which shows that they gave Ac.0.96 cents of land given to his deceased daughter and they harassed his deceased daughter for not bringing the cash instead of the land.

21) Evidence of P.W.2 is that she is resident of

Ayyappanagar, Vijayawada and she is house wife and PW1 is her husband and LW3/Nagamallika is her 2nd daughter and she know

LW4/Eswara Prasad, LW5/Pedababu and LW6/Sivarama Krishna and deceased Kolli Vijaya Durga Gayatri is her 3rd daughter and

A1 is her husband and A2 is mother of A1 and they performed the marriage of her deceased daughter with A1 on 8.10.2008 at

Auto Technician Association Hall, Vijayawada by giving

Rs.10,00,000/- cash to A1 towards marriage expenses and

Ac.7.00 of land and 65 sovereigns of gold to her deceased daughter and during the wedlock, her deceased daughter gave birth to one daughter namely Sloka and her deceased daughter and A1 lived happily for one and half year and subsequently her deceased daughter informed her that both the accused are disputing for additional dowry by harassing her and on that they paid Rs. 5,00,000/- to A1 and they lived happily for some time and again started dispute and on that her husband gave Ac.0.96 27 of land to the deceased and that they disputed that why land was given on her name instead on his name, so that they were convert into cash and also resisted her daughter to come to her house and on 18.1.2013 her deceased daughter called her over phone and stated that accused were disputing that why the land was given on A1‟s name and A2 harassed her that if the land is given on A1‟s name he might have discharged the debts and A1 beat her deceased daughter and on 19-1-2013 again her deceased daughter called her over phone and stated that both the accused are harassing her and she also heard the shouts of both the accused and her deceased daughter cried over phone and on that, she stated to her that her husband will come and she further informed that when she want to come out, they are not giving her child and she asked her to come out and will bring her daughter subsequently and that A2 harassed that if she brought land how they can rotate the cash and she heard the same over phone and while she was speaking the phone disconnected and on that due to fear, she informed the same to her husband as she did not turn up phone subsequently and subsequently after the death of her deceased daughter, she went to the scene house and observed the dead body of her deceased daughter and police examined her and recorded her statement and MEM recorded her statement under Ex.P4 and it contains her signature and her deceased daughter‟s daughter Sloka is with them.

22) Evidence of P.W.3 is that she is resident of Vijayawada and she is house wife and PWs.1 and 2 are her parents and she 28 know LW4/Eswara Prasad, LW5/Pedababu and LW6/Sivarama

Krishna and deceased Kolli Vijaya Durga Gayatri is her younger sister and A1 is her husband and A2 is mother of A1 and they performed the marriage of her deceased sister with A1 on 8-10- 2008 by giving Ac.7.00 of land and 65 sovereigns of gold to her younger sister and paid marriage expenses of Rs.10,00,000/- to

A1 and they blessed with one daughter and the lived cordially for one and half years and subsequently harassed her deceased sister for additional dowry and on that her father paid additional dowry and she do not know its particulars and to her knowledge her father paid Rs. 5,00,000/- to A1 and also gave Ac.0.96 cents of land to her deceased sister and on that both the accused disputed why that land was given in the name of her deceased sister without giving cash and on 19-1-2013, her mother/PW2 informed her over phone that dispute was going on in the house of her deceased sister and they went to the house of her deceased sister since she did not respond to her phone call and by the time, she reached to the house of her deceased daughter, her dead body was laid on the cot and she came to know that her deceased sister was beaten by A1 and police examined her and recorded her statement and Thasildar examined her during inquest and recorded her statement under Ex.P5 and it contains her signature

23) Evidence of P.W.5 is that he know PW1 and both the accused and PW1 blessed with three daughters and deceased

Gayatri is 3rd daughter of PW1 and she died and her marriage was performed with A1 in the year 2008 and said Gayatri died in 29 the year 2013 and PW1 is her brother-in-law‟s brother and by the time of marriage of Gayatri with A1, he gave Ac.7.00 of land and 65 sovereigns of gold to the deceased Gayatri and PW2 used to call her over phone now and then and used to state that there were no cordial relations between A1 and deceased and on that he asked her about the job of A1 as they informed by the time of marriage that A1 was working in Bangalore as Software Engineer and earning Rs.1,00,000/- and on that he was told by PW2 that

A1 lost his job and doing business and asked her to see and on that, PW1 purchased lorries to A1 and PW1 used to pay the installments of those lorries and on 19-1-2013 at about 9.00 am, while he was at her poultry along with PW1 and others were discussing about A1 and on that PW1 stated that A1 was not seeing the welfare of deceased Gayatri and at about 10.30 am on that day PW2 called PW1 over phone and stated that A1 was beating the deceased and asked him to take the deceased

Gayatri to the home immediately and on that, he along with PW1 and two others went to the house of A1 situated at Vinay

Apartments and asked about Gayatri and on that, they stated hurriedly that deceased was in the room and on that, when they went into the house, they observed that dead body of the deceased was hanging to the ceiling and on that they removed the dead body from the knot and called the doctor and the doctor declared the death of deceased and police examined him and

MEM also recorded her statement during inquest under Ex.P6 and it contains his signature.

30

24) Evidence of P.W.6 is that he is resident of Nidamarru and doing cultivation and he know PW1 and he acted as mediator for purchase of Ac.0.96 cents of land by PW1 on the name of deceased Gayatri from one Sarath Kumar Reddy and the said sale deed was registered and it has taken place on 10-1-2013 and he is one of the attestor to original of Ex.P3 sale deed and true copy of Ex.P3 also reveals his signature as identifying witness and Police examined me and recorded his statement.

25) Though evidence of DWs.1 and 2 reveals that they are neighouring flat owners and each flat is visible to other flat and

A.1 and deceased were having cordial relations and A.2 is resident of Prakasam District and no panchayat was held in respect of martial life of A.1 with deceased and they can hear the cries if any from the flat of A.1 and did not hear the cries from the flat of A.1 and though further evidence of D.W.2 reveals that in between 7.00 to 7.30 am, on the date of death of deceased

A.1 went outside and returned to the house after the death of deceased at 8.00 or 8.30 a.m., deceased taken her daughter to the school from the house but he did not observe whether they went in a car or not and within half an hour deceased returned to the house and they came to know about the death of the deceased at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m., the fact remains that

D.Ws.1 and 2 did not come forward and state the same to the

Police at earliest point of time and moreover, the fact remains

DW.1 is working at Mylavaram and DW.2 is Purohit and used to go out to marriage programme and thereby evidence of D.W.1 and 2 is incredible.

31

26) In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for accused reported in: 2007(1) ALD (Crl) 1024 (AP),

Angirekula Ramakrishna Vs State of A.P. wherein our

Hon‟ble High Court at para 18 held as follows.

“18. From a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that there is no such agreement between the parties to the marriage with regard to dowry. In the absence of any agreement to pay dowry at or after the time of marriage, it cannot be said that the appellant harassed and demanded the deceased to bring dowry in connection with the marriage, from her parents. PWs.1 and 2 in their evidence as well as in Ex.P1 stated that the appellant used to demand the deceased to bring amount from them and they used to pay the same whenever she asked. Even assuming for a moment that the appellant had demanded as alleged by PW1 and if really PW1 paid the said amounts to the appellant, they would not constitute dowry and the alleged demand does not fall within the ambit of Section 304- B of IPC. Therefore, their evidence does not help the prosecution to establish that the appellant harassed the deceased demanding dowry.”

27) In the other decision relied by the learned counsel for accused reported in 2008(2) ALD (Crl)582 AP, Gunda

Koteswara Rao Vs State of A.P wherein our Hon‟ble High

Court at Para 13 held as follows.

“13. Further, the evidence of PW2, who is none other than the mother of the deceased, is to the very same effect. Simply because PWs.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased and interested in the case of the prosecution, their evidence need not be brushed aside. However, when their evidence is full of improvements, definitely, the Court has to be very careful while considering the same.”

28) There is no dispute in respect of the settled precedent that while considering the evidence of interested witnesses with improvements, court has to be very careful while considering the same.

29) In the other decision relied on by the learned counsel for accused reported in 2014(1) ALD (Crl) 942 (AP), Mukkamala 32

Atchutaramaiah Vs State of A.P. When circumstances stated by material witnesses do not point out the guilt of appellant by disclosing any proximity and no neighbor examined to establish the dispute between the accused/husband and deceased soon

before her death. It is not fit case to draw the presumption U/s.

113-B of Indian Evidence Act.

30) Here in this case prosecution examines the neighbours but they did not support the case of prosecution. As such the facts of the decision relied on by the learned counsel for accused reported in 2014 (1) ALD (Crl) 942 AP are different from the facts of the present case.

