Smt. G. Kalarchana

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGGAYYAPETA

PRESENT:-Smt. G. Kalarchana,

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGGAYYAPETA.

Friday, dated this the 21st day of December, 2018

C.C.NO. 733 of 2015

Between:

The State – Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Vatsavai Police station. … Complainant AND

1. Papaganti Prem Kumar, S/o.Kanakaraju, 25 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

2. Immadi Narasimha Rao, S/o.Ramaiah, 29 years, Mudirajulu, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

3. Nemali Babu, S/o.Yesu, 51 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimvaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

4. Sampaka Ravi Kumar, S/o.Yesu, 32 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

5. Gadiparthi Thirupathi Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 26 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

6. Gadiparthy babu Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 21 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimvaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

7. Monditoka Raja @ Rajesh, S/o.Nageswara Rao, 28 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimvaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

8. Meurgu Venkata Reddy, S/o.Appi reddy, 35 years, Reddy, Bhimvaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

9. Alluri Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Subbaiah, 30 years, Kamma, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandl.

10.Papaganti Gopala Raom, S/o.Kanaka Raju,23 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimvaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

11.Galam Gopi Krishna, S/o.Munaiah, 19 years, Mudirajulu, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

12.Sampogu Hanumantha rao, S/o. Srinivasa RAo, 28 years, Kummari, Bhimavram Village of Vatsavai Mandal.

13.Pamu Nageswara Rao, S/o.Vigneswara Rao, 30 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

14.Medi Sundara Rao, S/o. Yesu Ratnam, 30 years SC-Madiga, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

15. Garnipudi Ravi Kumar @ Yacobu, S/o.Deva Sahayaam, 31 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

16. Putta Narsimha Rao, S/o.Ramulu, 25 years, Padmasali, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

17. Jama Mariya Dasu, S/o.Tirupataiah, 37 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

…. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 18.12.2018 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Complainant 2 and of Sri J.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for A1 to A17, upon perusal of record and upon hearing both the counsels and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub Inspector of Police of Vatsavai Police Station filed charge sheet against A1 to A17 in Cr.No.74/2015 for the offences punishable u/s.341,145,332, 385 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code [for short IPC] and u/s.8

(b) of National High Way Act.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

[a]On 07.06.2015 at about 4.30 p.m. a fatal road accident took place on NH 65 road, near Bhimavaram Village in which three woman traveling in auto died, when Mahendra Car dashed against the auto which is a subject matter to Cr.No.73/2015 u/s.304-A, 337 IPC of Vatsavai Police

Station. In this regard A1 to A17 who are the relatives and sympathizers of deceased, staged Dharna on NH 65 road causing obstruction for free flow of vehicular traffic by placing boulders on the road, and raised slogans against

GMR Toll Plaza Management demanding money as compensation to the deceased and also not allowing the police to shift the bodies to Government

Hospital, Jaggaiahpet. Having came to know about the obstruction caused by the accused, the Circle Inspector, LW.14/Y.V.V.L. Naidu instructed Lws.1 to 9/PC 1365, PC 226, PC 788, PC 755, PC 1003, PC 693, PC 927, PC 1389, PC 1594 to came to the spot, he also rushed to the spot, found the accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly and caused obstruction for free flow of vehicular traffic. Then the Inspector of Police, requested A1 to A17, to clear off the road, and not to cause obstruction for free flow of vehicular traffic, but they put deaf ear and even after several requests by the police officials, accused formed themselves in to unlawful assembly started pelting stones on the police officials by way of assault on public servants, while discharging their lawful duties as a result, PC 1365 and other police staff, sustained simple injuries. The police had to use mild lathi charge to disperse 3 the mob and shifted the dead bodies to Government Hospital, Jaggaiahpet for autopsy.

[b]On 07.06.2015 at 08.30 a.m. Lw.1/B.Adi Babu, PC 1365 of

Jaggaiahpet Police Station, presented a written report about the occurrence to the Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station, which was registered as

F.I.R. in Cr.No.74/2015 u/s.341, 145, 332, 385 r/w 149 IPC and u/s.8(b) of

National High Way Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the investigation officer visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the listed witnesses and recorded their statements, sent the injured to Government Hospital with a requisition to issue medical certificate and on 12.06.2015 served notices u/s.41-A Cr.P.C. to A1 to A17.

Medical officer, who examined the injured/LW.1/B.Adi Babu, issued wound certificate, opining that the injuries sustained by him are simple in nature,

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against A1 to A17 for the offences punishable u/s.341,145,332, 385 r/w 149 of IPC and u/s.8(b) of National High Way Act.

3. This Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable

U/s.341,143, 145,332 r/w 149 of IPC against A1 to A17. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to them u/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.A1 to A17 were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. Accusation leveled against them for the offences punishable u/s.341,143, 145, 332 r/w 149 of

IPC, is read over and explained to them for which A1 to A17 denied. Charges

U/s. 341,143, 145,332 r/w 149 of IPC is framed against A1 to A17, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 10 witnesses and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined defacto complainant/Lw.1/Adi Babu, Police Constable 1365 as PW.1. Through 4 him, Ex.P1, report marked. Another Police Constable, LW.2/Ch.Satyanrayana,

PC 226 of Jaggaiahpet is examined as PW.2. LW.5/B.Maheswar Rao, PC 1003 of Penuganchiprolu examined as PW.3. Eye witnesses to the incident,

LW.10/A. Narayana Rao, examined as PW.4, LW.11/A.Raja examined as PW.5,

LW.12/A.Ravi examined as PW.8, LW.13/Sk.Basha is examined as PW.7, through them Exs.P2, P3, P5 and Ex.P6 their 161 Cr.P.C. statements marked respectively. LW.14/YVLN Naidu, Inspector of Police, Jaggaiahpet Circle is examined as PW.9, LW.15/Dr.D.Venkateswar Rao, Medical Officer, is examined as PW.6, through him Ex.P4/wound certificate of PW.1 is marked.

LW.16/Md.Saleem Head Constable, Investigation Officer examined as PW.10, through him Ex.P7/FIR, Ex.P8/Rough sketch are marked. Prosecution given up the evidence of remaining listed witnesses.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined u/s.313Cr.P.C.; incriminating evidence found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which A1 to A17 denied. A1 to A17 did not choose to adduce any evidence in their defence.

7.Heard both sides. Learned APP argued that prosecution examined Pw1 to 10 and marked Ex.P1 to P8, Pw1 evidence is consistent with that of his earlier version Ex.P1/report, his evidence was supported by

PW.2, PW.3, and the evidence of medical officer, Pw6 supports the injuries sustained by PW.1, as A1 to 17 pelted the stones, by forming unlawful assembly, to deter the public servants from discharging their lawful duties, injuries sustained by PW.1 proves the overt acts of A1 to A17, in furtherance of their common object, though PW.3,4 and Pw5, PW.7 who are independent witnesses, turned hostile as they belongs to accused village, PW.9 and PW.10 supported the prosecution case, hence prosecution proved the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt.

5

8.Per contra learned defence counsel vehemently argued that prosecution fails to prove allegations against A1 to A17, with regard to 341

IPC, no person whom accused wrongfully restrained is not examined, and prosecution fails to file GD entries, to show that PWs.1 to 3, were entrusted with duty on the alleged day of incident and they are present at scene of offence, to show that they identified the A1 to A17 and accused formed into unlawful assembly, and pelted stones against police staff, to deter them in discharging their duties, investigation officer filed charge sheet under section 8(b) High Ways Act, but no highway authorities were examined to prove guilt of the accused, Toll Gate Authorities were not examined, to prove the charge sheet allegation u/s.385 of IPC, that they put the person in fear of injury to commit extortion, prosecution fails to prove guilt of the accused under the alleged charges, beyond all reasonable doubt, Hence prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution is

able to prove the guilt of the A1 to A17 for the offences punishable

u/s.341, 143, 145, 332 r/w 149 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:-

10.It is the main case of the prosecution that on 07.06.2015 at about 04.30 p.m., there was a fatal road accident on NH 65 near Bheemavaram

Village, when an auto dashed by a Mahindra Car, in which, three women, traveling were died, which is subject matter in Cr.No.72/2013 u/s304-A, 337

IPC of Vatsvai Police Station, in this regard A1 to A17, who are relatives and sympathizers of deceased, staged Dharna on NH 65 road, caused obstruction for free flow of vehicular traffic by placing boulders on road, and also raised slogans against GMR Toll Management, demanding money as compensation, and also obstructed the police to shift the bodies to Government Hospital,

Jaggaiahpet, by knowing the situation PW.9, instructed LWs. 1 to 9, to come 6 to spot, and found that accused formed into unlawful assembly, causing obstruction to the vehicular traffic and assaulted public servants, who are requested to clear the road, by pelting stones, in that incident LWs.1 to 9 sustained simple injuries, by that they committed the offence under the above mentioned charges.

11.In order to constitute the offence under Section 332 r/w 149 of IPC, the prosecution shall establish that A1 to A17 farmed into unlawful assembly with common object to demand and coerce GMR Toll Management to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in furtherance of their common object caused simple injuries with deadly weapon i.e. stone and thereby Pw1 sustained injuries.

12.For proper appreciation of evidence necessary legal provisions are extracted below which reads as follows:-

Section 149 provides Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.— “If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence”

13.Section 143 IPC provides Punishment.— “Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both”.

14.Section 145 IPC defines that Joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing it has been commanded to disperse.— “Whoever joins or continues in an unlawful assembly, knowing that such unlawful 7 assembly has been commanded in the manner prescribed by law to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

15.Section 141 IPC provides definition for Unlawful assembly.—An as- sembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is—

(First) — To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force,

1[the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State], or any public servant in the

exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or

(Second) — To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal

process; or

(Third) — To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other of-

fence; or

(Fourth) — By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to

any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or

(Fifth) — By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to

compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to

do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

Explanation.—An assembly which was not unlawful when it as-

sembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.

16. In this case, it is the case of prosecution that A1 to A17, formed into unlawful assembly with common object to extract Rs.10 Lakhs compensation each for deceased from GMR Toll Plaza management, staged Dharna against them and caused hurt to public servant i.e police staff when they tried to lift the persons staging Dharna.

17.To prove the fact that A1 to A17 formed unlawful assembly, prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw.10. PW1 to 3 are Police Staff, PW.4, 5, 7 & 8 are eye witnesses as per prosecution, who turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, PW.6 is medical officer, PW.9 is Inspector of 8

Police, who visited the spot with police staff, and commanded the accused to disburse themselves as they formed themselves into unlawful assembly for causing obstruction for free flow of traffic, PW.10 is Investigation Officer.

18.PW.1 testified that on 07.06.2015 at 4.30 p.m. accident occurred, near the Toll Plaza at Bheemavaram in which 3 persons were died, then their staff went to the scene of offence, A1 along with some other persons, has kept stones, on the road, and started staging Dharna, then LW.14/ asked the accused, not to obstruct the public road and assured them he will ensure justice to the deceased by talking to GMR Toll Plaza people, then accused started shouting slogans saying that they want Rs.10 lakhs per deceased, and GMR down down, then they tried to lift the accused, then A1 and others pelted stones on them, one of the stone hit the right leg of PW.1, due to which he sustained injuries, later he gave report.

