G.kabardhi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE::

GOOTY.

Present : Sri G. KABARDHI VI Additional District Judge, Gooty.

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2023

Appeal Suit No. 5 of 2020

Between :

1. Dr.Vaddi Nagendra S/o V. Chinna Kondaiah, Hindu, Age 53 years, Medical Practitioner, D.No.7-1378, Tadipatri Road, Gooty, Anantapuram District.

2. Varra Venugopal S/o V. Veeraiah, Hindu, Age 45 years, Business, Buggan palli Village, Bethemcherla Mandal, Kurnool District.… Appellants /Plaintiffs.

And

1. Tadimarri Abdul Kareem S/o T. Khaseem Sab, Muslim, Age 55 Years, Business, D.No.10-788, Cherlopalli, Gooty post, Anantapuramu District.

2. Abkari Mahammed Rafeeq s/o Imam Hussian, age 48 years, Muslim, Business, Ward No.3, Kamatam street, Gooty Post, Ananthapuramu District.

3. Banala Rameswara Reddy s/o Banala Jayarami Reddy, Hindu, Age 45 years, Business, Ward No.10, Cherlopalli, Gooty Post, Anantapuram District.

4. Mala Venkata Rangaiah S/o Mala Nadipenna, Hindu, Age 80 years, Dependent, Ward No.7, Church Road, Gooty, Gooty Mandal, Anantapuram District.… Respondents/ Defendants

Appeal filed against the Decree and Judgment of the Senior Civil

Judge, Gooty passed in O.S.No.158 of 2009, dated 28.10.2019 made

Between :

1. Dr.V.Nagendra

2. Varra Venugopal …Plaintiffs

And

1. Tadimani Abdul Kareem

2. Abkari Mahammad Rafeeq

3. Banala Rameswara Reddy

4. Mala Venkata Ramaiah …Defendants 2

This Appeal Suit coming on 30.01.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Venkata Reddy, Sri G. Sreekanth Reddy, Advocates

for Appellants / Plaintiffs and of Sri Y.A. Kabir, Advocate for

Respondent/Defendant No.1 and of Sri R. Rama Gopal, Advocate for

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and on hearing both sides and on perusal of record, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This is an Appeal filed against the Decree and Judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gooty in O.S.No.158 of 2009 dated 28.10.2019, where under the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of right and title and consequential relief for permanent injunction was dismissed. Against which, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also prayed for declaration of two sale deeds dated 25.06.2004, executed by D-4 in favour of D-5 and sale deed dt.17.08.2009 executed by

D-1 in favour of D-2 and D-3 are void and unenforceable document and consequentially order for cancellation.

2. The brief averments of the plaint that the plaint schedule properties are originally belong to the families of O.Anasuyamma, O.Sreeramulu,

O.Kodandaramaiah and the same is subject matter of the suit in

O.S.No.16/1944 on the file of District Munisif, Gooty, and a preliminarily

decree for partition was passed on 31.01.1945 and there-after a final decree was passed on 24.02.1949. As per the said preliminary and final decrees, the suit schedule properties were allotted to O.Anasuyamma and others. The said Anasuyamma and her family members alone have right, title, interest and possession over the said property and the same were allotted to

Anasuyamma and her sisters, Kodandaramappa, O.Basaiah, O.Vannappa and

O.Sreeramulu who is son of Vannappa. The said Sreeramulu died leaving behind Rajasree, O. Nirmala, O. Gopinath Gowd and one O. Mahesh Gowd as his legal heirs. Kondanda Ramaiah is also no more leaving behind one 3

O. Bakthavatsalam as his legal heirs. Basaiah is also no more and that he bequeathed all his properties to his nephew Mula Vijaya Bhaskar, Advocate,

Hyderabad. Thus, Anasuyamma , Bakthavatsalam, Rajasree, Nirmala

Gopinath Gowd and Mahesh Gowd are the lawful and rightful owners of the suit schedule properties and they conveyed the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs by executing Registered Sale deed in their favour on 22.10.2008.

The plaint schedule properties are not cultivable lands, they are lying waste lands, that due to expansion of Gooty Town the said lands have assured importance due to proximity.

(i) The plaintiffs purchased the suit schedule properties under

Registered Sale deed on 22.08.2008 from the rightful owners and delivered the possession of the plaintiffs and as such they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. While so, in the month of June 2009 the plaintiffs learnt that the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant executed by D.4 and the same was created and brought in to existence with a mala fide intention to grab the property by the 1st defendant. But 4th defendant is not having any title and possession and D.4 is not related to the family of the vendors of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs got issued legal notice to

D.1 to get the sale deed cancelled obtained by him, but a false reply was given with false allegations. In spite of receiving the notice by D.1 in the month of June 2009, he executed sale deed in respect of the property purchased by him in favour of D.2 and D.3 on 17.8.2009 and the same is a collusive one and it is not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence the suit.

3. The Defendant No.1 filed Written Statement denying the allegations mentioned in the plaint and further averred that an extent of

Ac.0.26 cents in Sy.No.363-1 and other lands in other Survey numbers which all together comprises to an extent of Ac.3.42 cents belongs to the predecessors of the vendors of the defendant and they enjoyed the same 4 without any interruption or objection from any person and as such the vendor of D.1 is absolute owner of the land of an extent of Ac.0.26 cents which is part of the suit schedule property. It is also further averred that that the suit schedule property is no way related to the vendors of the plaintiffs.

4.The Defendant No.2 filed a separate written statement stating that Defendant No.1 purchased the Ac.0.26 cents of land in Sy.No.363-1 and in other survey numbers from Defendant No.4, who has absolute right, title and possession over the suit property. The vendors of the plaintiffs have no right to seek cancellation of the sale deeds obtained by Defendant No.1 from

Defendant No.4 and also the sale deed obtained by him and Defendant No.3 from Defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 adopted the written statement of

Defendant No.2

5.In the trial court at the first instance D-4 died, but no steps have been taken by the parties in this case during this appeal. So the suit against

D-4 is abated.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial :

(1)Whether the plaint schedule property was allotted to the vendors of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.16/1944 on the file of District Munsif, Gooty?

(2)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title over the plaint schedule property?

(3)Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

(4)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to consequential permanent injunction as prayed for?

(5)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration that the sale deed dt.25.6.2004 executed by the 4th defendant in favour of 1st defendant as void as prayed for?

5 (6)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration that the sale deed dt.17.8.200 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd and 3rddefendants as void as prayed for?

(7)To what relief.

7.On behalf of the plaintiffs, PW.1 to PW.4 are examined and Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.9 are marked. On behalf of the Defendants, D.W.1 to DW.4 are examined and Exs.B-1 to B-7 are marked.

8. The trial court after going through the evidence so adduced by both parties, dismissed the suit. Against which, the present appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs on the following grounds that, the learned trial court judge failed to note that defendants have not produced any documentary evidence or oral evidence in support of the title of Defendant No.4, who conveyed the property to Defendant No.1 and the learned judge failed to note that though

Dws.1 to 3 in their evidence have stated that there is documentary evidence in their possession proving title of the 4th defendant and have not filed any documents taking said fact into consideration the learned judge ought to have drawn adverse inference and suit ought to have been decreed. The learned Magistrate failed to note that it is in the evidence of Mahesh Gowd that Bhakthavatsalam is the son of Kodanda Ramaiah and same was not denied in his cross examination and taking said fact into consideration the learned judge ought to have held that Bhakthavatsalam is the son of

Kodanda Ramaiah. The learned judge failed to note that the defendants in their written statements nor evidence have not questioned Subdivision of

S.No.363-1 and its extent and other particulars and in the absence of any denial from the side of the defendants, the learned judge erred in going to said facts which were not denied or discussed in pleadings and the learned

judge erred in coming to conclusion that plaintiffs have not proved

Subdivision and extents. The findings of the learned judge that Anasuyamma 6 alone has got salable interest and others have no interest is erroneous and is not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and the said finding of the learned judge is liable to be set aside and the suit ought to have been decreed. The learned judge grossly erred in not discussing and considering the evidence let in on the side of the defendants to know the fact whether

Defendant Nos.2 and 3 had acquired right in Sy.No.363-1 by purchasing from 1st defendant, who purchased it from Defendant No.4. It is the basis duty of the trial court to consider and discuss the evidence let in by both the parties and decide the issue. The learned judge failed to note that it is true that the burden is on plaintiff to prove title by adducing proper and necessary evidence it support of case, but the court cannot shut its eyes to the case pleaded by the defendants and whether same is true or not. Had the trial court considered and evaluated evidence let in by both sides judiciously, the lower court ought to have decreed the suit. The learned judge failed to note that the documents filed by the plaintiffs are clear and categorical that suit land is the property of the family of plaintiffs vendors, who are Ediga by caste and 4th defendant who is a Mala has absolutely no right in S.No.363-1 and sale deed executed by him in favour of 1" defendant is only created for land grabbing and taking said facts into consideration the learned judge ought to have decreed the suit and finally prayed to allow the appeal.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of their

title over the suit property? Whether the plaintiffs are entitled

for consequential permanent injunction as prayed for or not?