31) In the other decision relied on by the learned counsel

for accused reported in 2011(1) ALD (Crl.) 337 (AP) Vampu

Abburamulu and another Vs state of A.P wherein our

Hon‟ble High Court at para 15 held as follows.

“15. It is settled law that even if the witness is treated hostile, either the prosecution or defence can rely on the said evidence and the Court in such an event, has to evaluate the evidence of hostile witness for ascertaining the truth. Similarly equal treatment shall be given to prosecution witness as well as defence witness and if it seems that there is a ring of truth in the version of defence witness and it appears to be more probable, the Court can base its decision on the evidence of defence witness to record a finding. “

32) It is also settled precedent of our Hon‟ble High Court that the evidence of hostile witness can be taken into consideration basing on the facts of the each case.

33) In the other decision relied on by the learned counsel for accused reported in 2012 (2) ALD (Crl) 892 AP wherein our Hon‟ble High Court at para 50 held as follows.

“50. In view of the failure to obtain the signatures of the scribe of Ex.P3 and apart from that, in view of the failure to 33 examine the scribe, the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution.”

34) In the decision relied on by the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor reported in (1997) 9 SCC 338 (Balaram Prasad

Agarwal Vs State of Bihar and others), wherein our Hon‟ble

Supreme Court at para 8 held as follows.

“8. In this connection we may refer to relevant evidence on record. The appellant as P.W.S. had stated on path that on 31st October 1988 at 10.00 a.m. he was informed by his sonin-law Paran Prasad Agrawal that his daughter had died after falling into the well and he accordingly went on the site and saw her dead body. He had further deposed that on 12th November 1988 he went again to the house of the accused son-in-law to see his youngest grandson and at that time he enquired of the incident from the neighbors residing in the Mohalla and his neighbors told him that on previous night of the incident Kiran Devi was beaten by her mother-in-law Jhala Devi, Paran Prasad and the elder brother of Paran Prasad and Kiran Devi was shouting „Bachao Bachao‟ „save save‟ and they also told that the mother-in-law, husband and elder brother of the husband of Kiran Devi, Girbar Prasad were telling that they would perform the second marriage of Paran Prasad after killing her and were threatening to kill her and this fact was told to him by the neighbours, namely, Shiv Nath, P.W.4, Laxmi Mahto, P.W.3 and others, namely, Birendra Prasad etc. He also stated that in his police complaint he had also given the names of these witnesses who informed him accordingly, namely, Ajay Mittal, Avdhesh Prasad, Shiv Nath Mahto, Laxmi Mahto and Birendra Prasad. He had also deposed about the suffering undergone by his daughter at the hands of the accused in past after her marriage. That his daughter Kiran Devi and informed him that her husband used to ask her to bring money from him and on this he replied that he had already given Rs. 10,000/-. She also used to say that her husband Paran Prasad, Cirbar Prasad and mother-in-law Jhalo Devi used to beat her. The marriage of his daughter was soiamnized in the year 1977. For 5-6 years there was no issue from her and hence her inlaws started abusing her and wanted to make a second marriage of Paran Prasad. He got Kiran Devi treated at Ranchi and consequently she gave birth to two sons. About four years prior to this incident his daughter Kiran Devi due to the atrocities of her in-laws had jumped into the same well. However the neighbours had saved her. That after birth of her youngest son she started living at his house as his son-in- law was not taking her back. That he sent his daughter to her in-laws‟ house after convincing his son-in law. In cross examination he stood by his version that the people of the Mohalla told him that on the fateful night they had personally heard the sound of quarrel and that threat to kill her. He also reiterated what he stated before the police in this connection. He proved two post cards which he had received when his daughter was pregnant and in these post cards he was informed that his son-in-law was trying to get married to one Lalo Devi. Nothing substantial could be brought out in his cross examination to discredit his aforesaid version. This version is fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W.8 Kedar Nath Pathak, the investigating Officer. The aforesaid 34 evidence of the appellant clearly established the sufferings undergone by his daughter deceased Kiran Devi at the hands of the accused and the situation had so worsened that she had tried to commit suicide even earlier and was saved by the neighbours. His evidence about what his deceased daughter told him earlier about her sufferings at the hands of the accused was clearly admissible under Section 22 of the Evidence Act. His evidence further shows that the cruel conduct of the respondent-accused did not abate and appeared to have continued till the fateful night when the situation became unbearable to the deceased which resulted in her unfortunate death by drowning in the well in the courtyard of the house of the accused. it is necessary to appreciate that on that fateful night apart from the victim only the accused ware in the house. Thus what happened on that night and what led to the deceased failing in the well would be wholly within the personal and special knowledge of the accused. But they kept mum on this aspect. It is of course true that burden is on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. But also the prosecution is found to have shown that the accused were guilty of persistent conduct of cruelty on the deceased spread over years as is well established from the unshaken testimony of P.W.6, father of the deceased girl, the facts which were in the personal knowledge of the accused who were present in the house on that fateful night could have been revealed by them to disprove the prosecution case. This burden under Section 109 of the Indian Evidence Act is not discharged by them. In this connection we may usefully refer to some of the decisions of this Court on the point. In the case of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer AIR 1956 SC 404 Bose, J. speaking for a two member Bench referring to the applicability to Section 106 of the Evidence Act to criminal prosecutions laid down in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Report as under:

"(10) Section 106 is an exception to S.101. Section 101 lays down the general rule about the burden of proof. „Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist‟.

Illustration (a) says-„A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed.

A must prove that B has committed the crime‟.

(11) This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and S.106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are „especially‟ within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience." In the case of

Collector of Customs, Madras & Ors. v. D. Bhoormull AIR 1974 SC 850 another Bench of two learned judges of this Court while considering the offence under Sea Customs Act, 1878 earmarked the scope of 35

Section 106 of the Evidence Act in the following terms in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Report:

"31. The other cardinal principle having an important bearing on the incidence of burden of proof is that sufficiency and weight of the evidence is to be considered – to use the words of Lord Mansfield in

Blatch v. Archar (1774) 1 Cowp 63 at p.65 „according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to prove, and in the power of the other to have contradicted. Since it is exceedingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible for the prosecution to prove facts which are especially within the knowledge of the opponent or the accused, it is not obliged to prove them as part of its primary burden.

32. Smuggling is clandestine conveying of goods to avoid legal duties. Secrecy and stealth being its covering guards, it is impossible for the Preventive Department to unravel every link of the process. Many facts relating to this illicit business remain in the special or peculiar knowledge of the person concerned in it. On the principle underlying Section 106, Evidence Act, the burden to establish those facts is cast on the person concerned and if he fails to establish or explain those facts, an adverse inference of facts may arise against him which coupled with the presumptive evidence adduced by the prosecution or the Department would rebut the initial presumption of innocence in favour of that person, and in the result prove him guilty. As pointed out by Best in „Law of Evidence‟ (12th Edn. Article 320, page 291), the "presumption of innocence is, no doubt, presumption juris„: but every day‟s practice shows that it may be successfully encountered by the presumption of guilt arising from recent (unexplained) possession of stolen property", though the latter is only a presumption of fact. Thus the burden on the prosecution or the Department may be considerably lightened even by such presumption of fact arising in their favour. However, this does not mean that the special or peculiar knowledge of the person proceeded against will relieve the prosecution or the Department all together of the burden of producing some evidence in respect of that fact in issue. It will only alleviate that burden to discharge which very slight evidence may suffice." 36

35) In the other decision relied on by the learned counsel

for accused reported in 2013 Crl.L.J 4710, (S.Govindaraju Vs

State of Karnataka), wherein our Hon‟ble Supreme Court at para 18 held as follows.

“18. It is well settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions were of such magnitude so as to materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements in relation to trivial matters, which do not effect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not be made a ground for rejection of evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence available, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses, and the appellate court in the normal course of action, would not be justified in reviewing the same, without providing justifiable reasons for doing so. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of a witness, and the other witnesses also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would not be safe to rely upon such evidence. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found not to be minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, the witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence available or with a statement that 1 Page 14 has already been recorded, then in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.”

36) Evidence of PW1 is not corroborating with Ex.P1 report in respect of giving Ac.7.00 cents of land and 65 sovereigns of gold to both accused and Rs.10 lakhs cash to both accused and father of A1 which is material omission. Evidence of 37

PW2 who is mother of deceased, PW3 sister of deceased reveals that at the time of marriage of A1 with deceased, they gave cash of Rs. 10,00,000/- to A1 towards marriage expenses and 7 acres of land and 65 sovereigns of gold to the deceased but payment of 10 lakh cash towards marriage expenses of A1 is omission.

Evidence of PWs 4 and 5 independent witnesses are absent in respect of payment of either Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs to accused. Evidence of PW4 reveals that they gave Ac.7 of land and 65 sovereigns of gold to the deceased. Thus evidence of

PWs 1 to 4 is insistent in respect of payment of Rs. 10 lakhs either to A1 or to both and more over evidence of PW1is not corroborating with Ex.P1 report in respect of payment of Rs. 10 lakh dowry to both the accused.