19.PW.2 testified in same lines, on 7.06.2015 at about 4.30 p.m. C.I. of

Jaggiahpet directed him and other police constables to attend Band-o-bust duty at Gattu Bheemavaram cross-roads, as there was an accident occurred, nearly 30 constables from all 4 Police Stations, under Jaggaiahpet circle attended duty, when they reached Gattu Bheemavaram cross-road, some persons are sitting on the road by placing stones across the road and doing

Dharna, then C.I. of Jaggaiahpet pacified the matter, when they went to lift the persons, sitting on the road, doing Dharna, some of the persons pelted stones on them, by that they sustained injuries, PW.1 sustained bleeding injury on his right knee. A3 and A4 and others pelted stones.

20.PW.3 another constable testified in the same lines with regard to the accident, and bund-o-bust duty at Gattu Bheemavaram village, as some persons were staging Dharna on road by placing stones across the road, saying that GMR down down”, in that mob one Alluri Srinivasa Rao and 9

Papaganti Gopala Rao along with them some other persons are there, all the people along with A9 and A10 staging Dharna saying that they need Justice and to pay Rs.10 lakhs towards compensation to the deceased family, at that time C.I. of police Jaggaiahpet came near scene of offence, pacified the mater, meanwhile A1 to A17 started pelting stones on Police, in that incident

PW.1 sustained bleeding injuries to his right knee.

21.As seen from the evidence it is admitted fact that on the day of incident there is fatal accident occurred on NH 65 near Gattu Bhimavaram cross road and 3 persons were died and family members are gathered near accident spot near Gattu Bhimavaram cross road and staged Dharna alleging against GMR toll management due to their negligence for not taking proper precautions on NH65 accident occurred. Learned counsel for accused successfully elicited from cross examination of Pw1 to 3 and

Pw10/investigating officer that there are no Zebra crossing lines, traffic signals and proper sign boards near Gattu Bhimavaram Road, though prosecution witnesses denied the suggestion that due to non availability of proper sign boards and signals accident occurred but Pw1 to Pw3 and Pw10 cross examination supporting accused contention.

22. The learned counsel for accused, vehemently argued that when relatives questioning the GMR management to support them police colluding with them foisted false case to suppress their negligence. Further vehemently contended that prosecution fails to prove common object, of A1 to A17 that accused demanded illegally Rs.10,00,000/- compensation. It is admitted fact that a fatal accident was occurred on 07.06.2015 at NH 65 road, near Gattu Bheemavaram cross-road, the prosecution case is that relatives and Sympathizers of deceased family members, staging Dharna demanding compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for each deceased.

10

23.To prove the same prosecution fails to examine, to whom the accused demanded or coerced by putting them into fear of injury. It is the allegation that accused staging Dharna, demanding compensation from GMR Toll Plaza

Management, but admittedly no person from GMR Toll Plaza Management examined admitted by Pw1 there are nearly 50 persons working as staff of

Toll plaza. The learned defence counsel successfully elicited from

Investigation Officer that he has not examined the GMR staff to ascertain the fact that A1 to A17 staged Dharna and caused inconvenience to public and demanded Rs.10 lakhs from GMR Toll Plaza management. Further admitted that he was not received any written report from GMR Toll Plaza staff, with regard to Dharna organized before Toll Plaza, not examined any staff in this regard. Even not examined any independent person, passenger on highway.

So, there is no evidence except interested witnesses, police staff, to show that A1 to A17 threatened GMR Management, in any manner, to coerce them to depart from amount. Though PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3, evidence goes to show that A1 to A17 formed into unlawful assembly, then started shouting slogans saying that they want Rs.10 Lakhs per head and GMR down down.

Then police tried to lift the accused, Pw1 specifically testified about A1 stating that A1 and others pelted stones on them, one of the stones hit to his right leg.

24.With regard to identity of A1 to A17, PW.1 specifically stated that A1 along with some other persons, kept stones on the road and staged Dharna,

PW.2, testified that when Inspector of police Jaggaiahpet, pacified the Matter, when they went to lift persons, sitting on the road doing Dharna, some of the persons pelted stones on them, and they sustained injuries due to pelting of stones, A3, A4 and others pelted stones. PW.3 testified that C.I. of Police Jag- gaiahpet came to scene of offence, pacified the matter, meanwhile accused 11

A1 to A17 started pelting stones on police bond-o-bust in that incident PW.1 sustained bleeding injuries to his right knee. He identified A9 and A10.

25.The learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that presence of

PWs.1 to 3, and LW.3, LW.4, LW.6 to LW.9, who are police staff is doubtful on the day of incident, prosecution fails to file GD entries of said Police Consta- bles to show that they are entrusted duty on the day of incident, and pro- ceeded to scene of offence to control the Dharna there is no support of inde- pendent evidence hence A1 to A17 falsely implicated and their identification is not established. Further the learned counsel for accused, brought to the court attention the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of LWs.1 to 9, vehemently argued that all the prosecution witnesses are planted witnesses for the purpose of case, which clearly assumed by seeing their statements, each witness state- ment showing two accused names out of A1 to A17 accused. In LW.1/ state- ment, A1 and A2, in LW.2/ statement, A3 and A4, so on… till LW.9/ statement, upto A17, which clearly shows that Investigation Officer, intelligently divided accused for their false identification of witnesses at the time of evidence.

26.As seen from the statements, it was clearly showing, each witness stat- ing about the identity of two accused and their involvement in unlawful as- sembly. Lw1 who examined as Pw1 identified only A1, Lw2 who examined as

Pw2 identified A3 and A4 only and Lw5 who examined as Pw3 identified A9 and A10 but not other accused so which clearly probablizing accused con- tention that for each witness allotted two accused names to be identified in their evidence, so which creates doubt in the mind of court actual identifica- tion of accused by Pw1 to Pw3.

27.As seen from record though prosecution examined Pws.4,5, 7 and 8 in- dependent witnesses, they are not supported the prosecution case, but only police officials evidence available it is held in judgment State Vs. Anil Ku- mar etc., in para 30, it is held that “out of aforesaid four star witnesses, ex- amined during trial, PW.7 was the only independent public witness, exam- 12 ined in this case. As already mentioned before, another public person namely Sh.Niri Prasad has not been produced during trial and rest of the three prosecution witnesses are none else but the police officials who were allegedly beaten up and are quite interested witnesses. In this back drop,

Court is of the view that independent corroboration was required to support the version given by police witness and to record the finding of guilt against the accused Nand Kishore. It is well settled law that whenever two views are possible on the basis of material available on record, then the view which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted by the Court.”

28.At para 31, further held that “furthermore, there is no material available on record, which may prove that PW.2 namely Ct.Vergies,PW.3 namely Ct.Rishipal and PW.4 namely HC Kamal Singh were actually on official duty at the time of alleged incident. For the purpose of proving the same, it was the duty of investigating officer, to collect the relevant piece of evidence in the form of duty charter of said three police officials, relevant

DD entry in Rojenamcha regarding their departure from concerned PS to the spot during the course of their official duties, etc. Unfortunately, same has not been done by the investigating officer for the reasons best known to him. In the absence of cogent and credible evidence being available on record in this regard, reasonable doubt is created in the prosecution story that the police officials were on official duty at the time of alleged incident and therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused on this ground also.”

29.In this case on hand also PW.10/ Investigation Officer also admitted that he was not ascertained and filed G.D. entries of police staff, so their presence is doubtful, they are official witnesses and interested persons, without corroborating independent evidence, their evidence cannot be con- sidered with regard to the identity of the accused. During the cross-exami- nation of PW.1, he admitted that he came to know about A1, on being in- formed by the public at the scene of offence. At the time of incident, nearly 13 200 people were gathered, at scene of offence, who were relatives of de- ceased. PW.2 admitted that as on the date of incident, he do not know per- sonal details and identification of A1 to A17, PW.3 in his cross-examination admitted that he do not know A9, A10 persons and their particulars till he reached scene of offence. Denied the suggestion that on the advice of

PW.10, who recorded his statement, stated A9, and A10 names. As dis- cussed supra as can be seen from the statements, it was clearly showing, each witness stating about two accused and their involvement in unlawful assembly only in seriatim. Further as rightly contended by the learned counsel for accused, investigation officer, fails to file G.D. entries, to show that PWs.1 to 3 and other prosecution witnesses are on duty on the day of in- cident. Though Pw9 inspector of police Jaggaiahpet testified about the man- ner of incident but failed to identify accused so Pw9 evidence is not helpful to identify the accused as members of unlawful assembly. Hence, prosecution fails to establish common object and also fails to prove the presence of A1 to

A17 and they farmed into unlawful assembly beyond all reasonable doubt. As the prosecution failed to establish A1 to A17 are members of unlawful as- sembly so allegation that they violated disperse orders of unlawful assembly also not established.

30.Further allegation that in furtherance of their common object A1 to A17 caused simple injuries to public servant (police staff) to deter their discharge of public duties and Pw1 sustained simple injury with deadly weapon, i.e.

stone. To prove the fact lets extract relevant provision under section 332 of

IPC.

31.332 IPC. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.—“Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or 14 attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descrip- tion for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”.

32.PWs. 1 testified that when they tried to lift the Accused who staging

Dharna then A1 and others pelted stones on police staff one of the stone hit to his right knee, Pw2 and 3 also testified that Accused pelted stones by that they eceived simple injuries and Pw1 sustained bleeding injury. Pw1 to

Pw3 evidence goes to show consistently that some persons staged Dharna, and when Police staff, went to pacified the deceased, they pelted stones, by that Pw.1 sustained bleeding injury and others, simple injuries.

33.To prove the injury over Pw.1, prosecution examined PW.6,

Dr.Venkateswar Rao, Medical Officer, he testifies that he examined PW.1 on 07.06.2015 at about 10.00 p.m., found abrasion injury over right knee joint, measuring 1 cm x 1 cm allegedly to be beaten up by known persons, at about 6.30 p.m. with stone. In his opinion the injury is simple in nature, due to blunt object issued Ex.P4/wound certificate.

34.During cross-examination, of PW.6 admitted that the above injuries are possible by sudden fall on ground. During cross-examination of Pw1 suggested that he was not sustained any injury due to pelting of stones, but he sustained injuries due to accidental fall on road.Duringcross- examination of PWs.2 and PW.3, nothing suggested with regard to the injuries sustained by PW.1. So accused not disputing the injuries sustained by PW.1 but disputing the manner he sustained the injury. Hence, prosecution proved the injuries sustained by PW.1.

35.Though prosecution is successful in establishing that Pw1 sustained simple injury but accused disputing the manner of sustaining injury by Pw1 and as discussed supra prosecution failed to identify accused and presence 15 of Pw1 to Pw3 at the scene of offence beyond reasonable doubt. Hence allegation that in furtherance of their common object accused inflicted the injury to Pw1.

36.Further allegation is that A1 to A17 in furtherance of their common object, by keeping the boulders across the road, obstructed the vehicular traffic. Section 341 of IPC provides Punishment for wrongful restraint.

—“Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both”.

37.Section 339 IPC deals with definition of wrongful restraint. As per section 339 of IPC, “Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person”.

38.To prove said allegation, prosecution not examined any independent person or passenger, who is proceeding on the day of incident, whom the accused restrained or obstructed, their movement, except the official witnesses. As discussed above, independent witnesses, PW.4, PW.5, PW.7 and PW.8 not supported the prosecution case. There is no case of prosecution that accused obstructed PWs.1 to 3 movement. The persons, whom accused obstructed not examined, so there is no positive evidence to show that accused obstructed the free flow of vehicles. Further investigation

Officer, PW.10 admitted that he has not prepared any scene observation report, to show that accused were placed the boulders, and obstructed the traffic. Even rough sketch/Ex.P8 is not showing any boulders, placed on NH 65 road, no Photographs filed obviously if the public staging dharna at that level media people will gather and take photographs but no such photos filed, hence there is no evidence that accused obstructed the traffic.