2. Whether there is necessity to interfere with the findings given by the lower court or not?

10. Points:- In the trial court the 1st plaintiff V. Nagendra is examined as PW.1 and he filed his affidavit in chief reiterating the plaint averments 7 initially Exs.A-1 to A-6 documents are marked through the evidence of PW.1.

subsequently after the cross-examination PW.1 was recalled and again

Exs.A-7 to A-9 are marked. In the cross-examination of Defendant No.1, the plaintiffs deposed that the suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.361/1 to an extent of Ac1.12 cents, out of which he purchased 1 acre. He has no exact idea of the boundaries of his land. He further deposed that he purchased the suit schedule property on 25.10.2008 from Anasuyamma,

Baktavastalam, Rajaswari, Mahesh Gowd, Gopinath and Vijaya Bhaskar.

Before purchase he enquired into the title of his vendors and he also further

deposed that he has gone through the Decree in O.S.16/1944 under which his vendors got the property. He deposed that he do not know about the sale of Ac.0.26 cents of land in Sy.No.363/1 to the 1st defendant by the 4th defendant in the year 2004 under a registered sale deed. But he came know about the above said fact in the year 2009. Then he got issued a legal notice to D4 intimating that the sale made by him infavour of 1st defendant in relation to Ac.0-26 cents of land is not valid. Later he came to know that on the date of issuance of legal notice, D4 is no more. He know that D-4 was no more. In O.S.16/1944, one O. Narayanaswamy was the plaintiff and on his death, his daughters Anasuyamma, Jayamma and Kousalyamma were added as L.Rs of original plaintiff Narayanaswamy. The said Narayanaswamy filed the suit in O.S.16/1984 taking partition against his father and brothers. His vendors are O. Rajesri, Nirmala, Gopinath Gowd and Mahesh Gowd, who are grand children of 2nd defendant and other vendors Baktavastalam who is son of D3/Kodandaramappa and Vijayabhaskar is son of O.Basappa. D8 and

Anasuyamma is one of the daughter's of original plaintiffs Narayanappa. The plaintiffs in O.S.16/1944 together was allotted 1/22nd share in Sy.No.363 of

Gooty village. In the final decree, the Plot No.1 was allotted to the plaintiffs towards their 1/22nd share. He deposed that he do not know about the particulars of the plots allotted to the other defendants in the suit, as well as 8 final decree. He do not know the total extent of land in Sy.No.363. He denied the suggestion that the suit schedule property is no way related to the property which D-1 purchased from D-4 and that the boundaries mentioned in the schedule are speculative nature and they are not in existence. He denied the suggestion that D4 was in possession and enjoyment of land in

Sy.No.363-1 to an extent of Ac.0-26 cents as absolute owner and that his vendors have no right over the extent of Ac.0-26 cents. During the cross- examination of D-3 and D-4 he deposed that he do not know the exact boundaries mentioned in Ex.A2 sale deed. The survey numbers mentioned in

Ex.A2 sale deed is entitled different to that of survey number covered in the suit property. He deposed that he also purchased some other property in

Sy.No.372/1, 365/B and also in another survey number which he do not recollect under a different sale deed. He got surveyed his land though a private surveyor, but not through a government surveyor and he filed the survey report prepared by private surveyor in this suit. He deposed that he do not know whether D1 obtained pattadar pass book in pursuant of Ex.A1 sale deed or not. He denied the suggestion that he was aware of obtaining pattadar pass book by D-1. He denied the suggestion that D2 and D3 purchased property from D1 under Ex.A2 after verifying the revenue records and now they are in possession of the land covered under Ex.A1. During further cross-examination by D-1 he deposed that nothing was mentioned in the plaint with reference to Exs.A-7 to A-9 and No boundaries were mentioned to the properties to the covered under E.xA-8 and A9 and he do not know the total extent of land in Sy.No.363 and when it was subdivided.

11.PW.2 A. Sree Hari, who is third party to the suit deposed that he was present at the time when the plaintiffs paid the consideration to the vendors on 22.10.2008. He also signed as attestor in Ex.A-6. While coming to the cross-examination he deposed that the suit schedule property is situated 9 in Survey number 363/1 of Gooty and he has no agricultural land adjacent to suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was fell to the share of

Anasuyamma and her 2 sisters pursuant to the decree in O.S. No.16/1944. At present the lands situated in and around over the suit schedule property were converted in to house plots. At present the suit schedule property is a valuable property. He denied the suggestion that in order to grab the same,

Ex.A-6 is created. He did not mediate between plaintiffs and Anasuyamma with regard to the sale transactions covered under Ex.A6. The rest of the cross-examination is with full of denial of suggestions.

12.O. Mahesh Gowd, who is related to the vendors of the plaintiffs got mentioned in the affidavit that on 22.10.2008, he himself, his two sisters

Rajasree and Nirmala and his brother Gopinath, O. Bhakthavatslam,

Anasuyamma and M. Vijaya Bhaskar, representing O.Basappa conveyed one acre out of A.1-12 cents in Sy.No.363-1 of Gooty village for valid consideration to Dr.Nagendra and Venugopal. They all executed registered sale deed in his favour. It is Ex.A1. They delivered possession and Mala

Venkata Rangalah has no right or title to Sy.no.363-1 and the said

Sy.No.363-1 is their family property belonging to Ediga people and Mala people and Mala Venkata Rangaiah has no manner of interest or right in the property. While coming to the cross-examination he deposed that he executed the registered sale deed infavour of plaintiffs on 22.10.2008 in respect of land, but he can not say the boundaries of the said land. On the date of execution of Ex.A6, he has no knowledge about selling of Ac.0-26 cents of land in the above said survey number by Defendant No.4 to

Defendant No.1 under Ex.A-1. He has not filed any document to prove the genealogical relationship as shown in para 3 of his chief affidavit. The total extent of land in Sy.No.363 is Ac1.12 cents and that the above extent of land was partitioned pursuant to the decree in O.S 16/1944. He denied the 10 suggestion that on the date of filling of the suit the land in Sy.No.363 was not divided and that the total extent of land in the Survey number is above more than 4 acres of land. He denied the suggestion that the land possessed and owned by D4 to an extent of Ac.0-26 cents in Sy.No.363 is not subject matter in O.S.16/1944. He is the legal heir of Nagappa. He deposed that he has no knowledge about the mutation of D-1 pursuant to Ex.A1. The rest of the cross-examination is with full of denial of suggestions.

13.PW.4 G. Nagappa filed his affidavit in chief he got mentioned in the chief affidavit that Oruganti Chakrapani was having land and vacant sites in Gooty Town. While coming to the cross-examination he deposed that he do not know who are the plaintiffs and defendants and the nature of the relief sought for in the present suit and also the survey numbers and boundaries of the suit land. He deposed that he do not know whether

Chakrapani had rights over the suit lands or not. He has no lands adjacent to the suit lands. He deposed that he came to court today with PW.2 in relation to this case. The plaintiffs did not ask him to give evidence. The rest of the cross-examination is with full of denial of suggestions.

14.The 1st defendant in the suit T. Abdul Kareem filed his affidavit n chief reiterating the written statement averments. When coming to the cross-examination he deposed that he know the vendor Defendant No.4 from the date of purchase of the suit schedule property on 25.6.2004. The father

D4 is one Nadipanna and they belong to Mala community. On the date of purchase of Ac.3.42 cents on 25.06.2004 it is a barren land. He purchased the same for Rs.85,500/-. As per Ex.A-1 sale deed he purchased the land in suit survey number 363-1 i.e., Ac.0.26 cents, out of Ac.1.12 cents. No boundaries were mentioned in respect of said 26 cents of land. No boundaries were mentioned to the properties covered in various survey numbers which he purchased under Ex.A1. His vendor D4 had shown 11 pattadar pass books only but not any Registered Sale deeds. He deposed that his vendor informed him that the properties covered under Ex.A1 were inherited by him from his parents. The names of the father of his vendor or his vendor are not mentioned in any Revenue records. He deposed that he do not know the total extent of land in Sy.No.363, when it was subdivided and what are the subdivision numbers and the names of other owners, who purchased the remaining extent of land in Sy.No.363-1. He further deposed that he received legal notice under Ex.A3 from the plaintiff prior to filling of the suit. Two months there-after he sold the some of the properties covered under Ex.A1 to D2 and he informed D2 about Ex.A3 notice. He deposed that he do not know the vendors of the plaintiff. The rest of the cross-examination is with full of denial of suggestions.