37) Though evidence of PW1 reveals that he paid additional dowry of Rs. 5 lakh to both accused, it is not corroborating with

Ex.P1 report and Ex.P1 report did not reveals to whom he paid

Rs. 5 lakh. Though evidence of PWs 2 and 3 reveals that Rs.5

Lakh additional dowry was given to A1, their evidence is omission. Thus evidence of PW1 is not corroborating with Ex.P1 report and in consistent with evidence of PW2 and 3 in respect of payment of additional dowry of Rs. 5 lakh either to A1 or to both accused and evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is omission.

38) Thus prosecution failed to establish that dowry of Rs.10 lakh or Rs.5 Lakhs was given to any accused.

39) Prosecution established by examining P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 that just few days prior to the death of deceased 96 cents land was transferred in the name of deceased. Evidence of P.W.1, 38 who is father of deceased reveals that deceased daughter called over phone to P.W.2 on 18.1.2013 and deceased informed that

A.2 and others were beating her and asking to die.

40) Evidence of P.W.2, who is mother of deceased is that her deceased daughter and A1 lived happily for one and half year and subsequently her deceased daughter informed her that both the accused are disputing for additional dowry by harassing her and again started dispute and on that her husband gave Ac.0.96 of land to the deceased and that they disputed that why land was given on her name instead on his name, so that they were convert into cash and also resisted her daughter to come to her house and on 18.1.2013 her deceased daughter called her over phone and stated that accused were disputing that why the land was given on A1‟s name and A2 harassed her that if the land is given on A1‟s name, he might have discharged the debts and A1 beat her deceased daughter and on 19-1-2013 again her deceased daughter called her over phone and stated that both the accused are harassing her and she also heard the shouts of both the accused and her deceased daughter cried over phone and on that, she stated to her that her husband will come and she further informed that when she want to come out, they are not giving her child and she asked her to come out and will bring her daughter subsequently and that A2 harassed that if she brought land how they can rotate the cash and she heard the same over phone and while she was speaking the phone disconnected and on that due to fear, she informed the same to her husband as she did not turn up phone subsequently and 39 subsequently after the death of her deceased daughter, she went to the scene house and observed the dead body of her deceased daughter. Signature of scribe is there on Ex.P.9 inquest report.

Ex.D.1 contradiction in respect of presence of A.1 at ground floor and scene flat and Ex.D.2 contradiction is in respect of P.W.4 informing the occurrence to PW.1 and thereby Ex.D.1 and D.2 contradictions are minor. In the decision relied on by the learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor reported in (2012) 11 S.C.C. 397,

Mustafa Shahadlal Shaik. Vs. State of Maharastra, wherein our

Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that in a case of matrimonial death,

outsiders cannot be expected to come and depose what had happened in the family of deceased in the decision reported in:

2002 (2) ALD. (Crl.) 871 S.C. A Prema S.Rao and another

Vs. Yedla Srinivasa Rao and others, where in our Hon‟ble

Supreme Court held at page 15 and 16 held as that harassment of husband after the marriage to force the wife to transfer her property in his name leading to her suicide, does not constitute an offence U/s. 304-B IPC. But it is enough to sustain conviction

U/s. 498-A IPC and 306 IPC.

41) Thus, from the above it is clear that prosecution established that soon before her death forced/harassed the deceased for not transferring the property in the name of A.1 instead of the deceased. Under the following circumstances, prosecution established the guilt of accused for the offences U/s.

498-A and 306 IPC and failed to establish the guilt of both the accused for the offences U/s. 304-B IPC and Section 3 & 4 of

Dowri Prohibition Act.

40

42) In the result, A.1 is acquitted U/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences U/s. 304-B IPC and section 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and A.2 is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

for the offence U/s. 304-B IPC r/w. 34 IPC, section 3 & 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. A.1 is convicted U/s. 235(2) Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s. 498-A and 306 IPC and A.2 is convicted U/s.

498-A r/w. 34 IPC and 306 r/w. 34 IPC.

43) Accused are questioned in respect of quantum of sentence and A.1 stated that he has minor child and father and depending on him and A.2 stated that she is woman and senior citizen.

44) Considering the gravity of offence, provisions U/s. 360

Cr.P.C. and Probation of Offenders Act are not followed and considering the plea of both the accused, A.1 is sentenced to suffer R.I. for One year and shall pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default S.I. for 15 days for the offence U/s. 306 IPC and A.1 is sentenced to suffer R.I. for Six months and shall pay a fine of

Rs.100/- in default S.I. for 15 days for the offence U/s. 498-A

IPC and both the sentences shall run concurrently. A.2 is sentenced to suffer R.I. for One year and shall pay a fine of

Rs.100/- in default S.I. for 15 days for the offence U/s. 306 r/w.

34 IPC and further sentenced to suffer R.I. for Six months and shall pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default S.I. for 15 days for the offence U/s. 498-A r/w. 34 IPC and both the sentences shall run concurrently. M.O.1 Chunny pieces and unmarked worthless property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over after confirming that no appeal is pending. The remand period if 41 any shall be given set off U/s. 428 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 25th day of April,

2017. Sd/C.Yamini, Mahila Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for Prosecution:

PW.1: Sunkara Durga prasad PW.2: Sunkara Ratna Kumari. PW.3: Billupati Siuva Naga Mallika. PW.4: Thatineni Venkateswara Rao PW.5: Chan Khan. PW.6: Tadiparthi Venkata Reddy. PW.7: Bottu Venkata Krishna Raju PW.8: P.V.Ramana. PW.9: G.Siva Ramireddy, Professor PW.10:K.Mastan, Dy.Thasildar PW.11:U.Ramarao, SI of police. PW.12:P.Satyanarayana Rao, DSP PW.13: D.V.Nageswara Rao, Rtd. Addl. ACP

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:

DW1: G.Srinivas DW2: B.Venkata Ramana Baghavan

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: Statement of PW1 before MRO. Ex.P.3: Certified copy of registered sale deed Ex.P.4: Statement of PW2 before MRO Ex.P.5: Statement of PW3 before MRO Ex.P.6: Statement of PW4 before MRO Ex.P.7: 4 photos Ex.P.8: Scene observation report. Ex.P.9: Inquest report. Ex.P.10: Postmortem report Ex.P.11: RFSL report Ex.P.12: Final opinion Ex.P.13: Statement of LW7 before MRO. Ex.P.14: FIR in Cr.No.35/2013. Ex.P.15: Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P.16: Letter of advice Ex.P.17: Scene observation report dt. 19.1.2013.

42

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1: Contradiction in Ex.P6 Ex.D2: Contradiction in Ex.P6

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

M.O.1: Chunni pieces.

Sd/-C.Yamini,

Mahila Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI G.DURGAIAH

XIV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 23rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2018. 

O.S.251 OF 2012

Between:

Komaravalli Gopala Rao ….. PLAINTIFF.

A N D

1. U.S.V.Balaram

2. The District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam

3. The Tahsildar, 

Penamaluru Mandal. ….. DEFENDANTS.

The suit came for final hearing before me on 27­07­2018 in the presence of V.N.V.Rajya Lakshmi, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri K.Benarjee, Smt.K.Sarala Benarjee, Advocates for 1st defendant and of Sri Ch.Abraham Lincon, Asst. Govt. Pleader for defendants 2 and 3 and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and upon perusing the material on record and upon considering the connected material papers on record and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant, his men and agents etc., from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Government. In the year 1932 Government issued a conditional joint patta bearing No.245 to Nalluri Venkata Swamy and

Nalluri Guravaiah to an extent of Ac.1­64 cents and Ac.1­90 cents in

R.S.No.177 respectively. Subsequently, sub division of survey number 177 was 2 taken place as R.S.No.177/A and 177/B respectively for the respective pattas.

The said Nalluri Venkata Swamy @ Venkateswara Rao died intestate leaving behind his three sons namely and Nalluri Satyanandam, Nalluri Bhushanam @

Divya Gnani and Nalluri John. After demise of N.Venkata Swamy, his three sons mutually partitioned the plaint schedule property as well as the other properties. In the said partition, Ac.0­84 cents was allotted to N.Satyanandam and Ac.0­79 cents was allowed to Nalluri Bhushanam @ Divya Gnani out of

Ac.1­64 cents. Since then N.Satyanandam had been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0­84 cents of land is plaint schedule property.