16

39.As per the overall evidence on record, prosecution failed to bring home guilt of A1 to A17 for the charge framed u/s.341, 143,145, 332 r/w 149 of

IPC, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, A1 to A17 are entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal. Accordingly this point is answered.

40. In the result, this court found A1 to A17 not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.341, 143,145, 332 r/w 149 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of December, 2018.

Sd/- G.Kalarchana

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGGAYYAPETA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE

PW.1 – B. Adi Babu- None- PW.2 - Ch. Satyanrayana PW.3 - D.Mareswara Rao PW.4 - A. Narayana Rao PW.5 – A. Raja PW.6 - Dr.D.Venkateswara Rao PW.7 – Sk.Basha PW.8 – A. Ravi PW.9 - Y.V.V.L.Naidu PW.10 – Md.Saleem

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE

Ex.P1 - Report of PW.1- Nil – Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.4 Ex.P3 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.5 Ex.P4 – Wound Certificate of PW.1 Ex.P5 - 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.7 Ex.P6 - 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.8 Ex.P7 - F.I.R. Ex.P8 - Rough Sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGGAYYAPETA

17

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No. 733 of 2015 on the file of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jaggaiahpet.

DATE OF

Offence Report or Appreh Released Commenc Closure of Sentence

complaint ension on bail ement of trial or order

of trial

accuse d 07.06.201507.06.2015Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. 17.10.201714.12.201821.12.2018 notice served Explanation for delay and remark (8):

This case was taken on file on 31.10.2015. On 29.02.2016 copies of documents are furnished to the accused. A1 to A17 were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. on 25.11.2016. On 17.10.2017 PW1 was examined and Ex.P1 was marked. On 12.06.2018 Pw.2 was examined. On 03.07.2018 PW.3 was examined. On 03.10.2018 PW.4 and PW.5 were examined and Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 marked. On 05.12.2018 PW.6 & PW.7 were examined and Ex.P4 & Ex.P5 were marked. On 10.12.2018 PW.8 was examined and Ex.P6 was marked. On 13.12.2018 PW.10 was examined and Ex.P7 & Ex.P8 were marked. On 14.12.2018 accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C.. On 18.12.2018 Heard the arguments on both sides. Judgment

pronounced on 21.12.2018. Hence, the delay.

Judgment in C.C.No: 733/2015 on the file of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Jaggaiahpet.

The state represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vatsavai Police Station. …Complainant

And

1.Papaganti Prem Kumar, S/o.Kanakaraju, Bhimavaram Village 2 Immadi Narasimha Rao, S/o.Ramaiah, Bhimavaram Village.

3.Nemali Babu, S/o.Yesu, Bhimvaram Village,

4.Sampaka Ravi Kumar, S/o.Yesu, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

5.Gadiparthi Thirupathi Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Bhimavaram Village,

6.Gadiparthy babu Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Bhimvaram Village

7.Monditoka Raja @ Rajesh, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Bhimvaram Village.

8.Meurgu Venkata Reddy, S/o.Appi reddy, Bhimvaram Village.

9.Alluri Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Subbaiah, Bhimavaram Village.

10.Papaganti Gopala Raom, S/o.Kanaka Raju, Bhimvaram Village.

11.Galam Gopi Krishna, S/o.Munaiah, Bhimavaram Village.

12.Sampogu Hanumantha rao, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, Bhimavram Village.

13.Pamu Nageswara Rao, S/o.Vigneswara Rao, Bhimavaram Village.

14.Medi Sundara Rao, S/o. Yesu Ratnam, Bhimavaram Village

15.Garnipudi Ravi Kumar @ Yacobu, S/o.Deva Sahayaam, Bhimavaram

16.Putta Narsimha Rao, S/o.Ramulu, Bhimavaram Village.

17.Jama Mariya Dasu, S/o.Tirupataiah, Bhimavaram Village. ….Accused Offence: U/s. 143, 145, 341, 332 r/w 149 I.P.C.

Finding : Not Guilty Result : this court found A1 to A17 not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.341, 143,145, 332 r/w 149 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months.Sd/- Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate,

JAGGAIAHPET.

Copy submitted to: The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Copy to : The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Jaggaiahpet.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGGAYYAPETA

PRESENT:-Smt. G. Kalarchana,

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGGAYYAPETA.

Friday, dated this the 21st day of December, 2018

C.C.NO. 733 of 2015

Between:

The State – Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Vatsavai Police station. … Complainant AND

1. Papaganti Prem Kumar, S/o.Kanakaraju, 25 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

2. Immadi Narasimha Rao, S/o.Ramaiah, 29 years, Mudirajulu, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

3. Nemali Babu, S/o.Yesu, 51 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimvaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

4. Sampaka Ravi Kumar, S/o.Yesu, 32 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

5. Gadiparthi Thirupathi Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 26 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

6. Gadiparthy babu Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, 21 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimvaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

7. Monditoka Raja @ Rajesh, S/o.Nageswara Rao, 28 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimvaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

8. Meurgu Venkata Reddy, S/o.Appi reddy, 35 years, Reddy, Bhimvaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

9. Alluri Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Subbaiah, 30 years, Kamma, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandl.

10.Papaganti Gopala Raom, S/o.Kanaka Raju,23 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimvaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

11.Galam Gopi Krishna, S/o.Munaiah, 19 years, Mudirajulu, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

12.Sampogu Hanumantha rao, S/o. Srinivasa RAo, 28 years, Kummari, Bhimavram Village of Vatsavai Mandal.

13.Pamu Nageswara Rao, S/o.Vigneswara Rao, 30 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

14.Medi Sundara Rao, S/o. Yesu Ratnam, 30 years SC-Madiga, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

15. Garnipudi Ravi Kumar @ Yacobu, S/o.Deva Sahayaam, 31 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

16. Putta Narsimha Rao, S/o.Ramulu, 25 years, Padmasali, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

17. Jama Mariya Dasu, S/o.Tirupataiah, 37 years, SC-Madiga, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

…. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 18.12.2018 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Complainant 2 and of Sri J.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for A1 to A17, upon perusal of record and upon hearing both the counsels and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub Inspector of Police of Vatsavai Police Station filed charge sheet against A1 to A17 in Cr.No.74/2015 for the offences punishable u/s.341,145,332, 385 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code [for short IPC] and u/s.8

(b) of National High Way Act.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

[a]On 07.06.2015 at about 4.30 p.m. a fatal road accident took place on NH 65 road, near Bhimavaram Village in which three woman traveling in auto died, when Mahendra Car dashed against the auto which is a subject matter to Cr.No.73/2015 u/s.304-A, 337 IPC of Vatsavai Police

Station. In this regard A1 to A17 who are the relatives and sympathizers of deceased, staged Dharna on NH 65 road causing obstruction for free flow of vehicular traffic by placing boulders on the road, and raised slogans against

GMR Toll Plaza Management demanding money as compensation to the deceased and also not allowing the police to shift the bodies to Government

Hospital, Jaggaiahpet. Having came to know about the obstruction caused by the accused, the Circle Inspector, LW.14/Y.V.V.L. Naidu instructed Lws.1 to 9/PC 1365, PC 226, PC 788, PC 755, PC 1003, PC 693, PC 927, PC 1389, PC 1594 to came to the spot, he also rushed to the spot, found the accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly and caused obstruction for free flow of vehicular traffic. Then the Inspector of Police, requested A1 to A17, to clear off the road, and not to cause obstruction for free flow of vehicular traffic, but they put deaf ear and even after several requests by the police officials, accused formed themselves in to unlawful assembly started pelting stones on the police officials by way of assault on public servants, while discharging their lawful duties as a result, PC 1365 and other police staff, sustained simple injuries. The police had to use mild lathi charge to disperse 3 the mob and shifted the dead bodies to Government Hospital, Jaggaiahpet for autopsy.

[b]On 07.06.2015 at 08.30 a.m. Lw.1/B.Adi Babu, PC 1365 of

Jaggaiahpet Police Station, presented a written report about the occurrence to the Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station, which was registered as

F.I.R. in Cr.No.74/2015 u/s.341, 145, 332, 385 r/w 149 IPC and u/s.8(b) of

National High Way Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the investigation officer visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the listed witnesses and recorded their statements, sent the injured to Government Hospital with a requisition to issue medical certificate and on 12.06.2015 served notices u/s.41-A Cr.P.C. to A1 to A17.

Medical officer, who examined the injured/LW.1/B.Adi Babu, issued wound certificate, opining that the injuries sustained by him are simple in nature,

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against A1 to A17 for the offences punishable u/s.341,145,332, 385 r/w 149 of IPC and u/s.8(b) of National High Way Act.

3. This Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable

U/s.341,143, 145,332 r/w 149 of IPC against A1 to A17. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to them u/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.A1 to A17 were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. Accusation leveled against them for the offences punishable u/s.341,143, 145, 332 r/w 149 of

IPC, is read over and explained to them for which A1 to A17 denied. Charges

U/s. 341,143, 145,332 r/w 149 of IPC is framed against A1 to A17, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 10 witnesses and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined defacto complainant/Lw.1/Adi Babu, Police Constable 1365 as PW.1. Through 4 him, Ex.P1, report marked. Another Police Constable, LW.2/Ch.Satyanrayana,

PC 226 of Jaggaiahpet is examined as PW.2. LW.5/B.Maheswar Rao, PC 1003 of Penuganchiprolu examined as PW.3. Eye witnesses to the incident,

LW.10/A. Narayana Rao, examined as PW.4, LW.11/A.Raja examined as PW.5,

LW.12/A.Ravi examined as PW.8, LW.13/Sk.Basha is examined as PW.7, through them Exs.P2, P3, P5 and Ex.P6 their 161 Cr.P.C. statements marked respectively. LW.14/YVLN Naidu, Inspector of Police, Jaggaiahpet Circle is examined as PW.9, LW.15/Dr.D.Venkateswar Rao, Medical Officer, is examined as PW.6, through him Ex.P4/wound certificate of PW.1 is marked.

LW.16/Md.Saleem Head Constable, Investigation Officer examined as PW.10, through him Ex.P7/FIR, Ex.P8/Rough sketch are marked. Prosecution given up the evidence of remaining listed witnesses.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined u/s.313Cr.P.C.; incriminating evidence found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which A1 to A17 denied. A1 to A17 did not choose to adduce any evidence in their defence.

7.Heard both sides. Learned APP argued that prosecution examined Pw1 to 10 and marked Ex.P1 to P8, Pw1 evidence is consistent with that of his earlier version Ex.P1/report, his evidence was supported by

PW.2, PW.3, and the evidence of medical officer, Pw6 supports the injuries sustained by PW.1, as A1 to 17 pelted the stones, by forming unlawful assembly, to deter the public servants from discharging their lawful duties, injuries sustained by PW.1 proves the overt acts of A1 to A17, in furtherance of their common object, though PW.3,4 and Pw5, PW.7 who are independent witnesses, turned hostile as they belongs to accused village, PW.9 and PW.10 supported the prosecution case, hence prosecution proved the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt.