15.The 3rd defendant is examined as DW.2 by name B. Rameswar

Reddy and he filed his affidavit in chief reiterating the written statement averments through him Exs.B-1 to B-4 documents are marked. While coming to the cross-examination by the plaintiff he deposed that he himself and 2nd defendant jointly purchased property covered under Ex.B.1. The total extent of land in Sy.No.363-1 is Ac.0.26 cents. There are no separate boundaries for the extent of land of Ac.0.26 cents. The survey numbers of the property covered under Ex.B.1 are 362, 363 and 365 and it was sub-divisions. He deposed that he did not perused the title deeds of D.4. D.1 obtained pass book basing on the sale deed which he obtained from D.4. He has no acquaintance with him, but he do not know about his native place of D-4. He deposed that he did not enquired D.4 as to how he got title over the suit schedule properties. He deposed that he has not seen the adangals standing in the name of D.4. No revenue records are standing in the name of D.4. He deposed that he know the plaintiff No.1 filed a copy of record of holdings in the present suit, but he do not know about other documents filed by the 12 plaintiffs. He deposed that two months after issuance of the notice by the plaintiff to D.1, they have purchased the suit schedule property from him.

They are not aware of the legal notice said to have been issued by the plaintiffs to D.1. They came to know about the legal notice, after they purchased the suit schedule property. He deposed that after receiving legal notice from the plaintiffs, they enquired D.1 about the dispute for which D-1 informed him and D.2 that he has sufficient documents to show that the suit schedule property belongs to D.4. He admitted that in Ex.B.1 or in the sale deed executed in favour of D.1 by D.4, the source of title of vendors was not mentioned. The rest of the cross-examination is with full of denial of suggestions.

16.DW.3 A. Mahammad Rafiq 2nd defendant filed his affidavit in chief in supporting the case of Defendant No.3 and in supporting the written statement averments through him Exs.B-5 to B-7 documents are marked.

While coming to the cross-examination he deposed that neither himself nor

DW.2 collected link documents from D4. They have not filed any document relating to ownership and possession of the suit schedule property of an extent of 26 cents standing in the name of D4. He deposed that even on the date of purchasing the property by them from D1, no pass book was issued in the name of D1. He deposed that he do not know D4 and he do not know about the nature of the documents on which the plaintiffs relied on. He do not know from whom the plaintiffs purchased the property. He do not know about issuance of legal notice by the plaintiffs to the D1 under Ex.A3. The rest of the cross-examination is with full of denial of suggestions.

17.DW.4 by name L. Ismail, who is the third party filed his affidavit in chief stating that the 4th defendant is the rightful owner having legal right in Sy.No.363-1 to an extent of Ac.0-26 cents. The 1st defendant has every right and un-questionable title to the property which he can validly convey to 13 others. While coming to the cross-examination he deposed that he is a license contractor of Gooty Municipality. For the last 4 years he is working as a contractor. He came to court at the request of D2 and D3, who are his friends. The suit schedule property is located behind Rice mill on Gooty

Ananthapuramu road and it is in Sy.No.363/1. The total extent of land in

Survey number is Ac.3.42 cents and it belongs to D1, who has obtained the sale deed from D4. He deposed that he was present when D1 purchased 26 cents of land. D4 sold 26 cents of land to D1. He deposed that he do not know when D1 purchased the land from D4. He has not seen pass books of

D1 and D4. Except the document under which, D1 purchased the property from D4, no other document were shown to D2 and D3 by D1 while offering the suit schedule property to them. He do not know the boundaries of the suit schedule property, so also he is not attestor to any of the documents of

D-2 and D-3. The rest of the documents is with full of denial of suggestions.

18.The real dispute is only for Ac.0-26 cents. Ex.B-1 is the sale deed

dated 17.08.2009 executed in favour of Defendant Nos.2 and 3 and Ex.A-2

are one and the same. Exs.B-2 to B-7 are the pattadar pass book of

Defendant Nos.2 and 3, 1-B adangals of Defendant Nos.2 and 3. But those documents are obtained after filing of the suit in pursuance of Ex.B-1 sale deed and that too no documents or revenue records evidencing the right and title of the 4th defendant, who conveyed the suit land to the 1st defendant was filed.

19.The trial court discussed and held in Para Nos.32 to 35 of the

Judgment while discussing the Issue No.6 that “except pleading’s that his vendor / Defendant No.4 has right over the suit schedule properties and other lands covered under Ex.A-1. No document is filed to show that his vendor had salable interest over lands purchased under Ex.A-1 and also failed to show that D-4 or his parents were ever in possession of Ac.0-26 14 cents in Sy.No.363-1. Therefore it is held that D1 failed to prove that his vendor has salable interest in respect of Ac.0-26 cents of land in Sy.No.

363-1”. D2 and D3 failed to prove that his vendors vendor had salable right over 0-26 cents of land in Sy.No.363, no title could be conveyed to D1 under

Ex-A1 sale deed in respect of 0-26 cents of land, he cannot convey better title to D2 and D3. Merely because D2 purchased 0-26 cents of land covered under Ex-B1 and obtained pattadar pass book, 1-B Register and adangals they would not acquire any title over 0-26 cents of land as they failed to prove that their vendor's vendor had any right over suit schedule properties.

Therefore it is held that D4 had no right and title over 0-26 cents of land and as such he cannot convey any title to D1 and consequently D1 cannot convey better title to D2 and D3"

20.The categorical finding of the trial court that defendant No.4 had conveyed Ac.0-26 cents in Sy.No.363-1 has no title and his vendors namely

D1 to D3 will not acquire any legal title to the said Ac.0-26 cents is based on oral and documentary evidence on record and the said finding of the lower court is not challenged or questioned by respondents, thereby the said finding is binding on respondents. PW.3 Mahesh Gowd, who is a member of the family has spoken about the genealogy which is supported by Ex.A-5 i.e.,

Certified copy of suit Register where the father’s name of the parties to the suit are mentioned and also recitals in Ex.A-6 sale deed.

21.As per Ex-A7 Register of Holdings Vannurappagari Oruganti

Nagappa, paternal grandfather of plaintiffs vendors is the owner pattadar of land in Sy.No.363 which is Ac.4-08 cents in extent. It is also pertinent to note that as per Ex-A5 suit register extract of O.S.16/1944 Sy.No.363 is in extent of Ac.4-08 cents was one of the items of suit in O.S.16/1944 which was filed by Oruganti Narayanaswamy against his father Nagappa brothers, sister and

Junior paternal uncle Mallappa, for partition and separate possession of his 15 1/22 share in suit properties. After death of Narayanswamy, his three daughters Jayamma, Anasuyamma and Kousalyamma came on record as plaintiffs in O.S.16/1944 and it is also in evidence that Jayamma and

Kausalyamma predeceased Anasuyamma and they were unmarried. It is also in evidence by date of Ex-A6 sale deed Dt.22.10.2008, except Anasuyamma, her two sisters were not alive. It may kindly be noted that parties to the suit

O.S.16/1944 are Ediga by caste. Defendant No.4 in this suit Mala Venkata

Rangaiah is a Mala (S.C.Community) by caste. There is no relationship of any kind in between parties to suit O.S.16/1944 and Mala Venkata Rangaiah

Defendant No.4. Defendant No.11 in O.S.16/1944 is Moola Venkata Rangaiah son of Venkata Swamy. Whereas defendant No.4 in the present suit is Mala

Venkata Rangaiah Son of Nadipenna. So, both are different. So, it is very clear from suit register and RH, Exs.A5 and A7, Suit and Sy.No.363 to an extent of Ac.4-08 cents is the property of Oruganti Mallappa family.