3. Further submitted that Nalluri Satyanandam died on 5­6­1969 intestate leaving behind his only daughter Kanakamma. The husband of

Kanakamma by name Daniel @ Ramulu pre­deceased Satyanandam, as such, the said Satyanandam, his daughter Kanakamma lived together along with the plaintiff till the date of death of N.Satyanandam. After demise of

N.Satyanandam, his property devolved upon his daughter, K.Kanakamma who is mother of the plaintiff, she had no other issues and the plaintiff was given job on compassionate ground temporarily for some time, but he was not made permanent employee. Nalluri Venkata Swamy was an employee in Revenue

Department. Subsequent to his death, his son Satyanandam got job.

Subsequent to his death, plaintiff got job as grandson of Satyanandam, since the mother of the plaintiff was old aged.

4. Further submitted that the plaintiff and his mother had been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till her death on 25­ 11­2009. After death of mother of plaintiff, it devolved upon the plaintiff. He has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. He cultivated the plaint schedule property upto establishment of Jawahar

Autonagar at Kanuru village. Subsequently, he could not cultivate the 3 schedule property due to flow of drainage water through the plaint schedule property.

5. Further submitted that the plaintiff reliably learnt that the 1st defendant is trying to encroach the schedule property and alienate the same to third parties under the guise of vacant land. When he questioned the 1st defendant, he told that the schedule property was acquired by him without disclosing any document and further he claimed that he would encroach the schedule property and also threatened him with dire consequences. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. He has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The 1st defendant has no manner of right whatsoever over the schedule property. The 3rd defendant is shown as a party since he also co­operating with the 1st defendant for illegal acts committed by the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is

District Collector, Machilipatnam, as such, he is shown as representative of the

Government in the suit. Hence, the suit.

6.The 1st defendant filed written statement by denying the averments of the plaint and further contended that the mother of the 1st defendant by name Uppalapati Raja Ratnam purchased Ac.0­66 cents of land in

R.S.No.177/A which is situated in Kanuru village from one N.Satyanandam and his wife N.Rattamma under registered sale deed dated 7­9­1966. The said land is ancestral property of N.Satyanandam. He got the said property towards his share in the partition with his brothers. Subsequently it was sub divided as

R.S.No.177/1­A. The name of mother of 1st defendant was also mutated in

No.3 adangals. Ever since the date of purchase of Ac.0­66 cents, till her death, she was in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0­66 cents which is part and parcel of the plaint schedule property.

4

7. Further submitted that his mother was died intestate on 22­7­ 2004. The 1st defendant being the sole legal heir to U.Raja Ratnam, it devolved upon him. Since the death of his mother, he has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0­66 cents of land with absolute rights to the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiff. When the 1st defendant offered to sell the said

Ac.0­66 cents of land, the Sub Registrar, Registration & Stamps Department refused to entertain any document for registration stating that it is a patta land. Then he made enquiries and came to know that the Diglot Register (Survey Register) shows that the land in question is cultivable dry land. It does not belonged to the Government and it is not a poramboke land or communal land. The said register reveals the names of the private individuals as registered owners. The same clearly indicates that a ‘D­Form’ patta was granted by Tahsildar under BRC No.12/1942, dated 20­4­1942 vide 33/L.D. to one Nalluri Venkata Swamy for an extent of Ac.1­64 cents in R.S.No.177/A under patta No.381. One Nalluri Guravaiah was granted patta No.382 for an extent of Ac.1­95 cents I R.S.No.177/B. The said N.Venkata Swamy cultivated the said land during his lifetime with the canal water.

8.He further submitted that the 1st defendant submitted an application to Revenue Divisional Officer to permit him to sell the Ac.0­66 cents of land. Then the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the Mandal

Revenue Officer and Mandal Surveyor to enquire into the matter and submit report for further action. The 1st defendant also filed W.P.No.4091/2009 against the Government of Andhra Pradesh and others before Hon’ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad obtained stay order in

W.P.M.P.No.5344/2009 and the same is still pending and the matter is sub­ judice. In the said Writ Petition, Government filed counter by admitting V.Raja

Ratnam purchased Ac.0­66 cents from N.Venkata Swamy and Rattamma under registered sale deed dated 7­9­1966. She was shown as possessor in 5 adangals. The said N.Satyanandam and N.Rattamma had no children. They died issueless. Kanakamma is not the daughter of N.Satyanandam and

Rattamma. The panchanama prepared by the Mandal Revenue Inspector reveals the same, as such, the question of devolving the property of

N.Satyanandam and N.Kanakamma to the plaintiff does not arise. The plaintiff and Kanakamma are never in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, much less an extent of Ac.0­66 cents of land which was purchased by the mother of 1st defendant. The plaintiff filed the suit after 48 years of sale transaction for wrongful gain as such, the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, requested to dismiss the suit.

9. The 3rd defendant filed written statement by denying the averments of the plaint, contending that an extent of Ac.3­54 cents in R.S.No.177 of Kanuru village was originally classified as “Anadheenam” as per R.S.R. Later it was sub­divided as R.S.No.177/A for an extent of Ac.1­64 cents and R.S.No.177/B for an extent of Ac.1­90 cents. The records relating to assignment of land are not available to know whether the pattas were said to have been granted to

Nalluri Venkata Swamy under patta No.381 and N.Guravaiah under patta

No.382 during the year 1966 or not. In the Re Settlement Register their names were written and strike off. There is no recorded evidence to show who wrote the above names in the R.S.R. and who strike off the said names. At present the said land has been in possession of Government. It is vacant on ground.

There is no recorded evidence to show that the said land was cultivated by the plaintiff or his forefathers. Hence, the contention of the plaintiff that the said land is under enjoyment of the plaintiff and is grandfather is not correct.

10. Further submitted that the xerox copy of death certificate of

Smt.K.Kanakamma reveals that she was died on 25­11­2009 at D.No.41­20/4­ 70, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada, whereas N.Satyanandam was died on 5­6­1969 at Kanuru village of Penamaluru Mandal. The family members certificate 6 issued by Tahsildar, Thotlavalluru Mandal reveals that K.Kanakamma,

W/o.Daniel is resident of South Valluru village of Thotlavalluru Mandal. The ration card issued in the name of the plaintiff in the year 2006 reveals there are no other family members in the said ration card. The father name of plaintiff was mentioned as Ramulu, whereas the husband name of Kanakamma was mentioned as Daniel in her death certificate and family members certificate. It clearly shows the contention of the plaintiff is an after thought and no such recorded evidence with him showing the ownership to the plaint schedule property.

11. Further submitted that the 1st defendant filed W.P.No.4091/2009 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad stating that his mother purchased assigned land in R.S.No.177/1A, measuring Ac.0­66 cents of

Kanuru village from the legal heirs of original assignee by name Nalluri Venkata

Swamy, as such, the 1st defendant is owner of the said land and the transaction was made during the year 1966 and it does not attract the provisions of

A.P.Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1977. The then Tahsildar,

Penamaluru also submitted counter in Writ Petition stating that the land in question is classified as “Anadheenam” and Government is the owner of the said land and alleged sale transaction made is null and void as the said Act has retrospective effect.

12. Further submitted that the plaintiff failed to issue notice U/s.80

C.P.C. before filing the suit, as such, the suit is not maintainable. The plaint schedule property is classified as “Anadheenam” as per record. It is a

Government land, as such, the contention of the plaintiff that the 3rd defendant is co­operating with the 1st defendant is not correct. There is no evidence that the said land is assigned to N.Venkata Swamy or any other as per record.

Hence, requested to dismiss the suit. The 2nd defendant adopted the written statement filed by the 3rd defendant.

7

13.Basing on the pleadings of both sides, my learned Predecessor in office framed the following issues for trial:

1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

3)To what relief?

14.During the court of trial, P.Ws­1 to 4 are examined and Exs.A­1 to

A­20 are marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. D.Ws­1 to 3 are examined and

Exs.B­1 to B­16 are marked on behalf of the defendants. 

15. ISSUE No.1:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for?

It is not in dispute, the plaint schedule property is a Government land. According to the plaintiff, the Government issued joint patta to one

Nalluri Venkata Swamy and his brother Nalluri Guravaiah in the year 1932 by allotting Ac.1­64 cents to Nalluri Venkata Swamy and Ac.1­90 cents to Nalluri

Guravaiah in S.No.177/A and 177/B respectively under patta bearing No.245.

After demise of N.Venkata Swamy, his three sons by name N.Satyanandam,

N.Bhushanam @ Dharma Gnani and N.John partitioned their properties including Ac.1­64 cents. Out of Ac.1­64 cents, Ac.0­84 cents fell to the share of

N.Satyanandam and Ac.0­79 cents fell to the share of N.Bhushanam @ Dharma

Gnani. After death of N.Satyanandam, his share property of Ac.0­84 cents devolved upon his daughter by name Kanakamma. After demise of

Kanakamma, it devolved upon her only son i.e., plaintiff herein. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since lifetime of his mother. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself got 8 examined as P.W­1 and relied on the evidence of P.Ws­2 to 4 and Exs.A­1 to

A­20.