5

8.Per contra learned defence counsel vehemently argued that prosecution fails to prove allegations against A1 to A17, with regard to 341

IPC, no person whom accused wrongfully restrained is not examined, and prosecution fails to file GD entries, to show that PWs.1 to 3, were entrusted with duty on the alleged day of incident and they are present at scene of offence, to show that they identified the A1 to A17 and accused formed into unlawful assembly, and pelted stones against police staff, to deter them in discharging their duties, investigation officer filed charge sheet under section 8(b) High Ways Act, but no highway authorities were examined to prove guilt of the accused, Toll Gate Authorities were not examined, to prove the charge sheet allegation u/s.385 of IPC, that they put the person in fear of injury to commit extortion, prosecution fails to prove guilt of the accused under the alleged charges, beyond all reasonable doubt, Hence prosecution failed to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

9. Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution is

able to prove the guilt of the A1 to A17 for the offences punishable

u/s.341, 143, 145, 332 r/w 149 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:-

10.It is the main case of the prosecution that on 07.06.2015 at about 04.30 p.m., there was a fatal road accident on NH 65 near Bheemavaram

Village, when an auto dashed by a Mahindra Car, in which, three women, traveling were died, which is subject matter in Cr.No.72/2013 u/s304-A, 337

IPC of Vatsvai Police Station, in this regard A1 to A17, who are relatives and sympathizers of deceased, staged Dharna on NH 65 road, caused obstruction for free flow of vehicular traffic by placing boulders on road, and also raised slogans against GMR Toll Management, demanding money as compensation, and also obstructed the police to shift the bodies to Government Hospital,

Jaggaiahpet, by knowing the situation PW.9, instructed LWs. 1 to 9, to come 6 to spot, and found that accused formed into unlawful assembly, causing obstruction to the vehicular traffic and assaulted public servants, who are requested to clear the road, by pelting stones, in that incident LWs.1 to 9 sustained simple injuries, by that they committed the offence under the above mentioned charges.

11.In order to constitute the offence under Section 332 r/w 149 of IPC, the prosecution shall establish that A1 to A17 farmed into unlawful assembly with common object to demand and coerce GMR Toll Management to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in furtherance of their common object caused simple injuries with deadly weapon i.e. stone and thereby Pw1 sustained injuries.

12.For proper appreciation of evidence necessary legal provisions are extracted below which reads as follows:-

Section 149 provides Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.— “If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence”

13.Section 143 IPC provides Punishment.— “Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both”.

14.Section 145 IPC defines that Joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing it has been commanded to disperse.— “Whoever joins or continues in an unlawful assembly, knowing that such unlawful 7 assembly has been commanded in the manner prescribed by law to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

15.Section 141 IPC provides definition for Unlawful assembly.—An as- sembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is—

(First) — To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force,

1[the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State], or any public servant in the

exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or

(Second) — To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal

process; or

(Third) — To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other of-

fence; or

(Fourth) — By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to

any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or

(Fifth) — By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to

compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to

do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

Explanation.—An assembly which was not unlawful when it as-

sembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.

16. In this case, it is the case of prosecution that A1 to A17, formed into unlawful assembly with common object to extract Rs.10 Lakhs compensation each for deceased from GMR Toll Plaza management, staged Dharna against them and caused hurt to public servant i.e police staff when they tried to lift the persons staging Dharna.

17.To prove the fact that A1 to A17 formed unlawful assembly, prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw.10. PW1 to 3 are Police Staff, PW.4, 5, 7 & 8 are eye witnesses as per prosecution, who turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, PW.6 is medical officer, PW.9 is Inspector of 8

Police, who visited the spot with police staff, and commanded the accused to disburse themselves as they formed themselves into unlawful assembly for causing obstruction for free flow of traffic, PW.10 is Investigation Officer.

18.PW.1 testified that on 07.06.2015 at 4.30 p.m. accident occurred, near the Toll Plaza at Bheemavaram in which 3 persons were died, then their staff went to the scene of offence, A1 along with some other persons, has kept stones, on the road, and started staging Dharna, then LW.14/ asked the accused, not to obstruct the public road and assured them he will ensure justice to the deceased by talking to GMR Toll Plaza people, then accused started shouting slogans saying that they want Rs.10 lakhs per deceased, and GMR down down, then they tried to lift the accused, then A1 and others pelted stones on them, one of the stone hit the right leg of PW.1, due to which he sustained injuries, later he gave report.

19.PW.2 testified in same lines, on 7.06.2015 at about 4.30 p.m. C.I. of

Jaggiahpet directed him and other police constables to attend Band-o-bust duty at Gattu Bheemavaram cross-roads, as there was an accident occurred, nearly 30 constables from all 4 Police Stations, under Jaggaiahpet circle attended duty, when they reached Gattu Bheemavaram cross-road, some persons are sitting on the road by placing stones across the road and doing

Dharna, then C.I. of Jaggaiahpet pacified the matter, when they went to lift the persons, sitting on the road, doing Dharna, some of the persons pelted stones on them, by that they sustained injuries, PW.1 sustained bleeding injury on his right knee. A3 and A4 and others pelted stones.

20.PW.3 another constable testified in the same lines with regard to the accident, and bund-o-bust duty at Gattu Bheemavaram village, as some persons were staging Dharna on road by placing stones across the road, saying that GMR down down”, in that mob one Alluri Srinivasa Rao and 9

Papaganti Gopala Rao along with them some other persons are there, all the people along with A9 and A10 staging Dharna saying that they need Justice and to pay Rs.10 lakhs towards compensation to the deceased family, at that time C.I. of police Jaggaiahpet came near scene of offence, pacified the mater, meanwhile A1 to A17 started pelting stones on Police, in that incident

PW.1 sustained bleeding injuries to his right knee.

21.As seen from the evidence it is admitted fact that on the day of incident there is fatal accident occurred on NH 65 near Gattu Bhimavaram cross road and 3 persons were died and family members are gathered near accident spot near Gattu Bhimavaram cross road and staged Dharna alleging against GMR toll management due to their negligence for not taking proper precautions on NH65 accident occurred. Learned counsel for accused successfully elicited from cross examination of Pw1 to 3 and

Pw10/investigating officer that there are no Zebra crossing lines, traffic signals and proper sign boards near Gattu Bhimavaram Road, though prosecution witnesses denied the suggestion that due to non availability of proper sign boards and signals accident occurred but Pw1 to Pw3 and Pw10 cross examination supporting accused contention.

22. The learned counsel for accused, vehemently argued that when relatives questioning the GMR management to support them police colluding with them foisted false case to suppress their negligence. Further vehemently contended that prosecution fails to prove common object, of A1 to A17 that accused demanded illegally Rs.10,00,000/- compensation. It is admitted fact that a fatal accident was occurred on 07.06.2015 at NH 65 road, near Gattu Bheemavaram cross-road, the prosecution case is that relatives and Sympathizers of deceased family members, staging Dharna demanding compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for each deceased.

10

23.To prove the same prosecution fails to examine, to whom the accused demanded or coerced by putting them into fear of injury. It is the allegation that accused staging Dharna, demanding compensation from GMR Toll Plaza

Management, but admittedly no person from GMR Toll Plaza Management examined admitted by Pw1 there are nearly 50 persons working as staff of

Toll plaza. The learned defence counsel successfully elicited from

Investigation Officer that he has not examined the GMR staff to ascertain the fact that A1 to A17 staged Dharna and caused inconvenience to public and demanded Rs.10 lakhs from GMR Toll Plaza management. Further admitted that he was not received any written report from GMR Toll Plaza staff, with regard to Dharna organized before Toll Plaza, not examined any staff in this regard. Even not examined any independent person, passenger on highway.

So, there is no evidence except interested witnesses, police staff, to show that A1 to A17 threatened GMR Management, in any manner, to coerce them to depart from amount. Though PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3, evidence goes to show that A1 to A17 formed into unlawful assembly, then started shouting slogans saying that they want Rs.10 Lakhs per head and GMR down down.

Then police tried to lift the accused, Pw1 specifically testified about A1 stating that A1 and others pelted stones on them, one of the stones hit to his right leg.

24.With regard to identity of A1 to A17, PW.1 specifically stated that A1 along with some other persons, kept stones on the road and staged Dharna,

PW.2, testified that when Inspector of police Jaggaiahpet, pacified the Matter, when they went to lift persons, sitting on the road doing Dharna, some of the persons pelted stones on them, and they sustained injuries due to pelting of stones, A3, A4 and others pelted stones. PW.3 testified that C.I. of Police Jag- gaiahpet came to scene of offence, pacified the matter, meanwhile accused 11

A1 to A17 started pelting stones on police bond-o-bust in that incident PW.1 sustained bleeding injuries to his right knee. He identified A9 and A10.

25.The learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that presence of

PWs.1 to 3, and LW.3, LW.4, LW.6 to LW.9, who are police staff is doubtful on the day of incident, prosecution fails to file GD entries of said Police Consta- bles to show that they are entrusted duty on the day of incident, and pro- ceeded to scene of offence to control the Dharna there is no support of inde- pendent evidence hence A1 to A17 falsely implicated and their identification is not established. Further the learned counsel for accused, brought to the court attention the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of LWs.1 to 9, vehemently argued that all the prosecution witnesses are planted witnesses for the purpose of case, which clearly assumed by seeing their statements, each witness state- ment showing two accused names out of A1 to A17 accused. In LW.1/ state- ment, A1 and A2, in LW.2/ statement, A3 and A4, so on… till LW.9/ statement, upto A17, which clearly shows that Investigation Officer, intelligently divided accused for their false identification of witnesses at the time of evidence.

26.As seen from the statements, it was clearly showing, each witness stat- ing about the identity of two accused and their involvement in unlawful as- sembly. Lw1 who examined as Pw1 identified only A1, Lw2 who examined as

Pw2 identified A3 and A4 only and Lw5 who examined as Pw3 identified A9 and A10 but not other accused so which clearly probablizing accused con- tention that for each witness allotted two accused names to be identified in their evidence, so which creates doubt in the mind of court actual identifica- tion of accused by Pw1 to Pw3.

27.As seen from record though prosecution examined Pws.4,5, 7 and 8 in- dependent witnesses, they are not supported the prosecution case, but only police officials evidence available it is held in judgment State Vs. Anil Ku- mar etc., in para 30, it is held that “out of aforesaid four star witnesses, ex- amined during trial, PW.7 was the only independent public witness, exam- 12 ined in this case. As already mentioned before, another public person namely Sh.Niri Prasad has not been produced during trial and rest of the three prosecution witnesses are none else but the police officials who were allegedly beaten up and are quite interested witnesses. In this back drop,

Court is of the view that independent corroboration was required to support the version given by police witness and to record the finding of guilt against the accused Nand Kishore. It is well settled law that whenever two views are possible on the basis of material available on record, then the view which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted by the Court.”

28.At para 31, further held that “furthermore, there is no material available on record, which may prove that PW.2 namely Ct.Vergies,PW.3 namely Ct.Rishipal and PW.4 namely HC Kamal Singh were actually on official duty at the time of alleged incident. For the purpose of proving the same, it was the duty of investigating officer, to collect the relevant piece of evidence in the form of duty charter of said three police officials, relevant

DD entry in Rojenamcha regarding their departure from concerned PS to the spot during the course of their official duties, etc. Unfortunately, same has not been done by the investigating officer for the reasons best known to him. In the absence of cogent and credible evidence being available on record in this regard, reasonable doubt is created in the prosecution story that the police officials were on official duty at the time of alleged incident and therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused on this ground also.”