Defendant no.4 has no manner of relationship with Oruganti family or right in any portion of Sy.No.363. As per said crucial documents including Ex-A9 sale deed Dt.16.08.1948 Sy.No.363 in its total extent of A.4-08 cents was the family property of Oruganti Mallappa. Under Ex-A9 sale deed, Oruganti

Mallappa, younger brother of Oruganti Nagappa has under said sale deed

Dt.16.08.1948 conveyed his ½ share in all suit properties including

Sy.No.363 to Oruganti Chakrapani Son of Nagappa. This sale was after preliminary decree in O.S.16/1944. Recitals in Ex-A9 makes it clear as mention of O.S.16/44 is made in said Ex-A9. It was suggested to Pw.3

Mahesh Gowd in cross examination that 0-26 cents of land in Sy.No.363 was in possession of D4 and mutations were effected in his name and he denied it. Such mutations and evidence of possession of defendant No.4 were not produced. The other important suggestion to Pw.3 is that land owned and possessed by D4 in an extent of 0-26 cents in Sy.No.363 is not subject matter of O.S.16/1944. The total extent Sy.No.363 is Ac.4-08 cents as per 16

Register of Holdings Ex-A7 and as per Ex-A5 suit register extract. Entire extent of land is subject matter in O.S.16/1994 which suit was in between family members Oruganti Vannappa and preliminary and final decree were passed to said extent. Said suggestions of defendants to PW.3 has no basis and by such suggestions they probabilised the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.4 has no land in sy.No.363. It is pertinent to note that though plaintiffs have purchased under Ex-A6 an extent of A.1-00, subject matter of present suit is only Ac.0-26 cents conveyed by defendant No.4 in Sy.No.363- 1 to the 1st defendant. So, plaintiffs by exhibiting Exs-A5, A7, A8 and A9 have proved beyond doubt that Sy.No.363 to an extent of A.4-08 cents is the property of the family of plaintiffs vendors.

22.On the other hand plaintiff has placed unimpeachable evidence on his side to prove that Sy.No.363 to an extent of Ac.4-08 cents is the ancestral property of plaintiffs vendors. The trial court has overlooked this important aspect of the case. Though it is undisputed that in a suit for

Declaration of Title the burden is solely on the plaintiff to prove the case set up by him and he cannot depend on the weakness of the defendants case, as held in the decision reported in 2013 (4) ALD 374, "While considering merits of plaintiffs case, court need not shut its eyes to demenits in defendants case". If the above principle of Law laid down by the Hon'ble High court of

A.P, it is a case where plaintiffs not only on the strength of their case, but also on the weakness of the defendants case, is entitled to decree as prayed by them. The lower court erred in not properly appreciating the plaintiffs case.

23.The parties to suit in O.S.16/1944 are all brothers. Nagappa and

Mallappa are sons of Vannurappa. So each of them has half share. Ex-A9 sale deed dated executed by Mallappa and his sons in favour of Oruganti

Chakrapani makes it clear that in said decree in O.S.16/1944 in Mallappa got 17 half share. In the remaining half share of Nagappa, his five sons born to first wife and four sons born to second wife have equal share when plaintiffs in

O.S.16/1944 were allotted 1/22 share naturally the other sons of Nagappa

also get 1/22 share. So, sale deed Ex-A6 Dt.22.10.2008 was executed in favour of plaintiffs in this suit by Anasuyamma, only surviving plaintiff in

O.S.16/1944, and legal heirs of defendants 2,3 and 8 in O.S.16/44. So, each

of them has 1/22 share on par with plaintiffs in O.S.16/1944, they being brothers of original plaintiff, Narayanaswamy. So, all of them have conveyed

Ac.1-00 out of Ac.1-12 cents. The 1st defendant in O.S.16/1944 by name

Nagappa died. After his death his sons inherit his share also. So, executants of Ex-A6 have right to convey Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.363/1 to plaintiffs. Share of 1st defendant in O.S.16/44 in Sy.No.363 is A.2-04 cents and to his brother

Mallappa, defendant No.10 in O.S.16/1944 has half share. In the share of 1st defendant in O.S.1/44, his sons by both wives have share. Legal heirs of 1st defendant’s first wife in O.S.16/44 have executed sale deed in favour of plaintiffs. It at all anybody has to object or any claims in Sy.No.363/1 is defendants 4 to 7 who are children of second wife of Nagappa, 1st defendant in O.S.16/1944. There is no claim or any objection from them. So, observations of the learned judge that Anasuyamma, plaintiff in O.S.16/1944 has only 0-18 cents and how she could execute sale deed for 0-26 cents is erroneous and said observation in the judgment is overlooking evidence available on record.

24.In this case the petition under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C is filed vide

I.A.1380/2022 to receive documents such as Certified Copy of registered gift deed dated 28.10.1955 executed by Basayya in favour of Jayamma and also

E.C from 01.01.1956 to 17.10.1922 in respect of Sy.No.363. The gift deed which is filed as additional evidence clearly shows 1/22 share in the lands in

Sy.No.362 (Ac.1-93 cents), Sy.No.363 (Ac.4-08 cents), Sy.No.365 (Ac.1-76 18 cents) were gifted. The said Basappa, who is also called as Basayya is D-8 in

O.S.16/1944. By virtue of the said gift deed Jayamma and her sisters have

2/22 share equally to 0-33 nps. If the gift taken is into consideration, then

Anasuyamma will have Ac.0-29 cents in Sy.No.363/1. So Anasuyamma has right over Ac.0-37 cents. The observation of the trial court that Anasuyamma is not having Ac.0-26 cents and she is having only Ac.0-18 cents is not correct.

25.In view of the above discussion, the trial court misread the evidence and suit ought to have been decreed, thus the Judgment of the trial court is liable to be set aside.

26.In the result, the appeal is allowed without costs by setting aside the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial court, declaring the right and title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and also granted permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and also declared that two sale deed dated 25.06.2004 executed by Defendant No.4 in favour of Defendant No.1 vide document No.1007/2004 and sale deed dated 17.08.2009 executed by

Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant Nos.2 and 3 vide document

No.1729/2009 are not binding on the plaintiffs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- G. Kabardhi.

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

GOOTY.

Appendix of evidence 19

NIL

Sd/- G. Kabardhi.

VI ADJ.

20

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GOOTY.

Present : Sri G. KABARDHI, Chairman-cum-VI Addl. District Judge.

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2023

M.V.O.P. No.64/2021

Between :

1. Ulindala Latha W/o Late U. Narayana Reddy, age 27 years, Hindu, House Wife.

2. Ulindala Chandra Harshavardhan Reddy son of Late U. Narayana Reddy, Age 10 years, student, Hindu,

3. Ulindala Chandra Lekha D/o. Late U. Narayana Reddy, age 8 years, Student, Hindu.

(P.2 & P.3 are minors. Rep. by their mother and guardian P.1), (Residing at D. No. 2/25, Venkata Reddy Palli Village, Tadipathri Mandal, Anantapur Dist. …Petitioners.

A n d

1. Adi Reddy Tata Rao son of Appanna, Major, Hindu, Owner of Tanker vehicle bearing No. AP-37-TE-1639, Resident of D. NO. 1-257, Mokkathota, Chitrada, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari Dist. A.P-533450. (Owner of the crime vehicle),

2. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Ins. Co, Ltd, O/o Door No. 4-383, Bhupal Complex, Park Road, Kurnool Town - 518001, (Insurer of the Crime Vehicle), vide policy No.462503/31/2020/2946, valid from 29.01.2200 to 28.01.2021.

3. N. Sathi Babu son of Papa Rao, Major, Hindu, Driver Residing at Door No. 4-76-b, Chandrampalem, Madiga Peta, Samalkot, East Godavari Dist- 533450. (Driver of Crime vehicle),

4. Ulindala Saraswathi wife of late Subbi Reddy, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Residing at Door No. 1-610-2, CPI Colony, Tadipathri Rural, Anantapur Dist. (mother of the deceased).…Respondents.

This petition coming on 17.03.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Chenna Reddy, Sri R. Harinath Reddy, Advocates for Petitioners and of Sri M.V. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and of Sri Shaik Habibullah, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and of Sri B. Obula Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.3 remained exparte and upon hearing both sides and on perusing the record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

2

A W A R D

1.The petitioners being legal heirs of deceased Late Ulindala Narayana

Reddy filed this petition under sections 140 and 166 of A.P Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules claiming compensation of

Rs.50,00,000/- from the respondents. The deceased Late Ulindala Narayana is aged about 35 years having lorries and doing transport business and getting Rs.50,000/- per month.