16. On the other hand, the 1st defendant contended that the mother of the 1st defendant purchased Ac.0­66 cents of land from N.Satyanandam in the year 1966 under registered sale deed dated 7­9­1966 and the said Ac.0­66 cents is part and parcel of the plaint schedule property. His mother died intestate on 22­7­2004, as such, the said Ac.0­66 cents was devolved upon the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant became absolute owner and possessor of said

Ac.0­66 cents of land. When he tried to sell the Ac.0­66 cents of land, the Sub

Registrar refused to entertain any document stating that it is a patta land.

Later he made enquiry and came to know that it is not a Govt. land and it is not a poramboke land as per survey register. The said register indicates the names of the private individuals. The ‘D­form’ patta in BRC 12/1942 dared 20­ 4­1942 was granted to one Nalluri Venkata Swamy in an extent of Ac.1­64 cents in R.S.No.177/1A under patta No.381 which had been under cultivation of N.Venkata Swamy during his lifetime with canal water and he made an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer to permit the 1st defendant to sell the Ac.0­66 cents of land and the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the

Mandal Revenue Officer and Mandal surveyor to enquire into the matter. The 1st defendant also filed W.P.No.4091/2009 against the Government of Andhra

Pradesh and others and obtained stay order in WPMP No.5344/2009, which is still pending and he further contended that N.Satyanandam died issueless.

Kanakamma is not the daughter of N.Satyanandam. The panchanama prepared by Mandal Revenue Inspector reveals the same. In order to prove the case of defendants, the 1st defendant himself got examined as D.W­1. The then

Revenue Inspector is examined as D.W­2 and relied on Exs.B­1 to B­9 and B­ 16.

9

17. On the other hand, the defendants 2 and 3 contended that the schedule property is a Government land. It has been in the possession of the

Government. In order to prove the case of defendants 2 and 3, it got examined

D.W­3 and relied on Ex.B­10 to B­15.

18. So, it appears from the pleadings, evidence on record that the plaintiff and 1st defendant and Government (3rd defendant) claiming separate possession over the same schedule property. Though the 1st defendant contended in the written statement that the schedule property is not a Government land, but the evidence of D.W­1 and documents filed on behalf of the 1st defendant reveal that the schedule property is a Government land. The 1st defendant claiming right over the schedule property by virtue of Ex.B­1 sale deed. The original sale deed of Ex.B­1 is not filed before this court stating that it was filed before the

Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.4091/2009, which is filed by the 1st defendant

against the Government of Andhra Pradesh, District Collector, Krishna, Sub

Collector, Vijayawada, Tahsildar, Penamaluru, Sub Registrar, Vijayawada. The evidence of D.W­1 reveals after the Sub Registrar objected to entertain any document for registration of Ac.0­66 cents of land on the ground that it is a patta land, he submitted an application to the Sub Collector, Krishna District,

Vijayawada on 10­6­2008 stating that he submitted letters on 21­6­2007, 26­12­207 requesting permission for sale of land to an extent of Ac.0­66 cents of land at Kanuru village in S.No.177/A and they are waiting for orders and requested to expedite at earliest. He also addressed another letter on 23­1­ 2009 to the Sub Collector, Vijayawada, requesting to provide all the details regarding land (Ac.0­66 cents) in S.No.177/A in the name of Uppalapati Raja

Ratnam, in turn the Sub Collector directed the Tahsildar, Penamaluru for enquiry into the matter. The Tahsildar, Penamaluru submitted report to the

Sub Collector. The Sub Collector submitted detailed report to the District

Collector. The District Collector issued proceedings on 4­11­2008 stating that 10 the assignment appears to have been made before 1964 and that the entry cited reveal that pattas were conditional pattas. The sale transaction was made in the year1966. Hence, Tahsildar, Penamaluru was directed to initiate proceedings under P.O.T. and take appropriate action including regularization, if conditions required U/s.3 (5) are fulfilled. Ex.B­8 is the copy of letter addressed by the 1st defendant to the Sub Collector. Ex.B­5 is the letter addressed by Sub Collector to the District Collector. Ex.B­6 is the copy of letter addressed by Tahsildar, Penamaluru to the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Vijayawada on 16­8­2007. Ex.B­7 is copy of letter of District Collector, Krishna addressed to Sub Collector, Vijayawada Also goes to substantiate the version of

D.W­1 with regard to initiation of proceedings by the revenue officers on the requisition submitted by the 1st defendant. Ex.B­9 is copy of stay order in

W.P.M.P.No.5344/2009 in W.P.4091/2009 also reveals that the 1st defendant filed W.P.No.4091/2009 before Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad against the orders of District Collector vide Ex.B­7. According to D.W­1, the said writ proceedings have been still pending. Ex.B­2 reveals that the 3rd defendant herein also filed counter in W.P.No.4091/2009 with all the details in respect of the litigation for the land in S.No.177/A. Ex.B­3 is xerox copy of panchahama dated 17­12­2016, which is conducted by D.W­2 also reveals that during the period of his tenure as Revenue Inspector, he conducted panchanama. Ex.B­3 is copy of the said panchanama. He stated in the chief­ examination that on the application submitted by 1st defendant, he was deputed to enquire into the nature of land by Tahsildar, Penamaluru. As per his report, it is a non­assigned land. It was in the possession of the 1st defendant. D.W­2 is working as a Deputy Tahsildar, Movva at present.

19. The evidence of D.W­3 who is Mandal Revenue Officer of Penamaluru stated that the schedule property is a Government land and it is not in possession of the plaintiff and 1st defendant and it is in the possession of 11

Government. Whereas the Government official D.W­2 stated that the schedule property is not assigned land. It is in the possession of 1st defendant. The report submitted by Sub Collector to the District Collector reveals that only daughter of N.Satyanandam sold away land of Ac.0­66 cents to mother of the 1st defendant. Whereas Ex.B­3 reveals that N.Satyanandam died issueless.

D.W­2 also categorically stated that N.Satyanandam had no issues. Thus, the evidence of Government Officials i.e., D.Ws­2 and 3 and the document of revenue officials i.e., Ex.B­3 and Ex.B­6 giving conflicting views with regard to nature of the plaint schedule property and possession of the plaint schedule property. It shows how the revenue officials conducting proceedings and issuing conflicting proceedings and maintaining records with inconsistent entries.

20. As seen from Ex.B­10, it is page No.16 original resettlement register reveal that land in S.No.177 is classified as “Anaadheenam land”. Ex.A­11 is the equivalent to Ex.B­10. Ex.A­12 is scanned image of FMB in respect of the land in S.No.177 which was issued by Central Survey Office, Hyderabad on 23­ 11­2010 also reveal that it is classified as “Anaadhenam land”. So, Ex.A­10, B­ 10, A­11, A­12 coupled together goes to substantiate the version of D.W­3 that the land in S.No.177 was classified as “Anaadheenam land”. Ex.A­11 is the relevant pages of 16 to 18 in the resettlement register after carrying out modifications in Ex.B­10. In Ex.A­11, the names of Nalluri Venkata Swamy,

Nalluri Guravaiah finds place as pattadars in S.No.177/A and 177/B but those names were struck off. D.W­3 categorically stated in his cross­examination that Ex.B­11 does not reveal who strike off the names of Nalluri Venkata

Swamy and Nalluri Guravaiah at column No.10 and he does not know whether those names were struck off unauthorisedly or by any order of competent authority. However, he stated that unauthorised striking off the names of

Nalluri Venkata Swamy and Nalluri Guravaiah at column No.10 of Ex.B­11 is 12 not valid. Ex.A­17 is copy of Ex.B­11. Ex.B­12 is the page No.183 of

Adangal/Pahani register for fasili 1377. It can be seen from Ex.B­12, the name of Nalluri Dharma Gnani was struck off in respect of the land in S.No.177 and names of Narayana, Sanjeeva Rao, Uppalapati Venkata Ratnam finds place in

Column No.6 of Ex.B­12. Ex.B­13 is the adangal register for fasili 1383. It is in torn condition. The entries in the pages are not visible. Ex.B­14 is the account No.6 for the fasili 1378. It reveals the name of Valluri Dharma Gnana finds place as pattadar in S.No.177/A in respect of Ac.1­64 cents of land. The names of N.Venkata Swamy, N.Satyanandam or the name of U.Raja Ratnam do not find place in Ex.B­14. Ex.B­14 is register for fasili 1378. Ex.B­15 is the adangal register for fasili 1426 in respect of S.No.177. Ex.B­16 is copy of the circular dated 20­10­2016. It reveals that Government issued G.O.Ms.No.164

dated 25­7­1958 in which the Government sanctioned permission for alienation

of assigned lands. Thus, Exs.B­1 to B­16 are giving conflicting views with regard to the possession of the land in S.No.177. It reveals originally it was classified as “Anaadheenam land”, subsequently it was converted into taxable land and the possession also changes from time to time and the names of the pattadars were changed from time to time. Though there is a dispute between the 1st defendant and defendants 2 and 3 with regard to nature of the land and rival claims of the possession of 1st defendant and Government over the land in

S.No.177/A, but in a suit for declaration, it is for the plaintiff to establish his right and title, possession over the schedule property. He cannot depend on the weak defence or rival claims of the defendants. Since the plaintiff is not a party to the W.P.No.4109/2009, he is at liberty to establish his right and title over the schedule property.

21. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself got examined as P.W­1. His evidence in chief goes to reiterate the case of the plaintiff in all aspects. Hence, it is not reproduced. The evidence of P.W­2 who 13 is son of Nalluri Abraham also goes to corroborate the evidence of P.W­1 that the schedule property is part and parcel of land in S.No.177 and the same was allotted to Nalluri Venkata Swamy and his brother. He also got examined one of the neighbour to N.Satyananadam as P.W­3. His evidence also goes to corroborate the evidence of P.W­1 with regard to possession and deriving right from his mother over the schedule property. Ex.A­19 is copy of Aadhar card reveals that P.W­3 is resident of Harijanawada, Kanuru. The plaintiff also got examined a resident of Patamata at P.W­4. His evidence goes to show that one

N.Abraham running a small scale industry unit near NTR circle, Patamata and he also corroborate the evidence of P.W­1 regarding his possession. The plaintiff also relied on Exs.A­1 to A­20 to substantiate his plea.

22. Ex.A­1 is the certified true copy of list of joint pattadars issued by Asst.

Director, Survey & Land Records, Central Survey Office, Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad on 28­5­2010. It reveals the name of one Nalluri Venkata Swamy and Nalluri Guravaiah in respect of the patta No.245. It does not reveal the extent of the land and survey number in respect of which the joint patta was issued. Ex.A­2 is the death certificate of N.Satyanandam issued by Gram

Panchayat, Penamaluru Mandal on 9­4­2011. It reveals that Nalluri

Satyanandam, S/o.Nalluri Venkataswamy was died on 5­6­1969. Ex.A­3 is the death certificate of Komaravalli Kanakamma, W/o.Daniel, R/o.House bearing

D.No.41­29/4­17, Ranigari Thota, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada reveals that she was died on 25­11­2009. It was issued by Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada on 26­10­2010. Ex.A­4 is copy of order of the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Vijayawada dated 1­4­2011. It shows the death of Nalluri Satyanandam,

S/o.Venkata Swamy was not recorded. On the application of the plaintiff, the

Revenue Divisional Officer conducted enquiry and it reveals that the said

Satyanandam was died on 5­6­1969. Ex.A­5 is true copy of certificate issued by Tahsildar, Thotlavalluru on 21­2­2012 stating that one Komaravalli 14

Kanakamma, W/o.Daniel, R/o.South Valluru village of Thotlavalluru Mandal was died on 25­11­2009. The plaintiff is son of said Komaravalli Kanakamma.

Ex.A­6 is ration card in the name of Komaravalli Gopala Rao, S/o.Ramulu (plaintiff). It was issued on 21­8­2006 with his address at the house bearing

D.No.10­102, South Valluru village, Thotlavalluru Mandal. Ex.A­7 is voter identity card in the name of Komaravalli Gopala Rao, S/o.Daniel (plaintiff) issued on 1­1­1995 with the same address of Ex.A­6. Ex.A­8 is endorsement

dated 16­4­2012 issued by Tahsildar, Penamaluru, on the application

submitted by the plaintiff dated 29­2­2012 in respect of Ac.0­84 cents of land in S.No.177­A, stating that the adangal records pertaining to the period of 1955 to 1959 are not available in his office. Ex.A­9 is an endorsement dated 22­9­ 2010 issued by Tahsildar, Penamaluru in respect of requisition for issuing patta in R.S.No.177 of Kanuru in favour of Nalluri Venkata Swamy, Nalluri

Guravaiah during the year 1932, stating that on verification in the office, there was no connected record or pattas available in the office in respect of

R.S.No.177 of Kanuru village. Ex.A­10 is the certified copy of deposition of one

J.Vasantha Rao, D.W­2 in O.S.638/2010. Ex.A­11 is the scanned image of

R.S.R. for the year 1932 issued by Asst. Director, Survey & Land Records,

Central Survey Office, Hyderabad on 23­11­2011. It reveals the land in

S.No.177 is classified as “Anaadheenam”. It does not reveal the name of Nalluri

Venkata Swamy. Ex.A­12 is the scanned image of F.M.B. plan in respect of

R.S.No.177­A issued by Asst. Director, Survey & Land Records, Central Survey

Office, Hyderabad on 23­11­2011. Ex.A­13 is the certified copy of letter dated 16­9­2010 issued by Sub Registrar, Patamata to one Nalluri Abraham, informing him that the land in S.No.177/A3 is poramboke and assigned land.

Hence, requested him to consult with the revenue authorities for registration of the said land. Ex.A­14 is certified copy of letter dated 19­9­2010 addressed by

Tahsildar to Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, stating that on verification 15 of the records the Ac.3­59 cents in R.S.No.177 is classified as “Anaadheenam

Land” and his enquiry further reveals that only daughter of Nalluri

Satyanandam sold away his Ac.0­85 cents of land towards Smt.U.Raja Ratnam in the year 1966 and Late Dharma Gnani sold away his Ac.0­79 cents of land in

R.S.No.177/A3 in the year 1970 to two different persons and he also mentioned the opinion of the Government Pleader in the said letter. Ex.A­15 is copy of

FIR in Cr.No.276/2012 which was registered U/s.145 Cr.P.C. against one

Gottipati Giridhar, Y.Srinivas, Adusumilli Sri Ramarao as ‘A’ group and Nalluri

Abraham as ‘B’ group in respect of land dispute between the two groups. Ex.A­ 16 is the letter addressed by Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City to the

A.P. State Commission for SCs & Sts, Nampally, Hyderabad, informing that on verification of the Tahsildar and Mandal Executive Magistrate, Penamaluru decided that the property belonged to Sri Nalluri Abraham, who is the petitioner in Cr.No.276/2012 U/s.145 Cr.P.C. proceedings. Hence, the proceedings

U/s.145 Cr.P.C. against the respondents are closed. Ex.A­17 is certified copy of R.S.R. of Kanuru, in which the name of one Nalluri Venkata Swamy with patta No.381, Nalluri Guravaiah, patta No.382 were mentioned in column

No.10, in respect of the land in S.No.177 and those names were struck off.

Ex.A­18 is attested copy of Taluk Audit Register of Village Establishment for the year 1969­1970 issued by Tahsildar, Vijayawada Urban. Ex.A­19 is xerox copy of Aadhar card in the name of P.W­3 and Ex.A­20 is endorsement of Tahsildar,

Penamaluru dated 23­9­2015 issued to the Advocate of plaintiff stating that the information of Sri Komaravalli Gopala Rao, who said to have been worked as Village Servant of Kanuru village of Penamaluru in the year 1969­1970 is not available in his office, as the Mandal Revenue Office, Penamaluru was formed in the year 1985.

23. On perusal of Exs.A­1 to A­20, they are going to substantiate the case of the plaintiff that the schedule property is part and parcel of Ac.1­64 cents in 16

S.No.177/A and the same was allotted to Nalluri Venkata Swamy under a joint patta Ex.A­1. The evidence of P.Ws­1 to 3 reveal that said N.Venkata Swamy died leaving behind his three sons N.Satyanandam, N.Bhushanam and N.John.

After demise of N.Venkata Swamy, the properties of N.Venkata Swamy including Ac.1­64 cents of land were partitioned among his three sons. In the said partition Ac.0­84 cents i.e., plaint schedule property herein fell to the share of N.Satyanandam.

24. According to P.W­1, N.Satyanandam is his maternal grandfather. After demise of N.Satyanandam, the schedule property devolved upon his only daughter Komaravalli Kanakamma. The schedule property was under cultivation of N.Satyanandam and Kanakamma. After demise of

N.Satyanandam on 5­6­1969, the daughter of N.Satyanandam who is mother of plaintiff and plaintiff cultivated the schedule property till the establishment of

Jawahar Autonagar.

25. On the other hand, the 1st defendant claiming that out of schedule property Ac.0­66 cents was purchased by his mother under registered sale deed from N.Satyanandam. Since then the mother of 1st defendant and after demise of his mother, the 1st defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0­ 66 cents of land out of the schedule property. Admittedly, the schedule property is a vacant land. There is no piece of paper to show the possession of

N.Satyanadam, K.Kanakamma, plaintiff and 1st defendant over the schedule property. Thus, except the conflicting oral evidence, there is no documentary proof to show the possession of the plaintiff and 1st defendant.