29.In this case on hand also PW.10/ Investigation Officer also admitted that he was not ascertained and filed G.D. entries of police staff, so their presence is doubtful, they are official witnesses and interested persons, without corroborating independent evidence, their evidence cannot be con- sidered with regard to the identity of the accused. During the cross-exami- nation of PW.1, he admitted that he came to know about A1, on being in- formed by the public at the scene of offence. At the time of incident, nearly 13 200 people were gathered, at scene of offence, who were relatives of de- ceased. PW.2 admitted that as on the date of incident, he do not know per- sonal details and identification of A1 to A17, PW.3 in his cross-examination admitted that he do not know A9, A10 persons and their particulars till he reached scene of offence. Denied the suggestion that on the advice of

PW.10, who recorded his statement, stated A9, and A10 names. As dis- cussed supra as can be seen from the statements, it was clearly showing, each witness stating about two accused and their involvement in unlawful assembly only in seriatim. Further as rightly contended by the learned counsel for accused, investigation officer, fails to file G.D. entries, to show that PWs.1 to 3 and other prosecution witnesses are on duty on the day of in- cident. Though Pw9 inspector of police Jaggaiahpet testified about the man- ner of incident but failed to identify accused so Pw9 evidence is not helpful to identify the accused as members of unlawful assembly. Hence, prosecution fails to establish common object and also fails to prove the presence of A1 to

A17 and they farmed into unlawful assembly beyond all reasonable doubt. As the prosecution failed to establish A1 to A17 are members of unlawful as- sembly so allegation that they violated disperse orders of unlawful assembly also not established.

30.Further allegation that in furtherance of their common object A1 to A17 caused simple injuries to public servant (police staff) to deter their discharge of public duties and Pw1 sustained simple injury with deadly weapon, i.e.

stone. To prove the fact lets extract relevant provision under section 332 of

IPC.

31.332 IPC. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.—“Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or 14 attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descrip- tion for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”.

32.PWs. 1 testified that when they tried to lift the Accused who staging

Dharna then A1 and others pelted stones on police staff one of the stone hit to his right knee, Pw2 and 3 also testified that Accused pelted stones by that they eceived simple injuries and Pw1 sustained bleeding injury. Pw1 to

Pw3 evidence goes to show consistently that some persons staged Dharna, and when Police staff, went to pacified the deceased, they pelted stones, by that Pw.1 sustained bleeding injury and others, simple injuries.

33.To prove the injury over Pw.1, prosecution examined PW.6,

Dr.Venkateswar Rao, Medical Officer, he testifies that he examined PW.1 on 07.06.2015 at about 10.00 p.m., found abrasion injury over right knee joint, measuring 1 cm x 1 cm allegedly to be beaten up by known persons, at about 6.30 p.m. with stone. In his opinion the injury is simple in nature, due to blunt object issued Ex.P4/wound certificate.

34.During cross-examination, of PW.6 admitted that the above injuries are possible by sudden fall on ground. During cross-examination of Pw1 suggested that he was not sustained any injury due to pelting of stones, but he sustained injuries due to accidental fall on road.Duringcross- examination of PWs.2 and PW.3, nothing suggested with regard to the injuries sustained by PW.1. So accused not disputing the injuries sustained by PW.1 but disputing the manner he sustained the injury. Hence, prosecution proved the injuries sustained by PW.1.

35.Though prosecution is successful in establishing that Pw1 sustained simple injury but accused disputing the manner of sustaining injury by Pw1 and as discussed supra prosecution failed to identify accused and presence 15 of Pw1 to Pw3 at the scene of offence beyond reasonable doubt. Hence allegation that in furtherance of their common object accused inflicted the injury to Pw1.

36.Further allegation is that A1 to A17 in furtherance of their common object, by keeping the boulders across the road, obstructed the vehicular traffic. Section 341 of IPC provides Punishment for wrongful restraint.

—“Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both”.

37.Section 339 IPC deals with definition of wrongful restraint. As per section 339 of IPC, “Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person”.

38.To prove said allegation, prosecution not examined any independent person or passenger, who is proceeding on the day of incident, whom the accused restrained or obstructed, their movement, except the official witnesses. As discussed above, independent witnesses, PW.4, PW.5, PW.7 and PW.8 not supported the prosecution case. There is no case of prosecution that accused obstructed PWs.1 to 3 movement. The persons, whom accused obstructed not examined, so there is no positive evidence to show that accused obstructed the free flow of vehicles. Further investigation

Officer, PW.10 admitted that he has not prepared any scene observation report, to show that accused were placed the boulders, and obstructed the traffic. Even rough sketch/Ex.P8 is not showing any boulders, placed on NH 65 road, no Photographs filed obviously if the public staging dharna at that level media people will gather and take photographs but no such photos filed, hence there is no evidence that accused obstructed the traffic.

16

39.As per the overall evidence on record, prosecution failed to bring home guilt of A1 to A17 for the charge framed u/s.341, 143,145, 332 r/w 149 of

IPC, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, A1 to A17 are entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal. Accordingly this point is answered.

40. In the result, this court found A1 to A17 not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.341, 143,145, 332 r/w 149 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of December, 2018.

Sd/- G.Kalarchana

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGGAYYAPETA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE

PW.1 – B. Adi Babu- None- PW.2 - Ch. Satyanrayana PW.3 - D.Mareswara Rao PW.4 - A. Narayana Rao PW.5 – A. Raja PW.6 - Dr.D.Venkateswara Rao PW.7 – Sk.Basha PW.8 – A. Ravi PW.9 - Y.V.V.L.Naidu PW.10 – Md.Saleem

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE

Ex.P1 - Report of PW.1- Nil – Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.4 Ex.P3 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.5 Ex.P4 – Wound Certificate of PW.1 Ex.P5 - 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.7 Ex.P6 - 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.8 Ex.P7 - F.I.R. Ex.P8 - Rough Sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JAGGAYYAPETA

17

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No. 733 of 2015 on the file of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jaggaiahpet.

DATE OF

Offence Report or Appreh Released Commenc Closure of Sentence

complaint ension on bail ement of trial or order

of trial

accuse d 07.06.201507.06.2015Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. 17.10.201714.12.201821.12.2018 notice served Explanation for delay and remark (8):

This case was taken on file on 31.10.2015. On 29.02.2016 copies of documents are furnished to the accused. A1 to A17 were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. on 25.11.2016. On 17.10.2017 PW1 was examined and Ex.P1 was marked. On 12.06.2018 Pw.2 was examined. On 03.07.2018 PW.3 was examined. On 03.10.2018 PW.4 and PW.5 were examined and Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 marked. On 05.12.2018 PW.6 & PW.7 were examined and Ex.P4 & Ex.P5 were marked. On 10.12.2018 PW.8 was examined and Ex.P6 was marked. On 13.12.2018 PW.10 was examined and Ex.P7 & Ex.P8 were marked. On 14.12.2018 accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C.. On 18.12.2018 Heard the arguments on both sides. Judgment

pronounced on 21.12.2018. Hence, the delay.

Judgment in C.C.No: 733/2015 on the file of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Jaggaiahpet.

The state represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vatsavai Police Station. …Complainant

And

1.Papaganti Prem Kumar, S/o.Kanakaraju, Bhimavaram Village 2 Immadi Narasimha Rao, S/o.Ramaiah, Bhimavaram Village.

3.Nemali Babu, S/o.Yesu, Bhimvaram Village,

4.Sampaka Ravi Kumar, S/o.Yesu, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal.

5.Gadiparthi Thirupathi Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Bhimavaram Village,

6.Gadiparthy babu Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Bhimvaram Village

7.Monditoka Raja @ Rajesh, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Bhimvaram Village.

8.Meurgu Venkata Reddy, S/o.Appi reddy, Bhimvaram Village.

9.Alluri Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Subbaiah, Bhimavaram Village.

10.Papaganti Gopala Raom, S/o.Kanaka Raju, Bhimvaram Village.

11.Galam Gopi Krishna, S/o.Munaiah, Bhimavaram Village.

12.Sampogu Hanumantha rao, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, Bhimavram Village.

13.Pamu Nageswara Rao, S/o.Vigneswara Rao, Bhimavaram Village.

14.Medi Sundara Rao, S/o. Yesu Ratnam, Bhimavaram Village

15.Garnipudi Ravi Kumar @ Yacobu, S/o.Deva Sahayaam, Bhimavaram

16.Putta Narsimha Rao, S/o.Ramulu, Bhimavaram Village.

17.Jama Mariya Dasu, S/o.Tirupataiah, Bhimavaram Village. ….Accused Offence: U/s. 143, 145, 341, 332 r/w 149 I.P.C.

Finding : Not Guilty Result : this court found A1 to A17 not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.341, 143,145, 332 r/w 149 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months.Sd/- Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate,

JAGGAIAHPET.

Copy submitted to: The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Copy to : The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Jaggaiahpet.

OS.126/2010 Page 1 of 16

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: Jaggayyapeta

Present: Smt G.Kalarchana.,

Principle Junior Civil judge, Jaggayyapeta Thursday, Dated this the 03rd day of May, 2018

OS.126/2010

Between:- Mullagiri Mattaiah, s/o Mugaiah, Hindu, Age 55 years Cooli, r/o Kowthavari Agraharam Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. ......Plaintif AND 1.Mokka Mariyamma, w/o Venkataiah, Hindu, Age 35 years, Cooli.

2.Karla Annamma, w/o Anthony, Hindu, Age 35 years, Cooli.

…..Defendants

(Both are the residents of Christianpet, Jaggaiahpet Town & Mandal of Krishna District.)

This petition is coming on 13-04-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri E.V.Jagannadha Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri P.S.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the defendants and on a perusal of record and having stood over to this day for consideration this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, relatives and their followers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule property along with costs.

2.Brief averments of the plaint:­ 

It is the case of the Plaintiff that originally plaint schedule property belongs to one Valaparla Ramulu s/o Latchaiah who is brother­in­law of the plaintiff. said Ramulu is the absolute owner and possessor of the plaint schedule property and he acquired the plaint schedule property in the year 1993 in oral partition between him and his brother Pitchaiah. At the time of partition the said Ramulu acquired the plaint schedule site along with thatched house and since then the said Ramulu is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property residing therein by paying all the taxes to the concerned authorities. The Municipality, Jaggaiahpet also mutated the name of the said Ramulu in their Assessment register regarding the plaint schedule

OS.126/2010 Page 2 of 16

property. Subsequently the said Ramulu removed the thatched house in the schedule site and constructed a terraced building and residing there in with the knowledge of one and all including the defendants.

Plaintiff further submits that 1st defendant is the daughter of deceased Valaparla Ramulu through his 1st wife. During the life time of

Valaparla Ramulu performed the marriage of the 1st defendant and gave a house property to her and she is living there in. plaintiff further submitted that after the death of 1st wife, the said Ramulu married one Narasamma who is younger sister of the plaintiff as 2nd wife and they are had not got any issues and the said Ramulu suffered with TB decease at his last days. As such the plaintiff saw the welfare of said Ramulu and his wife Narasamma. Due to that reason with love and affection the said Ramulu executed a unregistered Will on 06­04­2008 in favour of the plaintiff bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and on 12­04­2008 the said Ramulu died with TB decease. Immediately after the death of said Ramulu the plaintiff became an absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment as absolute owner by paying all the taxes to the concerned authorities with the knowledge of one and all including the defendants by seeing the welfare of wife of said Ramulu. Subsequently the wife of said Ramulu also died intestate.

Plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff is residing at Kowthavari

Agraharam village and he is absentee landlord of the plaint schedule property.