2.The brief averments of the petition is that, on 11.12.2020 at about night hours the deceased and his relatives by names Soma Sekhar reddy and

Bhaskar Reddy were took the Bolero vehicle bearing No. AP-02-AF-9045 of

Viswanath Reddy and they left Tadipatri Town with intention to go to

Mangaluru, Karnataka state to attend the death ceremony of Adinarayana who is the driver of Soma Sekhar Reddy. On 12.12.2020 at about night hours all they were returning back in the same vehicle from Mangaluru to

Tadipathri town, while on the mid way on 13.12.2020 at about 6.30 A.M when they reached near Chinnam Palli village cross on Kalyanadurg to

Anantapur road, in the mean time the offending Tanker vehicle bearing No.

AP37-TE-1639 came from Anantapur side in a rash and negligent manner drove by it's driver and over take it's ahead vehicle and dashed against the

Bolero vehicle. As a result of which the said U. Narayana Reddy and other in mates received grievous and simple injuries. Somebody informed the same to 108 ambulance. Later the ambulance came and took all the injured and shifted to Government General Hospital, Anantapur for medical treatment.

Where the injured U. Narayana Reddy took treatment for few hours, there- after he was shifted to KIMS Saveera Hospital, Anantapur for better treatment. Due to the said accident he sustained multiple injuries on his face, both hands, right leg knee and also simple injuries over the body. On the advice of the duty doctors the injured was shifted Bangalore for better 3 treatment in a private ambulance and on the way the injured died at

Kodikonda Check post. After that the dead body was brought to Government

General Hospital, Anantapur for post mortem. After that the police gave a requisition to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. In the said accident the injured Soma Sekhar Reddy also died and the Bolero vehicle is also badly damaged. The cause of accident has been occurred due to the sole negligence on the part of the Tanker vehicle driver only. It is further averred that due to the sudden demise of the deceased, all the petitioners have lost their love and affection, and also lost their better future prospects and also financial support. During the life time of deceased U.

Narayana Reddy, he was also regular income tax payer and also best cultivator till his death and he was getting monthly earning an amount of Rs.

50,000/- and all the petitioners are suffering a lot day today life. On the report given, the police have registered a case Cr.No 354/20 U/Secs.337 and 304-A IPC against the driver of the tanker. All the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the petition.

3.The 1st respondent filed the counter stating that the 3rd respondent is the driver of the Tanker bearing No.AP-37-TE-1639 and he is having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and there was no negligence on his part at the time of accident. The policy was in force at the time of accident and the 1st respondent being owner of said tanker is also not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners and 4th respondent who is mother of the deceased. It is further averred that there is no negligence on the part of the driver i.e. 3rd respondent herein and there is contributory negligence on the part of driver Belero vehicle also. The petitioners did not add the insurance company of the Bolero vehicle. Hence, this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The accident is caused due to 4 negligence driving of the driver of the Bolero and finally prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4.The 2nd respondent filed counter stating that the accident was purely caused due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the Bolero vehicle.

Source of income was invented for the purpose of this claim. The claim made by the petitioner is excessive and he took all the pleas which are available and finally prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5.The 4th respondent is none other than the mother of the deceased. She almost supports the case of the petitioner.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial :

(1)Whether the accident is caused by the driver of Bolero Vehicle bearing No.AP-02-AF-9045 of the Tanker Lorry bearing No.AP-37-TE-1639?

(2)What is the Just compensation?

(3)To what relief?

7.On behalf of the Petitioners, PWs.1 to 4 are examined and Exs.A.1 to

A.7 are marked, besides Exs.X-1 to X-8 are marked through PWs.3 and 4. On behalf of respondents, none were examined and Ex.B-1 is marked through consent.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Issues No.1:-

The 1st petitioner by name U. Latha is examined as PW.1 and she filed her affidavit in chief reiterating the petition averments, through her Exs.A-1 to A-7 documents are marked. While coming to the cross-examination she deposed that she is not eye witness to the accident and she denied the suggestion that the accident took place because of the negligence of the 5 driver of the Bolero Vehicle, but not on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

10.PW.2 Chinthala Palli Bhaskar Reddy, who is the eye witness to the accident deposed about witnessing the accident. While coming to the cross- examination he deposed that he is the owner-cum-driver of the Lorry AP 02

TE 4473 and on the date of accident he is the driver of Bolero bearing and while they are returning from Mangalore to Tadipatri, this accident took place on 13.12.2020 at 6:30 am. When they reached Chennampalli cross on

Kalyandur - Ananthapuramu road at that time the Tanker Lorry bearing No.

AP 37 TE 1639 dashed to their Bolero on that this accident took place. Then he himself and two others received injuries and they were shifted to hospital.

11.PW.3 S. Suresh Reddy, working as Income Tax Inspector deposed about

Exs.X-1 to X-4 are I.T returns.

12.PW.4 G. Siva Sankar is working as Administrative Officer, R.T.O Office,

Ananthapruamu deposed that the deceased was having three heavy vehicles. All the vehicles are under finance.

13.It is known principle that the object of compensation is “to place the claimants or legal heirs of the deceased in the motor accidents to the extent possible in the same original position”. The loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed to golden scales. Bodily injury may lead to loss of earning capacity, depriving mental pleasure, causing physical hardship, diminishing marriage prospects, curtailing social movements, reducing recognition and impairing of normal expectation of life. Compensation in terms of money can never place the victim to the pre-accident position and status. Compensation should be reasonable, fair and practical. But it should not be a windfall or bonanza nor a source of profit nor a pittance. There cannot be a straight jacket formula or mathematical equation. It should assessed by rational 6 approach, and not be an outcome of whims and wild guesses, equitable, fair and reasonable edifice that minimizes the component of arbitrariness vide

Judgments (1) Kerala Transport Corporation Vs Susma Thomas (1994) 2

S.C.C. 176. (2) U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Triloc Chandra (1996) 4 S.C.C. 362 (3) C.

Rebello Vs Maharastra St. Rd. Tr. Corp. AIR 1998 S.C. 3191 (4) State of

Haryana Vs Jasbir Kaur, AIR 2003 S.C. 3696 (5) K.S.R.T C. Vs Mahadevsetty (2003) 7 S.C.C. 197 (6) Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi. Tr. Corporation (2009) 6

S.C.C. 121 and (7) Arunkumar Agarwala Vs National Insurance Co., (2010) 9

S.C.C. 218.

In the citation, in Vimala Devi and others Vs., National Insurance

company Ltd., and others., in Civil Appeal No. 11042/2018 (arising

out of SLP.(c) No. 17321 of 2016 dated: 06-11-2018, the Apex Court, at para 16 held that:

“At the out set, we may re-iterate has been consistently said by this court in a serious of cases, that the act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of motor accident, who suffer bodily injury or die ultimately. The act is designed in a manner, which relieves the victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in the law, which are otherwise, applicable to the suits and other proceedings while prosecuting the claim petition filed under the act for claiming compensation for the loss sustained by them in the accident”.

14.In National Insurance company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 SCC 680, the apex court held that while determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased, towards future prospects where the deceased had permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was 7 between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. “Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax”.

15. In the said citation it was also held further that “ In case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation.”

16.Inview of the evidence of PW.2 coupled with criminal records, it is clear that the accident was took due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, thereby the petitioners and R-4, who are dependents on the deceased are entitled for claiming compensation.

17.Issue No.2 What is the Just compensation:- It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased U. Narayana Reddy was doing transport business and also doing agriculture and he was getting Rs.50,000/- per month and he is income tax assesse. To prove the same the petitioners examined PWs.3 and 4. PW.3 is the Income Tax Inspector. PW.4 is the

Administrative Officer, who deposed that the deceased was having three heavy goods lorries, which shows that the deceased did transport business.

The deceased is aged about 35 years, thereby the multiplier that can be applied as per Sarla Varmas case is ‘16’. In the instant case, the deceased was Private Employee and age 35 years and thereby, an addition of 40% of actual monthly income is entitled towards future prospects. According to the evidence of PW.3 the Income of the deceased for the financial year 2019-20 is Rs.2,86,740/-. So, the monthly income of the deceased can be taken as

Rs.23,895/- (Rs.23,895 x 40% (future prospects) = Rs.9,558), thereby

Rs.23,895 + 9,558 = Rs,33,453. 1/4 of his salary is to be deducted towards personal expenses is Rs.33,453 x 1/4 = Rs.8,363/- (i.e., Rs.33,453 – Rs.8,363 8 = Rs.25,090). The multiplier that can be applied as ‘16’. Therefore,

Rs.25,090 x 12 x 16 = Rs.48,17,280/-. As per Pranay Sethi, the Apex Court also held that the said sum should be enhanced at the rate of 10% every three years. It was held thus, the Judgment in Pranay Sethi was rendered in 2017. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for 10% enhancement. The petitioners are entitled towards funeral expenses of Rs.16,500/-(Rs.15,000/- + Rs.1500/-) and Rs.44,000/- (Rs.40,000/-+ Rs.4,000/-) towards loss of consortium.