26. With regard to the title of the plaintiff over the schedule property, the plaintiff filed Exs.A­1 to A­19. Ex.A­1 is list of joint pattadars. It reveals the name of N.Venkata Swamy is a joint pattadar. It does not reveal the survey number in respect of which land patta was issued in the name of Venkata 17

Swamy. Ex.A­5 is going to substantiate the version of P.W­1 that one

Komaravalli Kanakamma is mother of plaintiff, who was resident of South

Valluru village of Thotlavalluru Mandal. Exs.A­2 and A­4 are relating to date of death of N.Satyanandam. Ex.A­3 is death certificate of K.Kanakamma. It appears except Ex.A­6, the rest of the documents support the case of the plaintiff that the father name of plaintiff is Daniel and husband of Kanakamma is also Daniel (as per Ex.A­3). Whereas in Ex.A­6 the father name of plaintiff was shown as Ramulu. According to plaintiff, his father name is called as

Daniel @ Ramulu, for which there is no recorded proof. Even it is assumed that the plaintiff is son of Komarvalli Kanakamma, but there is no document to show that Kanakamma is a duaghter of Nalluri Satyanandam.

27. Ex.A­8 is the endorsement issued by Tahsildar stating that the adangal records pertaining to 1955 to 1959 in respect of Ac.0­84 cents of land in

S.No.177/A are not available. Ex.A­9 reveals that on verification of office records, there is no record or patta available in the office in respect of S.No.177 in the name of Nalluri Venkata Swamy and Nalluri Guravaiah. Thus, Exs.A­8 and A­9 are no way helpful to the case of the plaintiff. Exs.A­10 to A­13 reveal the classification of land, which are no way helpful to prove the title of the plaintiff. Ex.A­10 is the deposition of P.W­2 in O.S.638/2010. Unfortunately

Ex.A­10 is marked as a document without examining D.W­2 in O.S.638/2010.

The deposition of living person can be used for limited purpose of corroboration and contradiction, nothing else. Without examination of the author of Ex.A­10, no significance can be attached to Ex.A­10. Ex.A­14 is a letter dated 19­9­ 2010 addressed by Tahsildar to Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, in which he stated that the only daughter of N.Satyanandam sold away his Ac.0­ 85 cents of land to one Uppalapati Raja Ratnam in the year 1966 which is contrary to Ex.B­3. In Ex.B­3, D.W­2 started that N.Satyanandam had no issues. Even it is assumed that N.Satyanandam died leaving behind his 18 daughter (as per Ex.A­12), but Ex.A­14 does not reveal that the daughter of

N.Satyanandam is Kanakamma. Therefore, Ex.A­14 also no way helpful to the case of the plaintiff. Exs.A­15 to A­17 are relating to the litigation in respect of some other land in the same survey number, for which O.S.638/2010 and some others suits are pending. The plaintiff is not a party to O.S.638/2010 and

O.S.276/2012.

28. According to P.W­1, Nalluri Venkata Swamy worked in Penamaluru panchayat. After his demise N.Satyananadam worked as Village Servant. After demise of N.Satyanandam the plaintiff was given the post of Village Servant on compassionate ground, due to old age of his mother, who is daughter of

N.Satyanandam. To substantiate his plea, he relied on Exs.A­18 & 20. Ex.A­18 is the attested copy of Taluk Village Audit for the year 1969­1970 issued by

Tahsildar. At page No.2 of Ex.A­18, the salary for the month of November, 1969 is mentioned but P.W­1 stated in the cross­examination that no order copy was furnished to him about his appointment. There is an endorsement in

Ex.A­18 for want of order at page 2. He also admitted that the Executive Officer is drawing officer in panchayat office. Whereas Ex.A­18 was obtained from

Mandal Revenue Office. He also admitted that there is no documentary proof to show that he was paid salary for a period of 5 months. According to him, he worked for short time and resigned job, for which there is no documentary proof. Ex.A­20 is the endorsement of Tahsildar dated 23­9­2015 issued to the advocate of the plaintiff stating that no record available in the office to show that Gopala Rao who said to have been worked as Village Servant of Kanuru from 1969 to 1970. Thus, there is no piece of paper to show that the plaintiff was given job on compassionate grounds as a legal heir of N.Satyanandam.

Therefore, Exs.A­18 and A­20 are also no way helpful to the case of the plaintiff. Even it assumed that basing on Exs.A­18 and A­20 that the plaintiff worked as Village Servant for some time, I may say mere working as Village 19

Servant for some time did not give presumption that he is a legal heir of

N.Satyanandam. Though P.W­2 stated in his evidence that plaintiff is son of

K.Kanakamma and Kanakamma is daughter of N.Satyanadnam, but he categorically stated that he has no proof to show that Kanakamma is daughter of N.Satyanandam and Ramulu is called as Daniel and that Kanakamma lived with N.Satyanandam till his death and that the plaintiff secured job on compassionate ground due to old age of Kanakamma and that Ac.0­84 cents was devolved on plaintiff and Kanakamma.

29. According to P.W­2, his father obtained for certified copy of joint patta.

P.W­1 Also stated that the father of P.W­2 by name Abraham handed over Ex.A­

1. P.W­2 stated that his father is still alive. So, the father of P.W­2 is the material witness to speak about the Ex.A­1 and other aspects, who is a contemporary to the mother of the plaintiff, but he did not come forward. Thus, the evidence of P.W­2 is no way helpful to the case of the plaintiff. According to

P.W­3, who is neighbour of N.Satyanadanm stated that since marriage of the

K.Daniel @ Ramulu he resided with his wife in the house of N.Sartyanandam as illatom son­in­law. The plaintiff is only son of K.Kanakamma and K.Daniel @

Ramulu. The schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. After death of N.Venkata Swamy, N.Satyanandam inherited to the schedule property and N.Satyanandam and his son­in­law i.e., Daniel @ Ramulu cultivated the schedule property during the period they lived together. The K.Daniel predeceased Nalluri Satyanandam. Since K.Kanakamma and plaintiff resided with N.Satyanandam, the schedule property devolved upon K.Kanakamma after death of N.Satyanandam. He also categorically stated in the cross­examination that the plaintiff used to reside in the house of N.Satyanandam. According to

P.W­3, the father of the plaintiff resided in the house of N.Satyanandam along with Kanakamma as illatom son­in­law till his death. The mother of the plaintiff and plaintiff also resided along with N.Satyanandam after demise of his 20 father and the schedule property was under the cultivation of the plaintiff and his mother and N.Satyanandam. Whereas the Exs.A­5, A­6 and A­7 reveal that the plaintiff is resident of South Valluru village of Thotlavalluru Mandal, whereas N.Satyanandam is resident of Kanuru village. There is no document to show that the plaintiff and his mother Kanakamma had resided in Kanuru village at any time. He categorically stated in the cross­examination at page

No.3 that since last 30 years he has been residing at Thotalvalluru village.

Thus, the evidence of P.W­1 is quite contrary to the evidence of P.W­3 with regard to residence of plaintiff, his mother and father. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that N.Satyanandam was died on 5­6­1969, whereas the mother of the plaintiff was died on 25­11­2009. There is a gap of more than 40 years between the date of death of N.Satyanandam and K.Kanakamma. Then question arises? If really the schedule property devolved upon Kanakamma after demise of Satyanandam as only daughter of N.Satyanandam in the year 1969 her name would have been found place as pattdar, possessor in the revenue records, but there is no single piece of paper to show her name as pattadar or possessor of plaint schedule property. If really she is legal heir of

N.Satyananadam and plaint schedule property has been under cultivation of

Kanakamma and plaintiff since 40 years after demise of N.Satyanandam, what prevented the plaintiff and his mother to mutate her name in the revenue records, what made them to keep quiet for a period of more than 40 years after demise of N.Satyanandam, without mention the name of Kanakamma in the revenue records, for which there is no explanation. Thus, there is no clinching evidence on record to prove that the mother of plaintiff is the only daughter of

N.Satyanandam unless and until the plaintiff is able to establish that his mother is only daughter of N.Satyanandam he cannot claim any right or title over the schedule property as a legal heir N.Satyanandam. As discussed supra, there is no clinching evidence on record to prove that the plaintiff or his 21 motherare legal heirs of N.Satyanandam and they are in possession of the schedule property at any time. When the plaintiff failed to establish that he is legal heir of N.Venkata Swamy and N.Satyanandam, he cannot claim any right over the schedule property. He failed to establish his possession over the plaint schedule property at any time. The law is well settled that the plaintiff, who approached the court for declaration of title, cannot depend on the weak defence of the defendants. Therefore, I find the plaintiff failed to establish his title over the schedule property.