After the death of said Ramulu the 1st defendant hatched a plan to grab the plaint schedule property taking the advantage of absence of the plaintiff by colluding with the 2nd defendant who is close follower of the 1st defendant and they are trying to occupy the plaint schedule property and on 20­11­2010 at about 10­00 A.M., the defendants came to the plaint schedule property and tried to occupy the same by dispossessing the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property but the plaintiff resisted them with the help of neighbours. Since then

OS.126/2010 Page 3 of 16

the defendants are continuously threatening the plaintiff and they are openly declaring in the village that they will occupy the plaint schedule property by dispossessing the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property even by force. In fact the defendants have no manner of right or title over the plaint schedule property. The defendants are having strong support of rowdy elements in village and they have no respect of law and order. The plaintiff is unable to resist the illegal acts of the defendants without help of this court. The plaintiff is having prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour, if the injunction is not granted the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and injury.

Hence, this suit.

3.Brief averments of written statement:-

Defendants appeared through their counsel. 1st defendant filed written statement and 2nd defendant adopted the same. 1st defendant denied the material allegations in the plaint which are not admitted specifically and claimed the plaintiff to put to strict proof of all such allegations. 

1st Defendant submits that the alleged Will mentioned in the plaint is created by the plaintiff with the help of scribe and attesters. The said V.Ramulu never executed any Will in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff never look after the welfare of the Ramulu and his 2nd wife Narasamma. V.Ramulu died intestate leaving behind him the 1st defendant as his sole legal heir. After the death of late Ramulu the 1st defendant came into possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule as successor of late Ramulu and the 1st defendant look after the welfare of the wife of said Ramulu and she also died intestate. Since, then the 1st defendant is paying the house tax and electricity charges and residing therein for all these years to the knowledge of one and all including the plaintiff. 1st defendant further submits that in the month of November, 2010 the plaintiff came to the plaint schedule property and trying to occupy.

Somehow the 1st defendant resisted the illegal acts of the plaintiff with the help of neighbours and the plaintiff left way and threatened that he would occupy

OS.126/2010 Page 4 of 16

the schedule property even by force. In fact the plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property at any point of time much less as on the date of the suit. Cause of action created for the purpose of the suit.

The documents filed by the plaintiff clearly shows that the plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff came to the court with un clean hands. Hence, there is no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of plaintiff, plaintiff not entitled for Injunction. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the rival contentions following issues are framed for trial by predecessor in office:-

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for Permanent Injunction against the defendants as prayed for ? 

2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of plaint

schedule property at the time of filing the present suit?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial Plaintiff examined as P.W.1 through him Ex.A1 to A3 and in cross examination of Dw1 Ex.A4 marked. In his support P.W.2 to P.W.4 examined, 1st defendant herself examined as D.W.1 through her Ex.B1 and B2 marked. In her support D.W.2 to D.W.4 examined.

6.Heard, both learned counsels, perused entire record along with oral and documentary evidence and written arguments filed by both.

ISSUES NO.1 & 2 :

7.To substantiate the plaintiff’s case he examined himself as P.W.1 filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of his chief examination reiterating plaint averments. And exhibited Ex.A1 Death certificate of deceased Ramulu, Ex.A2 is three house tax receipts, Ex.A3 is the unregistered Will executed by Ramulu,

Ex.A4 is Photo copy of Aadhaar card of 1st defendant marked during Cross­ examination of Dw1. During cross examination of P.W.1 he admitted that he is the resident of Kandibanda village of Mellachervu mandal migrated to

OS.126/2010 Page 5 of 16

K.Agraharam way back to 30 years and he constructed house at K. Agraharam since from his migration he is staying at K. Agraharam. Further elicited by learned counsel for defendant that late Ramulu and his 2nd wife Narasamma lived at Jaggaiahpet till their last breath. It is admitted fact that plaintiff is brother­in­law of late Ramulu and D1 is sole daughter of late Ramulu through his 1st wife. P.W.1 admitted that D1 was living at Christianpet of Jaggaiahpet

Town with her maternal grandmother. Denied the suggestion that D1 was residing at Plaint schedule property during the life time of her father Ramulu and step mother Narasamma and after their demise as on till date but the D1 is not residing at her maternal grandmother’s house. 

Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that said Ramulu is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property during his life time he acquired the property in partition between himself and his brother and he has been in possession and he removed the Thatched house and constructed the terraced house but, he suffered with ill­health with TB decease. So, he unable to maintained himself and his wife at his last days. Then the plaintiff looked after the welfare of said Ramulu and his wife Narasamma. Due to that reason with love and affection the said Ramulu executed a Will on 06­04­2008 in favour of

Plaintiff.

8.Per contra learned counsel for defendant vehemently argued that

D1 is sole legal heir of late Ramulu, after demise of her mother i.e., 1st wife of

Ramulu, Ramulu married one Narasamma as 2nd wife and through 2nd wife no issues are begotten so, D1 is only the legal heir of Ramulu and her father and his second wife died intestate so, she acquired the property through succession being sole legal heir after the demise of 2nd wife. The very alleged Will propoonded by the plaintiff is forged and created document for the purpose of the suit to grab the property. As per his own evidence he is not residing in suit schedule property so not entitle for injunction. Plaintiff not came to court with clean hands not entitled for equitable relief.

OS.126/2010 Page 6 of 16

 As can be seen from record plaintiff filed suit for mere Injunction but not declaration basing on the Will it is settled law that for the purpose of

Permanent Injunction Plaintiff has to prove possession and interference only.

Even if he fails to prove the title over the property if he proves the possession as on the date of filing the suit and interference he is entitled for equitable relief of permanent Injunction to protect his possession by restraining the defendants. In this case to prove his possession plaintiff filed Ex.A2 property tax receipts three in number out of that two receipts are dated 31­03­2008 and 18­08­2008 for assessment No.1242 for D.No.10/258 tax paid from 2002­2004 and 2004­2007. These two receipts are not showing the person who paid. But it is the case of the plaintiff that he paid the tax, another receipt dated 19­10­ 2010 paid for 2007­2010 year which showing the Thumb impression of plaintiff as payer. It is the case of the plaintiff that during the life time of Ramulu he looked after the welfare by giving financial assistance for medical treatment and after demise of Ramulu he acquired the property through Will and paying property tax. He paid property tax till the date of filing the suit so, the receipts proves the possession over the suit schedule property except the receipts plaintiff not filed any other piece of document to prove his possession. As per his own evidence plaintiff is residing at K.Agraharam and he is absentee landlord of the plaint schedule property. Though in his pleadings he shown service connection number 8461, but not filed any proof whether he is paying electricity charges staying in suit schedule property or the electricity service connection is changed in his name after demise of V.Ramulu or the suit schedule property is leased out to 3rd parties/tenants through tenants he is in possession or whether the suit schedule property is under lock and key and keys are in his custody no specific averments are made how he was in possession mere pleaded that he was absentee landlord and defendants taking advantage of his absence tried to dispossess him and grab the property and he resisted them with the help of neighbours. When he was residing at

OS.126/2010 Page 7 of 16

K.Agraharam how he came to know about the interference and encroachment by the defendants and resisted with the help of neighbours at suit schedule property on 20­11­2010 at about 10 A.M not pleaded. It is settled law that property tax receipts are not proof of the possession. It is held in Dolla subba

Rao and another vs Eeda Amrutha Rao and others 2017 (5) ALT 245 that “burden of proof is upon the appellant / plaintiff to establish his possession of plaint schedule property and that they cannot relay upon weakness of the case of respondents and also held that the tax receipts are not evidence of possession and also bank pass books pension pass book and ration card also cannot be treated as evidence of possession of plaint schedule property”. Except property tax receipts no positive evidence adduced by plaintiff to prove his possession defendant also filed property tax receipts under Ex.B1 paid by her in the name of Late Ramulu so plaintiff not proved his possession. Further Plaintiff not examined any neighbour who helped him in resisting the defendants at the time of interference i.e., 20­11­2010 at about 10 A.M., who are present at suit schedule property and helped the plaintiff in resisting the defendants from dispossessing him. So there are no cogent oral and documentary evidence on record to prove his possession and interference by the defendants.

9.The Learned counsel for plaintiff vehemently argued that 1st defendant has no right over the suit schedule property and her father late

Ramulu performed her marriage and gave one property to her at the time of her marriage and she has been in possession of the said house. So, present suit schedule property is another property bequeathed by the Ramulu with love and affection as plaintiff looked after him and his wife. Learned counsel for plaintiff

Cross­examined defendant witnesses D.W.1 to D.W.4 at length and mostly stressed his cross examination to elicit that defendant is residing in the house given by her father. As already discussed above that the suit is filed for mere injunction but not declaration of absolute rights and ownership over the suit schedule property basing on the Will. 1st defendant denying right, title,

OS.126/2010 Page 8 of 16

ownership and possession of plaintiff over schedule property she claiming right through succession as sole legal heir of late Ramulu. So, there is cloud on title, right and ownership of plaintiff. so as per the Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi

Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008 Plaintiff has to prove only possession and interference in injunction suit. If he claims injunction basing on ownership and title through alleged Will he has to file suit for declaration of ownership. Para 17 of above ruling extracted below.

17. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under :

(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.

(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.

(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)]. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary

OS.126/2010 Page 9 of 16

pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight­forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler veraciously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.

Basing on the above Hon’ble Apex court judgment if we analyze the fact situations in the case on hand in this case both parties claiming ownership, right and title. Plaintiff claiming his right through Will alleged to be executed by late Ramulu, which is out of succession line who is stranger to succession and 1st defendant claiming her right through succession being sole legal heir of late

Ramulu, there is complicated question of title is involved in this case. Hence as held in clause ‘C’ of above ruling that “Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction”. As per clause ‘B’ the suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction has to be decided with

OS.126/2010 Page 10 of 16

reference to the finding on possession. The de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, in cases of vacant sites, but in this case on hand suit schedule property is not vacant site it is a house property so plaintiff can prove his possession with cogent documentary evidence. There is no need to investigate into de jure ownership and titlefor injunction simplicitor. 

It is settled law that in mere injunction suit question of title should not be gone into only in exceptional cases where the title is clear and strait forward then only court can venture to dive into to decide the title but in complicated cases court should not venture to decide the title. In injunction suits Plaintiff has to prove only possession and interference. But in this case on hand as discussed supra matter not involved simple and straight­forward question of title, so ownership basing on unregistered Will cannot be decided and basing on the Will possession cannot be decided without cogent documentary evidence. 

Plaintiff has to prove only possession and interference the question of defendant having another property no way effects the result of the suit. Even plaintiff’s document Ex.A3 Will, not clear that during the life time of late

Ramulu gave any property to D1 or he had other properties other then the suit schedule property. As per the Will Ramulu has only one property i.e., suit schedule property. So contention of the plaintiff will be negatived by his own document Ex.A3. D.W.2 to D.W.4 are neighbours of D1 as per their evidence 1st defendant is in possession of suit schedule property, during life time of her father and till now. Though plaintiff marked Ex.A4 during cross examination of

D.W.1 on confrontation i.e. , copy of Aadhaar card it is showing D.No.10­284/1 by itself it will not prove that she is the owner of said house. Even Aadhaar card copy is not proves the actual possession of defendant, it is self­served document mere basing on the Aadhaar card it cannot be decided that defendant is the owner and residing in said property. During cross examination

OS.126/2010 Page 11 of 16

of P.W.1 also he admitted that he did not filed the documents relating to the house said to have been given to D1 by her father Ramulu. Though plaintiff denied the suggestion that no house was given by the late Ramulu to D1 fails to prove his contention by the documentary evidence as stated already above

Ex.A3 Will deed also not supporting the pleadings of plaintiff. 