(1)Compensation towards Loss of earning,Rs.48,17,280-00 future earnings, loss of dependency and loss to the estate, love and affection and mental agony. (2)CompensationtowardsfuneralRs.16,500-00 expenses. (3)Compensationtowards lossofRs.44,000-00 consortium. TotalRs.48,77,780-00

Thus, the petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of

Rs. 48,77,780-00.

18.Issue No.3 :-

In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs by granting the following reliefs:

1) The Respondent No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of Rs.48,77,780/- to the petitioners and

Respondent No.4.

2) The petitioners and R-4 are entitled to interest at 6% p.a on the amount awarded from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

3) The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the amount awarded within a period of three months from the date of this order, failing which the respondents are liable to pay the penal interest at 9% per annum.

4) The Petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum Rs.18,77,780/- in the

Awarded compensation amount and after deposit of the said 9 amount the Petitioner No.1 is entitled to withdraw a sum of

Rs.10,77,780/- along with interest and costs and the remaining balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in any national Bank for a period of three years;

5) The Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for a sum Rs.12,50,000/- each in the Awarded compensation amount. The entire amount of

Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 i.e., Rs.25,00,000-00 shall be deposited in any nationalized bank as fixed deposit until they attain majority and the Petitioner No.1 is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued once in a year on the Fixed Deposit to spend the same for legal necessities of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

6) The Respondent No.4 is entitled for a sum Rs.5,00,000/- in the

Awarded compensation amount and after deposit of the said amount the Respondent No.4 is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount.

7) The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

8) The petitioners are not entitled for any interest for a period where the petition was dismissed for default and till it was restored, if any.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- G. Kabardhi.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT0 GOOTY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioners Respondents

PW.1 U. Latha.NIL PW.2 Chinthala Palli Bhaskar Reddy. PW.3 S. Suresh Reddy. PW.4 G. Siva Sankar.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.A1:Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.354/2020, Ananthapuramu Rural Ps Ex.A2:Attested copy of Inquest report Ex.A3:Attested copy of PM report Ex.A4:Attested copy of MVI report Ex.A5:Attested copy of Charge sheet 10

Ex.A6:Income tax assessee statement of the deceased, three in number Ex.A7:RC extracts of vehicles of the deceased, three in number

Ex.X-1 : Authorization given by the Income Tax Officer. Ex.X-2 : IT returns for the year 2017-18. Ex.X-3 : IT returns for the year 2018-19. Ex.X-4 : IT returns for the year 2019-20. Ex.X-5 : Authorization given by PW.4. Ex.X-6 to : Vehicle particulars of the deceased. Ex.X-8

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

--

Sd/- G. Kabardhi.

CHAIRMAN

MACT-cum-VI ADJ, GOOTY.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GOOTY.

Present : Sri G. KABARDHI, Chairman-cum-VI Addl. District Judge.

Friday, the 21st day of April, 2023

M.V.O.P. No.10/2021

Between :

Janga Ramacharan Reddy S/o. Late Janga Thimmareddy, Hindu, Aged about 14 years, Student, Minor son of the deceased, Residing at D.No.17/111, O.C Colony, Pinnepalli Village, Yadiki Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

(Petitioner is minor, Rep. by his Maternal Uncle as Guardian and N.F by name Orekanti Subba Reddy S/o. Orekanti Lakshmireddy, Hindu, Aged about 28 years, Cultivation, Residing at D.No 17/111, O.C. Colony, Pinnepalli Village, Yadiki Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.…Petitioner.

A n d 1)Mudimala Thimma Reddy son of Mudimala Peeda Madhi Reddy, Hindu, Aged 30 years, Driver-cum-Transport business, Residing at O.C.Colony, Utakallu Village, Gooty Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist. (Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 21 TY 2229).

2) Mudimala Thimma Reddy son of Mudimala Peeda Madhi Reddy Hindu, Aged 30 years Driver cum Transport business, Residing at O.C.Colony, Utakallu Village, Gooty Mandal, Ananthapuramu District (Owner of Lorry bearing No. AP 21 TY 2229).

3) The National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Off. 13-3-276, 1st Floor, Railway Feeder Road, Anantapuramu Town and Dist. (Insurer of the Lorry bearing No. AP 21 TY 2229 and its Insurance Policy No.552300311910002888 and valid up to 27.01.2021).…Respondents.

This petition coming on 17.03.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.V. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri G. Seetharama Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being called absent and set exparte and upon hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

A W A R D

1.The petitioner being legal heir of deceased J. Jyothi filed this petition under sections 140 and 166 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of

A.P.M.V. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the 2 respondents. The deceased Late J. Jyothi is aged about 35 years, running

Kirana Kirana Shop at Pinnepalli Village and getting a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, who is no other than the mother of the minor petitioner and sister of the guardian.

2.The brief averments of the petition is that on 23.11.2020 at about 1:30 PM, the deceased and her brother O. Subba Reddy i.e., the guardian to the minor petitioner were returning in a motor cycle to Pinnepalli Village from Rayalacheruvu village after completion of their Bank work, at that time the deceased was the pillion rider and the Subba Reddy was riding the motor cycle on the extreme left side of the road, slowly and carefully and when the said motor cycle was reached near Peddapeta Link road near powder factory, at that time a lorry bearing No. AP 21 TY 2229, driven by its driver i.e. 1st respondent in high speed, in a rash, negligent and in zig zag manner and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result the Subba Reddy and deceased fell down from the motor cycle and the said Subba Reddy received grievous injuries all over the body and deceased Janga Jyothi died on the spot. Immediately the injured Subba Reddy was shifted to KIMS

Hospital, Ananthapuramu and the dead body of the deceased was shifted to

Government Hospital, Gooty were autopsy was conducted. The guardian of the minor spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of the dead body and for funeral expenses. The accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry and a case in Cr.No. 320/2020 of Yadiki P.S is registered against the driver of Lorry bearing No AP 21 TY 2229 under section 304-A IPC. The 1st respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is owner of the Lorry and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the

Lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner 3

3.In this case Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were exparte. Whereas

Respondent No.3 alone filed counter denying all the allegations mentioned in the petition and further averred that the negligence is on the part of the driver of the bike, but not on the part of driver of offending vehicle and the

Insurance Company took all legal pleas which are available to them and it is also further averred that O. Subba Reddy, who is acting as a guardian is not having any valid driving license to drive the vehicle, thus the Insurance

Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial :

(1)Whether the accident is occurred due to sheer negligence of rider of the Motor Cycle O. Subba Reddy or on the part of the driver of Lorry?

(2)Whether is the petition bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e., owner and Insurer of the motor cycle bearing No.AP-39-AZ-3511?

(3)Whether the claim made by the petitioner is excessive or not?

(4)To what relief?

5.On behalf of the Petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to

A.6 are marked. On behalf of respondents, none were examined and Ex.B-1 policy is marked through consent.

6.Heard arguments on both sides.

7.Issue Nos.1 and 2:-

The petitioner’s guardian O. Subba Reddy, who is the rider of the motor cycle at the time of accident filed his affidavit in chief reiterating the petition averments, through him Exs.A-1 to A-6 documents are marked. While coming to the cross-examination he deposed that he did not filed any documentary proof to show that the deceased was running Kirana shop and cultivating the lands and getting Rs.15,000/- per month. His brother-in-law died in the 4 year 2010. At the time of accident he is riding the motor cycle. He is having driving license, but he did not produce any driving license. He denied the suggestion that he is not having driving license, because of his negligence only this accident took place. He also further denied the suggestion that in order to get compensation he managed the police and got implicated the crime vehicle in this case. The rest of the cross-examination is with full of denial of suggestions.

8.PW.2 J. Ramachandran Reddy, who is the minor petitioner, who is studying 10th Class deposed about knowing the accident and also deposed that he is living with his maternal uncle O. Subba Reddy. During his cross- examination he deposed that his father has no brothers and sisters. His mother has only one younger brother i.e PW.1. Except PW.1 he has no other relatives.