30. The learned counsel for 1st defendant contended that part of the plaint schedule property was purchased by the mother of the 1st defendant under registered sale deed (Ex.A­1) and that as per G.O.Ms.No.1142 dated 18­6­ 1954, the Government sanctioned permission for registration of assigned lands, as such, the 1st defendant is entitled to alienate the schedule property which was assigned to one N.Venkata Swamy prior to 18­6­1954. The learned counsel for 1st defendant also filed Exs.B­17 and B­18 Government Orders and

Circular Orders and also relied on the following decisions: 

1. In the case of A.P.State Electricity Board Employees Union, Madanapalli

Division, rep. by its Divisional Secretary Vs. Joint Collector, Chittoor and others reported in 2008 (4) ALT 638

2. In the case of Nuthakki Venkata Purnachandra Rao Vs. Government of

Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration and others reported in 2015 (4) ALT 175

3. In the case of Kommineni Mohan Naidu and another Vs. The State of A.P., rep. by the District Registrar, Chittoor District, Chittoor and two others in

W.P.No.34149/2012

4. In the case of D.Koti Reddy Vs. M/s.Auriferous Aqua Farms in Company

Application Nop.1528/2011

5. In the case of Sukhavasi Basavaramaiah Vs. The State of A.P., rep. by its

Principal Secretary, Revenue (Assn.I) Department and others in

W.P.M.P.No.52138/2017 in W.P.No.42035/2017 22

31. On the other hand, the learned Addl.Govt. Pleader contended that the schedule property is a Government land. It cannot be alienated, as such, the 1st defendant is not entitled to claim any right in the Government land. It has been in the possession of Government. The plaintiff failed to establish that he is legal heir of N.Satyanandam, as such, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are not entitled to claim any right or possession over the schedule property. 

32. On the other hand, the learned counsel for plaintiff contended that the defendants are colluded together and fabricated the entries in the revenue records in favour of the 1st defendant. The originally patta in the name of

N.Venkata Swamy goes to substantiate the case of the plaintiff that N.Venkata

Swamy is the pattadar of the schedule property and the documents filed by the plaintiff reveals that he is legal heir of said N.Venkata Swamy, as such, he is entitled to ask for declaration as prayed for.

33. As discussed supra, the plaintiff failed to establish that he is legal heir of N.Venkata Swamy or N.Satyanandam and he got any right or interest, possession over the schedule property. When the plaintiff failed to establish that he is legal heir of N.Venkata Swamy or N.Satyanandam, the question of seeking for declaration that he is absolute owner of the schedule property does not arise. With regard to right and possession of the 1st defendant over the schedule property and plea of the Government with regard to dis­entitlement of the 1st defendant under the provisions of A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of

Transfers) Act 1977 and possession of the Government etc., the Writ Petition

No.4091/2009 has been pending on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. When the plaintiff failed to establish his right over the plaint schedule property, the rights of the defendants inter se do not come within the scope of this suit, since litigation in W.P.No.4091/2009 has been pending between the 1st defendant and Government on the file of Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the 23 decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for 1st defendant have no application to the facts of the instant case.

34. In view of the above discussion, I find the plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement to ask for declaration as prayed for. Accordingly, the issue is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

35. ISSUE No.2:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

As discussed supra, the plaintiff failed to establish his right, interest and possession over the schedule property. When the plaintiff has no right, interest and possession over the schedule property, the question of infringement of his right and interference of his possession and protection of his possession does not arise. Therefore, I find the plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement to ask for permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, the issue is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

36.ISSUE No.3: To what relief?

In view of the above discussion in issues No.1 and 2, I find the plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement to ask for declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly the issue is answered. 

37. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs. 

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 23rd day of August, 2018.

XIV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF

24

PW1: G.Pitchamma

PW2: G.Suresh

PW3: Ch.Mohan Reddy

FOR DEFENDANTS

DW1: K.Pradeep

DW2: K.Srinivasa Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A­1/28­05­2010: Certified true copy of list of joint pattadars issued by Asst. Director, Survey & Land Records, Central Survey Office, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 

Ex.A­2/09­04­2011: Death certificate of N.Satyanandam issued by Gram Panchayat, Penamaluru Mandal

Ex.A­3/26­10­2010: Death certificate of Komaravalli Kanakamma, W/o.Daniel, issued by Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada. 

Ex.A­4/01­04­2011: Copy of order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada dated 1­4­2011.

Ex.A­5/21­02­2012: True copy of certificate issued by Tahsildar, Thotlavalluru

Ex.A­6/21­08­2006: Ration card in the name of Komaravalli Gopala Rao, S/o.Ramulu (plaintiff)

Ex.A­7/01­01­1995: Voter identity card in the name of Komaravalli Gopala Rao, S/o.Daniel (plaintiff)

Ex.A­8/16­02­2012: Endorsement issued by Tahsildar, Penamaluru, on the application submitted by the plaintiff dated 29­2­2012 in respect of Ac.0­84 cents of land in S.No.177­A

Ex.A­9/22­09­2010: Endorsement issued by Tahsildar, Penamaluru in respect of requisition for issuing patta in R.S.No.177 of Kanuru in favour of Nalluri Venkata Swamy, Nalluri Guravaiah during the year 1932.

Ex.A­10/Certified copy of deposition of one J.Vasantha Rao, D.W­2 in

O.S.638/2010.

Ex.A­11/23­11­2011: Scanned image of R.S.R. for the year 1932 issued by Asst. Director, Survey & Land Records, Central Survey Office, Hyderabad 

Ex.A­12/23­11­2011: Scanned image of F.M.B. plan in respect of R.S.No.177­A issued by Asst. Director, Survey & Land Records, Central Survey Office, Hyderabad

Ex.A­13/16­09­2010: Certified copy of letter issued by Sub Registrar, Patamata to one Nalluri Abraham

Ex.A­14/19­09­2010: Certified copy of letter addressed by Tahsildar to Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada

Ex.A­15/Copy of FIR in Cr.No.276/2012 which was registered U/s.145 Cr.P.C. against one Gottipati Giridhar, Y.Srinivas, Adusumilli Sri Ramarao as ‘A’ group 25 and Nalluri Abraham as ‘B’ group in respect of land dispute between the two groups.

Ex.A­16/Letter addressed by Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City to the A.P. State Commission for SCs & Sts, Nampally, Hyderabad

Ex.A­17/Certified copy of R.S.R. of Kanuru

Ex.A­18/Attested copy of Taluk Audit Register of Village Establishment for the year 1969­1970 issued by Tahsildar, Vijayawada Urban.

Ex.A­19/Xerox copy of Aadhar card in the name of P.W­3

Ex.A­20/23­09­2012: Endorsement of Tahsildar, Penamaluru issued to the Advocate of plaintiff.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

Ex.B­1/07­09­1966: Certified copy of sale deed executed by one Nalluri Satyanandam, S/o.Abraham and his wife Nalluri Rattamma in favour of Uppalapati Raja Ratnam in respect of Ac.0­66 cents of land in S.No.177­A

Ex.B­2/ True copy of counter filed by the 3rd defendant herein in W.P.No.4091/2009 on the file of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

Ex.B­3/17­12­2016: Xerox true copy of panchanama without date issued under Right to Information Act

Ex.B­4/17­05­1999: Attested copy of sale deed executed by the sons of Koneru Krishna Murthy namely Baburao, Purnachandra Rao in favour of Uppalapati Raja Ratnam, W/o.Venkata Ratnam, in respect of 571 sq. yards site in R.S.No.176/1.

Ex.B­5/01­02­2007: Letter addressed by Sub Collector to the District Collector, Krishna

Ex.B­6/16­08­2007: Copy of letter addressed by the Tahsildar, Penamaluru to Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada 

Ex.B­7/19­04­2008: Copy of letter of District Collector, Krishna addressed to the Sub Collector, Vijayawada 

Ex.B­8/Letter of 1st defendant addressed to the Sub Collector under Right to Information Act 

Ex.B­9/True copy of order in W.P.M.P.No.5344/2009 in W.P.No.4091/2009 on the file of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

Ex.B­10/Relevant page No.16 in original Re Settlement Register (R.S.R) of Kanuru village, Penamaluru Mandal

Ex.B­11/ Relevant page No.16 to 18 of the attested xerox copy of Re Settlement Register (R.S.R) after carrying out modification in Ex.B­10

Ex.B­12/Account No.6 for fasili 1378 

Ex.B­13/Adangal pahani register for fasili 1383 (1973­1974) which is passed on white paper due to torn condition relating to S.No.177 26

Ex.B­14/Account No.6 for the fasili 1378

Ex.B­15/Copy of online Adangal Register for fasili 1426 relating to 

Ex.B­16/20­10­2016: Copy of the circular without attestation of signature (subject to objection).

XIV A.D.J., VJA.­