Plaintiff contesting his case on Will, contending that it was executed in his favour by the late Ramulu, through Will he became absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property and defendant vehemently opposed the document. As discussed above complicated question of ownership need not go deep in injunction suit but parties led their evidence so I am discussing the same though is is not necessary to decide the crux of present suit. To prove his case plaintiff examined P.W.2 Ijjagani Narasimha Rao who is one of the witness of the Ex.A3 and P.W.3 S.Srinu another witness of Ex.A3 both are residents of

K.Agraharam and filed their evidence affidavit in same lines corroborating the contention of plaintiff that Ramulu executed Ex.A3. P.W.2 and Pw3 with regard to the execution of Ex.A3 deposed that as plaintiff looked after the welfare of

Ramulu who suffered with TB decease and his wife’s welfare and provided medical support by finance due to that reason with love and affection Ramulu executed Will on 06­04­2008 bequeathing the plaint schedule property. At the time of execution of Will deed he was present and signed on the said Will as first witness, S. Srinu signed on the said Will as 2nd Witness, one

Anantharamulu prepared document. P.W.3 Sale Srinu also deposed in his chief evidence in same lines at the time of execution he signed as 2nd witness and P.W.2 singed as 1st witness. As per the chief evidence both P.W.2 and

P.W.3 are present at the time of execution. During cross­examination P.W.2 admitted that he was not present at the time of preparation of Ex.A3 document and he do not know when Ramulu died and how he was died but immediately he voluntarily added that Ramulu died due to his ill­health. After the death of

Late Ramulu he heard the same. So, he testified contrary to his chief evidence

OS.126/2010 Page 12 of 16

that in his chief he deposed specifically that Ramulu suffered with TB decease at his last days, and as the plaintiff saw his welfare and his wife, Ramulu with love and affection executed Will. But in his cross examination contrary to that he deposed that he do not know when he was died and how he was died but later added that he heard that Ramulu died with ill­health. Which shows as on the date of execution as contended by him he do not know anything about the said Ramulu. P.W.3 close relative of plaintiff who is P.W.1’s nephew. 

 Learned counsel for defendants vehemently argued that execution of alleged will is suspicious for the reason that at the time of alleged execution of document Ex.A3 profounder of Will taken active participation and both the witnesses are belongs to the native place of profounder i.e., K.Agraharam and no one known to the Ramulu and recitals are contra to the plaint pleadings, which are not supporting and also not true as per the recitals and no proof filed with regard to Ramulu’s ill­health and expenditure towards his treatment so plaintiff case is not believable.

On perusal of Ex.A3 Will, said Ramulu possessed with only one property except that he has no other properties. But pleadings are stating that said Ramulu already gave one property i.e., house property to D1. If really testator gives any property to his legal heirs he must mention in his Will about the earlier disposition, So, now he was not giving any property through this

Will, excluding the natural heir from devolving the property. As per Will recitals

D.W.1 was married 15 years back to the execution of the Will and she is leading happy marital life with her family but in reality, it is admitted fact that

D1 was deserted from her husband after her marriage and living separately from her husband. The fact was admitted by P.W.1 himself. Admitted in his cross examination that D1 was residing with her maternal grandmother so his evidence nullifies the recitals of Ex.A3 that D1 was living with her husband happily. As seen from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 they not deposed in their presence the testator affixed his thumb impression whether the thumb

OS.126/2010 Page 13 of 16

impression is right hand thumb impression or left hand thumb impression as

Ex.A3 not revealing this fact and defendants vehemently opposing Will stating it as forged document so it is bounden duty of propounder of Will to prove signature/thumb impression of testator. There are suspicious circumstances which has to be proved by plaintiff.

10.Further the Learned counsel for defendants argued that Ex.A3 is suspicious document there are suspicious circumstances as stated above so propounder has prove the circumstances. Plaintiff not satisfied the court why

Ramulu has secured witnesses from the K.Agraharam when he was born and brought up at Jaggaiahpet only and all the witnesses are close persons of plaintiff and Pw2 is politically influenced person. So there is suspicious circumstances in execution of Ex.A3.

Learned Counsel for defendants relied on Judgments 1982 AIR 133 Smt Indu Bala vs Manindra Chandra Bose. “Any and every circumstance is not a “suspicious” circumstance. A circumstance would be “suspicious” when it is abnormal or is not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person”. In this case testator excluded natural heir but no satisfactory explanation given by plaintiff.Another

Judgment 1996 (4) ALT 360 in Raj kumar Deen vs A.S.Din, S.C.  In which it is held that “ Un natural disposition of the properties excluding entirely the other son and daughter of testator and when genuineness of the signature of testator and attestors of Will are doubtful, further part played by advocate preparing the Will not proved by profounder. If propounder failed to explain the above said suspicious circumstance in these circumstances rejection of the

Will, is valid”.

Another Judgment In 1962 S.C.567 Rani Purnima Debi vs Kumar

Khagendra Narayan Debal.Held that if the propounder of the Will fails to explain the suspicious circumstances satisfactorily, the court has to hold that the Will is most unnatural.Another Judgment In 2007(3) A.L.D.Civil page

OS.126/2010 Page 14 of 16

Nol.617, para 13­ Mohammad Ibrahim vs Mohammad Abdul Razak. The division bench affirmed that the settled preposition that the burden of proof is generally on the plaintiff who must succeed on his own case and he cannot be assisted by weakness, apparent in the case of defendant.

Relying on the above Judgments argued that as per the above rulings plaintiff fails to satisfy the Court about suspicious circumstances. Hence, not entitled for any relief basing on the said documents. 

11.As discussed above the suit is filed for mere Injunction simplicitor not for declaration and ownership of title basing on the Ex.A3 so, there is no need to go deep into the proof of Will deed and ownership of plaintiff. As he was claiming Permanent Injunction so plaintiff has to prove possession and interference. To prove his possession plaintiff examined P.W.4 who is 3rd party to the suit by name Yandrapalli Pullaiah as per him he has property in the same bazaar of the plaint schedule property and deposing in same lines with regard to the execution of Ex.A3 and his possession. During cross examination

P.W.4 deposed that he know the plaintiff since one year ago and he did not acted as witness of Ex.A3 but he came to know about Ex.A3 through Ramulu.

P.W.4 first time deposed in his evidence affidavit that Ramulu worked along with him under the contract of Prabhuthva Sarai Dukanam. During his cross­ examination he deposed that he used to sell Milk and Curd. Denied the suggestion that Ramulu did coal selling business to the gold shops. P.W.1 in his cross examination deposed that Ramulu during his life used to do coal business so P.W.4 evidence was not trustworthy with regard to the acquaintance with Ramulu. P.W.4 deposed in cross examination that he came to know about Ex.A3 through Ramulu but he fails to say when he came to know execution of Ex.A3 the document was executed on 06­04­2008 and

Ramulu died on 12­04­2008. So Pw4 evidence is not trustworthy. P.W.4 deposed contrary to the Ex.A3 that Ramulu has got two houses and one house given to the D1. During chief examination P.W.4 deposed that he has house

OS.126/2010 Page 15 of 16

property in the same bazaar but, in his cross examination he stated that his house is one bazaar away from the D1’s house. No documentary proof is filed to show he was resident of Christanpet, Jaggaiahpet town. P.W.4 evidence is no way helpful to the plaintiff to prove his possession. As he deposed new facts which are not in knowledge of plaintiff and defendant also. Plaintiff allegation that D.W.1 is residing in the house given by her father other than the suit schedule property. But, fails to produce any documentary proof with regard to the said house except Ex.A4 which is Aadhaar card. In permanent Injunction though defendant fails to prove that she is in possession of suit schedule property but it is bounden duty of plaintiff to prove that he is in possession.

As discussed supra, in Dolla subba Rao and another vs Eeda Amrutha Rao and others 2017 (5) ALT 245 that “burden of proof is upon the appellant / plaintiff to establish his possession of plaint schedule property and that they cannot rely upon weakness of the case of respondents and also held that the tax receipts are not evidence of possession” 

As per the discussion supra plaintiff fails to prove his possession over the suit schedule property with cogent documentary oral evidence and also fails to prove interference by the defendants. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction. Issues 1 and 2 answered accordingly in favour of defendant against plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.3:

12.in view of aforesaid discussion and holding in issues 1 and 2 plaintiff not entitled for relief claimed.

In the result the suit is dismissed with costs.

Transcribed and Typed to my dictation by stenographer­Gr.III, Corrected and

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 03rd day of May, 2018.

Sd/­

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

JAGGAYYAPET

OS.126/2010 Page 16 of 16

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff Defendants

P.W.1 – Mullagiri Mattaiah. D.W.1 – Mokka Mariyamma. P.W.2 ­ Ijjagani Narasimha Rao. D.W.2 – Yarram Pullamma. P.W.3 ­ Sale Srinu. D.W.3 – Perumalla Bhadraiah. P.W.4 ­ Yandrapalli Pullaiah. D.W.4 – Karla Annamma @ Annapurna.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff 

Ex.A1 ­ Death certificate of deceased Ramulu.

Ex.A2 - House Tax receipts.

Ex.A3 - Will executed by Ramulu.

Ex.A4 - Photo copy of Aadhaar card.

Defendants

Ex.B1 – Two House Tax receipts . Ex.B2 – Two Photos.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

JAGGAYYAPET

//True copy//

OS.01/2011 Page 1 of 15

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: Jaggayyapeta

Present: Smt G.Kalarchana.,

Principle Junior Civil judge, Jaggayyapeta Thursday, Dated this the 03rd day of May, 2018

OS.01/2011

Between:- Thotakura Mohana Rao, s/o Ramaiah, Hindu Age 55 years, Cultivation, R/o Vatsavai Village & Mandal, Krishna District. ......Plaintif AND 1.Gutha Krishna Murthy @ Borraiah, Hindu, Age 65 years, Cultivation. 2.Gutha Veeraiah, S/o Krishna Murthy @ Borraiah, Hindu, Age 40 years Cultivation.

3.Gutha Veeraiah, s/o Lingaiah, Hindu, Age 40 years. …..Defendants

(All are the residents of Vatsavai village & Mandal of Krishna District.)

This petition is coming on 19-04-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri E.V.Jagannadha Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri K.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the D2 and D3 and D1 is ex-parte and on a perusal of record and having stood over to this day for consideration this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for Declaration, to declare that the plaintiff is having absolute right to use the ‘ABCD’ cart way shown in plaint plan without objection from anybody including the defendants along with consequential relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, relatives and their followers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule land by using ‘ABCD’ cart way shown in plaint plan along with costs.

2.Brief averments of the plaint:­ 

It is the case of the Plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the plaint schedule land which is an extent of Ac.6­97 cents of land out of Ac.11­83 cents in R.S.No’s.267/2 and 267/3 situated at Vatsavai village and Mandal of Krishna District herein after called as plaint schedule property or suit schedule property. Plaintiff submits that one Gutha Lingaiah is having an extent of Ac.26­23 cents of landed properties in R.S. No’s 266 and

267. The said property partitioned long back by his sons 1.Gutha Gangaiah, 2.Gutha Guravaiah and 3.Gutha Veeraiah. In the said partition the said land

OS.01/2011 Page 2 of 15

was divided as five plots from East to West as shown in plaint plan and at eastern side plot and western side plot was allotted to the elder son Gangaiah and 2nd plot of eastern side and 2nd plot of western side was allotted to the

Guravaiah and middle plot was allotted to the younger son Veeraiah. At the time of their partition all the brothers left an extent of Ac.0­18 cents out of

Ac.26­23 cents for using way shown as ‘ABCD’ in plaint plan to go to their lands by taking carts and bullocks and since then they are using the same as way for taking carts and bullocks. 