9.It is known principle that the object of compensation is “to place the claimants or legal heirs of the deceased in the motor accidents to the extent possible in the same original position”. The loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed to golden scales. Bodily injury may lead to loss of earning capacity, depriving mental pleasure, causing physical hardship, diminishing marriage prospects, curtailing social movements, reducing recognition and impairing of normal expectation of life. Compensation in terms of money can never place the victim to the pre-accident position and status. Compensation should be reasonable, fair and practical. But it should not be a windfall or bonanza nor a source of profit nor a pittance. There cannot be a straight jacket formula or mathematical equation. It should assessed by rational approach, and not be an outcome of whims and wild guesses, equitable, fair and reasonable edifice that minimizes the component of arbitrariness vide

Judgments (1) Kerala Transport Corporation Vs Susma Thomas (1994) 2

S.C.C. 176. (2) U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Triloc Chandra (1996) 4 S.C.C. 362 (3) C.

5

Rebello Vs Maharastra St. Rd. Tr. Corp. AIR 1998 S.C. 3191 (4) State of

Haryana Vs Jasbir Kaur, AIR 2003 S.C. 3696 (5) K.S.R.T C. Vs Mahadevsetty (2003) 7 S.C.C. 197 (6) Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi. Tr. Corporation (2009) 6

S.C.C. 121 and (7) Arunkumar Agarwala Vs National Insurance Co., (2010) 9

S.C.C. 218.

In the citation, in Vimala Devi and others Vs., National Insurance

company Ltd., and others., in Civil Appeal No. 11042/2018 (arising

out of SLP.(c) No. 17321 of 2016 dated: 06-11-2018, the Apex Court, at para 16 held that:

“At the out set, we may re-iterate has been consistently said by this court in a serious of cases, that the act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of motor accident, who suffer bodily injury or die ultimately. The act is designed in a manner, which relieves the victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in the law, which are otherwise, applicable to the suits and other proceedings while prosecuting the claim petition filed under the act for claiming compensation for the loss sustained by them in the accident”.

10.In National Insurance company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 SCC 680, the apex court held that while determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased, towards future prospects where the deceased had permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. “Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax”.

11. In the said citation it was also held further that “ In case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 6 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation.”

12.The petitioner is minor boy studying 10th Class, aged about 14 years.

He has no parents, his father died in the year 2010. His mother died in this accident. His father has no brothers and sisters and his mother is having only one brother i.e., PW.1, O. Subba Reddy, who is guardian with whom the minor petitioner is staying with him. This is very pitiable situation for the minor. The evidence of PW.1, who is the injured and eye witness in this case and coupled with crime records goes to show that because of the negligence of the driver of the vehicle, this accident took place and in that accident the deceased was died, thereby the petitioner, who is dependent is entitled for compensation.

13.Issue No.3 What is the Just compensation:- According to the petition averments the deceased was running Kirana Shop and getting

Rs.20,000/- per month and she is also having Pan Card. Except pan card, no other documentary evidence is filed by the petitioner to show that the deceased is running Kirana Shop and getting Rs.20,000/- per month, but she was having about 35 years. No documentary proof is filed about the income of the deceased. She is aged about 35 years. The multiplier is ‘16’. Since no income proof is filed by the petitioner, so the notional income is to be taken as Rs.6,000/- per month as per Pranay Sethi’s case. In the instant case, the deceased was self employed and age 35 years, and thereby, an addition of 40% of actual monthly income of his is entitled by the petitioner towards future prospects. So, the monthly income of the deceased can be taken as

Rs.8,400/- i.e., (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2,400). 1/3 of his income is deducted towards personal expenses is Rs.8,400 x 1/3 = Rs.2,800/-, then it comes to

Rs.8,400 – Rs.2,800 = Rs.5,600. The deceased is aged about 35 years. The 7 multiplier that can be applied as ‘16’. Therefore, Rs.5,600 x 12 x 16 =

Rs.10,75,200/-. As per Pranay Sethi, the Apex Court also held that the said sum should be enhanced at the rate of 10% every three years. It was held thus, the Judgment in Pranay Sethi was rendered in 2017. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for 10% enhancement. The petitioners are entitled towards funeral expenses of Rs.16,500/-(Rs.15,000/- + Rs.1500/-) and

Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges.

(1)Compensation towards Loss of earning,Rs.10,75,200-00 future earnings, loss of dependency and loss to the estate, love and affection and mental agony. (2)CompensationtowardsfuneralRs.16,500-00 expenses. (3)Compensation towards transportingRs.10,000-00 charges TotalRs.11,01,700-00

Thus, the petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of

Rs.11,01,700/-.

14.Issue No.4 :-

In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs by granting the following reliefs:

1) The Respondent No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of Rs.11,01,700/- to the petitioners.

2) The petitioner is entitled to interest at 6% p.a on the amount awarded from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

3) The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the amount awarded within a period of three months from the date of this order, failing which the respondents are liable to pay the penal interest at 9% per annum.

4) The entire amount of Petitioner shall be deposited in any nationalized bank as fixed deposit until he attain majority and the

Guardian O. Subba Reddy is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued once in a year on the Fixed Deposit to spend the same for legal necessities of Petitioner.

5) The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

8

6) The petitioner is not entitled for any interest for a period where the petition was dismissed for default and till it was restored, if any.

7) That at the time of filing petition, a Court Fee was exempted under

Rule 475 (2) of APMV Rules. The office is directed to prepare the

Decree only after payment of Court fee by the Petitioner. The petitioner is directed to pay the court fee within one week.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 21st day of April, 2023.

Sd/- G. Kabardhi.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT0 GOOTY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioners Respondents

PW.1 O. Subba Reddy.NIL PW.2 J. Ramachandran Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.A1:Attested true copy of the FIR with complaint dated 23.11.2020. Ex.A2:Attested true copy of the Post Mortem report, dated 24.11.2020. Ex.A3:Attested true copy of the inquest report, dt.24.11.2020. Ex.A4:Attested true copy of M.V report. Ex.A5:Attested copy of the charge sheet. Ex.A6:Attested copy of PAN Card of the deceased.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.B1 : Copy of Insurance Policy.

Sd/- G. Kabardhi.

CHAIRMAN

MACT-cum-VI ADJ, GOOTY.

9

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GOOTY.

Present : Sri G. KABARDHI, Chairman-cum-VI Addl. District Judge.

Friday, the 21st day of April, 2023

M.V.O.P. No.72/2022

Between :

1) Tirumala Rajeswari wife of Late Tirumala Rama Krishna, Hindu, Age 35 years, House wife, Wife of the deceased.

2) Tirumala Dharmateja son of Late Tirumala Rama Krishna, Hindu, Age 11 years, Student, Son of the deceased.

3) Tirumala Sunkamma wife of Late Tirumala Ramudu, Hindu, Age 72 years, Dependent, Mother of the deceased. …Petitioners.

A n d

1) Dabbala Shiva son of Dabbala Nagaraju Alias S. Nagaraju, Age 30 years, Hindu, Tractor Driver, Resident at D.No 7-771, Tadipatri Road, Gooty Town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist. (Driver of the Tractor bearing No AP 02 TH 3080).

2) Bedala Venkataramudu son of Late Bedala Laxmanna, Hindu, Aged 50 years, Contractor, Owner of the Tractor, Residing at D.No.3-53, B.C Colony, Vannedoddi Village, Gooty Mandal and Ananthapuramu Dist. - 515401. AP (Owner of the Tractor bearing No.AP 02 TH 3080).

3) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, D.No. F6 Fourth, The Land mark Sampath Vinayak Temple Road, Vishakaptnam 530003 (Insurer of the Tractor bearing No AP 02 TH 3080 and its Insurance Policy No.3008/225439044/00/000 and valid up to 19.08.2022. …Respondents.

This petition coming on 11.04.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.V. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate for Petitioners and

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 remained exparte and upon hearing petitioners side and on perusing the record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

A W A R D

1.The petitioners being legal heirs of deceased Tirumala Ramakrishna filed this petition under sections 140 and 166 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 2 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules claiming compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents.

2.The brief averments of the petition is that, the deceased by name

Tirumala Ramakrishna Alias Alebadu Ramakrishna son of Late Tirumala,

Ramudu was hale and healthy and aged about 33 years and he was having agriculture land to an extent of AC 2-08 cents and he was personally cultivating the said land and he used to get income of Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum through the Agricultural land and he was also having she buffalos and supplying the milk to the Hotels, restaurants, and getting Rs.1,50,000/- per annum through the said business. Thus in all the deceased was used to get 2,50,000/- per annum. On 13.07.2022 at about 4.30 PM when the deceased was going in his motor cycle bearing No.AP-21-BT-8843 from Gooty to

Tradipatri on the left side of the road by following vehicular traffic rules and when he reached near Sri Krishna Temple at that time a Tractor bearing

No.AP-02-TH-3080 came from Tadipatri side, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, in high speed, zig zag manner and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased received severe bleeding injuries on his head and all over the body and died on the spot. The dead body was shifted to Community Heath Center, Gooty where duty doctor conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. The accident was occurred only due to negligence of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is the Insurer, thus all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

3.In this case the notices were served to R-1 to R-3. R-1 to R-3 set exparte, as they did not appear before this court even after receiving notices sent by this court.

3

4.On behalf of the Petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A.1 to

A.8 are marked.

5.Since the respondents were exparte only the point which is to be decided by this court is what is the Just compensation.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If So and how much compensation?

7.Point:-

On behalf of petitioners, 1st petitioner T. Rajeswari the wife of the deceased is examined as PW.1, she filed her affidavit in chief reiterating the petition averments, through her Exs.A-1 to A-8 documents are marked. Ex.

A-1 is Attested true copy of F.I.R. Ex.A-2 is Attested true copy of the Inquest report. Ex.A-3 Attested true copy of Post Mortem report. Ex.A-4 Attested true copy of M.V.I Report. Ex.A-5 is Attested true copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.A-6 is

Attested true copy of Study Certificate of deceased. Ex.A-7 is Original e-seva copy of 1-B Namuna (ROR) of deceased land. Ex.A-8 Attested pattadar pass book.

8.PW.2 G. Naga Seshu, who is eye witness in this case filed his affidavit in chief and narrated how the accident took place in his affidavit and the affidavit filed by PW.2 goes to show that because of the negligence of 1st respondent only this accident took place, thereby the petitioners are entitled for compensation. In order to establish the Income of the deceased, the petitioners relied on e-seva copy of 1-B Namuna and also the attested copies of Pattadar pass books, which shows that the deceased used to cultivate the agricultural land, having Ac.2-08 cents in Sy.No.142/2 which is a dry land.

The pattadar pass book also clearly established the same. Thus the deceased used to do the agricultural work. Even though in the petition it is averred that the deceased used to get Rs.2,50,000/- per annum by doing 4 agricultural and also by selling the milk, but there is no proof has been filed

before this court. Thereby as he was having agricultural lands to an extent of

Ac.2-08 cents and thus atleast Rs.1,00,000/- income per annum has to be taken into consideration. The deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of accident. The multiplier that can be applied is ‘16’.

9.It is known principle that the object of compensation is “to place the claimants or legal heirs of the deceased in the motor accidents to the extent possible in the same original position”. The loss of limbs or life can hardly be weighed to golden scales. Bodily injury may lead to loss of earning capacity, depriving mental pleasure, causing physical hardship, diminishing marriage prospects, curtailing social movements, reducing recognition and impairing of normal expectation of life. Compensation in terms of money can never place the victim to the pre-accident position and status. Compensation should be reasonable, fair and practical. But it should not be a windfall or bonanza nor a source of profit nor a pittance. There cannot be a straight jacket formula or mathematical equation. It should assessed by rational approach, and not be an outcome of whims and wild guesses, equitable, fair and reasonable edifice that minimizes the component of arbitrariness vide

Judgments (1) Kerala Transport Corporation Vs Susma Thomas (1994) 2

S.C.C. 176. (2) U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Triloc Chandra (1996) 4 S.C.C. 362 (3) C.

Rebello Vs Maharastra St. Rd. Tr. Corp. AIR 1998 S.C. 3191 (4) State of

Haryana Vs Jasbir Kaur, AIR 2003 S.C. 3696 (5) K.S.R.T C. Vs Mahadevsetty (2003) 7 S.C.C. 197 (6) Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi. Tr. Corporation (2009) 6

S.C.C. 121 and (7) Arunkumar Agarwala Vs National Insurance Co., (2010) 9

S.C.C. 218.

In the citation, in Vimala Devi and others Vs., National Insurance

company Ltd., and others., in Civil Appeal No. 11042/2018 (arising

5 out of SLP.(c) No. 17321 of 2016 dated: 06-11-2018, the Apex Court, at para 16 held that:

“At the out set, we may re-iterate has been consistently said by this court in a serious of cases, that the act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of motor accident, who suffer bodily injury or die ultimately. The act is designed in a manner, which relieves the victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in the law, which are otherwise, applicable to the suits and other proceedings while prosecuting the claim petition filed under the act for claiming compensation for the loss sustained by them in the accident”.

10.In National Insurance company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 SCC 680, the apex court held that while determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased, towards future prospects where the deceased had permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. “Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax”.

11. In the said citation it was also held further that “ In case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation.”

12.In the instant case, the deceased was self employed and age 33 years, and thereby, an addition of 40% of actual monthly income of his is entitled by the petitioners towards future prospects. So, the monthly income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.8,330 (1,00,000 / 12 =8330). Rs.8,330 x 40% = 6

Rs.3,332 (Rs.8,330 + Rs.3,332 = Rs.11,662). 1/3rd of his salary is deducted towards personal expenses is Rs.11,662 x 1/3 = Rs.3,887/- i.e., Rs.11,662 –

Rs.3,887 = Rs.7,775. The deceased is aged about 33 years. The multiplier that can be applied as ‘16’. Therefore, Rs.7,775 x 12 x 16 = Rs.14,92,800/-.

As per Pranay Sethi, the Apex Court also held that the said sum should be enhanced at the rate of 10% every three years. It was held thus, the

Judgment in Pranay Sethi was rendered in 2017. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for 10% enhancement. The petitioners are entitled towards funeral expenses of Rs.16,500/- (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.1500/- and Rs.44,000/- (Rs.40,000/-+ Rs.4,000/-) towards loss of consortium.

(1)Compensation towards Loss of earning,Rs.14,92,800-00 future earnings, loss of dependency and loss to the estate, love and affection and mental agony. (2)CompensationtowardsfuneralRs.16,500-00 expenses. (3)Compensationtowards lossofRs.44,000-00 consortium. TotalRs.15,53,300-00

Thus, the petitioners are entitled for a total compensation of

Rs. 15,53,300-00.

13.In the result, the petition is allowed with costs by granting the following reliefs::

1) The Respondent No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of Rs. 15,53,300-00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty

Three thousand Three hundred only) to the petitioners.

2) The petitioners are entitled to interest at 6% p.a on the amount awarded from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

3) The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the amount awarded within a period of three months from the date of this order, failing which the respondents are liable to pay the penal interest at 9% per annum.

7

4) The Petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum Rs.6,53,300/- in the

Awarded compensation amount and after deposit of the said amount the Petitioner No.1 is entitled to withdraw a sum of

Rs.3,53,300/- along with interest and costs and the remaining balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in any national Bank for a period of three years;

5) The entire amount of Petitioner No.2 i.e., Rs.7,00,000-00 shall be deposited in any nationalized bank as fixed deposit until he attain majority and the Petitioner No.1 is entitled to withdraw the interest accrued once in a year on the Fixed Deposit to spend the same for legal necessities of Petitioner No.2.

6) The Petitioner No.3 is entitled for a sum Rs.2,00,000/- in the

Awarded compensation amount and after deposit of the said amount the Petitioner No.3 is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount;

7) The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

8) The petitioners are not entitled for any interest for a period where the petition was dismissed for default and till it was restored, if any.

9) That at the time of filing petition, a Court Fee was exempted under

Rule 475 (2) of APMV Rules. The office is directed to prepare the

Decree only after payment of Court fee by the Petitioner. The petitioner is directed to pay the court fee within one week.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 21st day of April, 2023.

Sd/- G. Kabardhi.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT0 GOOTY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioners Respondents

PW.1 T. Rajeswari NIL PW.2 Gangari Naga Seshu.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.A1:Attested copy of the FIR along with compliant dated 14.07.2022. Ex.A2:Attested true copy of the Inquest Report dated 14.07.2022.

8

Ex.A3:Attested copy of the Post Mortem Report dated 14.07.2022. Ex.A4:Attested copy of MVI Report. Ex.A5:Attested true copy of charge sheet. Ex.A6:Attested true copy of study certificate of deceased dated 26.07.2002. Ex.A7:Original e-seva copy of 1-B Namuna (ROR) of deceased land. Ex.A8:Attested pattadar pass book.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

--

Sd/- G. Kabardhi.

CHAIRMAN

MACT-cum-VI ADJ, GOOTY.