Plaintiff further submits that the legal heirs of Gangaiah and

Guravaiah sold away their respective lands situated at eastern side shown in plaint plan to one Gutha Sri Ramulu son of Ramaiah on 16­11­1964 and on 15­03­1969 under separate registered sale deeds on the respective dates for valuable consideration. In the said documents also clearly mentioned about the right of way and the said Sri Ramulu enjoyed his property by using the ‘ABCD’ cart way. After that the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule land on 18­06­ 1981 under registered sale deed for valuable consideration from the said Sri

Ramulu and his sons. Since the date of purchase the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land by using the ‘ABCD’ cart way by paying all the taxes to the concerned authorities with the knowledge of one and all including the defendants and the revenue department also mutated the name of the plaintiff in their records and issued Pattadar Pass Book and Title

Deed. Plaintiff submits that 1st and 2nd defendants are the father and son and they are the legal heirs of above said Veeraiah who got the middle plot as shown in plaint plan and the 3rd defendant is the close relative of the 1st defendant and who got land at Western side of 1st defendant’s land as shown in plaint plan. 

Plaintiff further submits that there is a political dispute arose in between the plaintiff and defendants since recent MPTC bye­election in the village. Due to that reason the defendants developed grudge against the plaintiff, on that

OS.01/2011 Page 3 of 15

cause the defendants are trying to obstruct the plaintiff from using the ‘ABCD’ cart way since 20 days. On 22­01­2011at about 10.30 A.M when the plaintiff going to the plaint schedule land through the ‘ABCD’ cart way, the defendants obstructed the plaintiff by denying the right of way using by plaintiff in the ‘ABCD’ cart way but the plaintiff resisted them with the help of neighbours.

Since then the defendants continuously threatening the plaintiff and they are openly declaring in the village that the plaintiff have no right to use the ‘ABCD’ cart way by denying the plaintiff’s right and they will not allow the plaintiff to use the ‘ABCD’ cart way. In fact the plaintiff, his vendor and vendor’s vendors are using the ‘ABCD’ cart way since long back and the plaintiff is having absolute right to use the ‘ABCD’ cart way and that the defendants have no manner of right or title to obstruct the plaintiff from the using ‘ABCD’ cart way.

Except the ‘ABCD’ cart way the plaintiff has no other way to go to the plaint schedule land and cultivate the same. The plaintiff is having prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. If the Injunction is not granted plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Hence, plaintiff filed suit for

Declaration to declare that the plaintiff is having absolute right to use the ‘ABCD’ cart way shown in plaint plan without objection from anybody including the defendants along with consequential relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, relatives and their followers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

Plaint Schedule land by using ‘ABCD’ cart way shown in plaint plan and along with costs. Hence, this suit.

3.Brief averments of written statement:- 1st Defendant set Ex­parte. 2nd and 3rd Defendants appeared through their counsel filed the written statement denied the material allegations which are not admitted specifically by them in plaint and claimed the plaintiff to put to strict proof of all such allegations. 

Defendants submits that when once the plaintiff took a plea that his

OS.01/2011 Page 4 of 15

right was denied over the way that provided by setting apart the site measuring

Ac.0­18 cents, the suit is not maintainable without showing the entire site that was covered under the ABCD way as schedule with boundaries in the suit and without seeking declaration of the right of the plaintiff over the said site by showing its valuation and paying the court fee thereon. The court fee paid notionally under section 24(d) of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act is not correct. As such the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the property in dispute was not shown as schedule and the court fee is not paid as contemplated under Court Fee Act. Defendants further submitted that the plaint is silent regarding the plaintiff’s right over the lands of these defendants and violation of such right, as such there is no cause of action for filing the suit and consequently it is liable to be dismissed. Defendants further submitted that no land out of the land measuring Ac.26­23 cents was situated in

R.S.No.266/4 and no land was set apart for the way out of the said land.

Defendants further submits that there is no way of ABCD in the land of these defendants as shown in the plaint plan and no land was separated out of their land for the purpose of the ABCD way as contended by the plaintiff in the plaint. Neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors in title used the land of these defendants for their ingress and egress to their lands, at any point of time across the lands of these defendants as contended by the plaintiff.

In fact the predecessors in title of the plaintiff used to take their ploughs, carts and bullocks after wearing mouth nets along the Western bund of the defendants and thereafter along the southern bund to reach their lands situated on the eastern side to the lands of the defendants but not across the lands of the defendants. The plaintiff wants to create a way across the lands of the defendant which will divide the entire land of the defendants into parts and cause more loss to them. In fact the plaintiff or his predecessors had no manner of any right to claim any way across the lands of the defendants except the way that was provided by their predecessors at the time of partition and

OS.01/2011 Page 5 of 15

which was used by them as stated above. Furtherer contended that they have no objection if the plaintiff is taking his carts, bullocks and ploughs along the western boundary and thereafter on the southern boundary of the defendants to reach their land after wearing mouth nets to their bullocks as his predecessors in title taken to their lands. Further contended that they never objected the plaintiff as alleged by him in the plaint. The suit is misconceived, and it is not maintainable in law. Defendants further submitted there is no way extending into their lands as shown in the plaint plan, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek any injunction against them to have ingress and egress to his lands as shown in the plaint plan since there is no such way provided extending into their lands. Further contended that the plaintiff is suppressing the facts regarding the ABCD way how and where it is provided and in what extent and as such he has not come to court with clean hands and he is not entitled to seek discretionary relief of declaration and injunction. In fact the

ABCD way is extended upto the Western boundary of their lands and thereafter there is no ABCD way, but the predecessors in title used to take their carts, ploughs, bullocks after wearing mouth nets along the western boundary and thereafter southern boundary of these defendants to reach their lands on the east to the defendants lands. Hence, plaintiff not entitled for reliefs as claimed by him prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the rival contentions following issues are framed for trial by predecessor in office: -

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property i.e., “ABCD” cart way shown in the plaint plan without objection from anybody including the defendants as prayed for ? 

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for permanent injunction against the defendants, their men, agents, servants, relatives and their followers from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property by using

ABCD cart way shown in the plaint as prayed for?

OS.01/2011 Page 6 of 15

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 through him Ex.A1 to A7 marked. In his support P.W.2 and P.W.3 examined, 2nd defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and 3rd defendant examined himself as D.W.2 no documents marked on behalf of defendants.

6.Heard, both learned counsels, perused entire record along with oral and documentary evidence.

ISSUES NO.1 & 2 :

7.It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property an extent of Ac.6­97 cents of land in R.S.

No. 267/2 and 267/3 situated at Vatsavai village and Mandal of Krishna

District. He purchased the same from his vendor Gutha Sri Ramulu in the year 1981. His vendor purchased an extent of Ac.11­87 cents from Gutha

Guravaiah and sons vide registered sale deeds marked as Ex.A2 and A3. As per said documents his predecessors are having right to way from western side

Donka to reach their properties on eastern said and plaintiff enjoyed the ABCD way before 20 days of filing the suit. Defendants obstructing the way.

To prove his case plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of his examination­in­chief reiterated plaint averments, and exhibited Ex.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 18­ 06­1981 in his favour, Ex.A2 is Certified copy of the registered sale deed of predecessor in title i.e his vendor Guttha Sriramulu, Ex.A3 is certified copy of the registered sale deed in favour of his vendor Guttha Sriramulu, dt.15­03­ 1969, Ex.A4 is Pattadar pass book of the plaintiff, Ex.A5 is certified copy of field measurement Book No.267 along with Resettlement register copy, Ex.A6 is true copy of the Adangal, Ex.A7 is the land revenue receipt.

8.The Learned counsel for plaintiff vehemently argued that link documents Ex.A2 and A3 clearly showing the ABCD Cart way and right over the cart way by predecessor­in­title of plaintiff. As vendor enjoyed the pathway,

OS.01/2011 Page 7 of 15

plaintiff is also entitled for said ABCD pathway. Per contra learned counsel for defendants argued that Ex.A1 plaintiff’s Sale deed not showing any pathway i.e., ABCD cart way on Western side of his property. No right was granted under Ex.A1 to the plaintiff. Moreover, plaintiff fails to show the schedule property for disputed pathway. There is no any chance to recognize the disputed pathway across the lands of defendants, and plaintiff was basing his claim only through link documents. Further argued that during cross examination of P.W.1 specifically elicited that not only plaintiff his two daughters have right in the property as the partition between himself and his daughters effected before filing the suit in the year 2010 suit schedule property was partitioned between himself and his two daughters as two daughters are not impleaded as parties to the suit and as per cross examination an extent of

Ac.2­00 is also in his wife’s name which also farms a single plot. So, she is also one of the owner, the plaintiff claiming declaratory rights so all the parties are necessary parties as plaintiff fails to implead necessary parties suit for declaration is not maintainable.

9.As seen from the plaint schedule, plaintiff shown his total extent of property as plaint schedule property i.e. an extent of Ac.6­97 cents which was purchased by him out of Ac.11­83 cents of his vendor in R.S.No.267/2 and 267/3 situated in Vatsavai village bounded by East land of Gutha

Viswanadham, South­ Land of Gutha Srinivasa Rao and others, West – land of defendants 1 and 2, North – land of T.Anuradha and G.Gangaiah. On perusal of plaint plan ABCD cart way was shown passing from Western Donka through properties of D1, D2 and D3. There is no schedule given to the disputed path way. The only allegation is that the defendants 1 to 3 obstructing ABCD path way but, there is no allegation that they are interfering with or encroaching into the plaint schedule property an extent of Ac.6­97 cents. So as rightly contended by defendant’s counsel plaintiff has to show schedule for disputed path way with boundaries. The defendant in his pleadings stated that

OS.01/2011 Page 8 of 15

“plaintiff’s predecessor in title used to take their plough, carts and Bullocks with mouth nets along with western bund of the defendants and thereafter along the southern bund to reach lands situated on the Eastern side to the lands of the defendants but, not across the lands of the defendants”. Further contended that the plaintiff trying to create a way across their lands, and as per the way shown in plaint plan it will divide the entire land of the defendants into two pieces and creates more loss to them.

10.It is the contention of the plaintiff that the ABCD pathway shown in plaint plan was A.0­18 cents of property left by ancestors of defendants and predecessors­in­title of plaintiff during their partition. Since from partition of their lands by actual owners and later after selling to plaintiff’s vendor Gutha

Sriramulu all are using ABCD pathway. To show the same plaintiff not filed the partition deed but filed Ex.A5, certified copy of field measurement Book No.267 along with Resettlement register copy, and Ex.A6 true copy of the Adangal, which showing the 18 cents of land left by the actual owners of land at the time of their partition for their ingress and egress. Plaintiff further contends that his vendor got the right through his vendors under Ex.A2 and A3 he enjoyed the same and later same right passed to him under Ex.A1. per contra it is the contention of defendants that the plaintiff’s predecessors­in­title not used the

ABCD pathway shown in plaint plan which is passing across their lands by dividing their lands. But they used the way as pleaded as above by defendants.

So now the question for consideration is basing on documents plaintiff established the existence of ABCD pathway as shown in plaint plan and his absolute right to use the same.

11.As can be seen from pleadings and arguments advanced by learned counsel for plaintiff, the plaintiff was basing his claim on Ex.A2 and A3 link documents in Ex.A2 it is stated that “ total extent of land purchased by plaintiff’s vendor Gutha Sriramulu is an extent of Ac.10.81 cents, and to that property there is a way for purpose of ingress and egress for carrying ploughs

OS.01/2011 Page 9 of 15

and carts to plaintiff’s vendor’s property from Western land of his vendor’s property across the land of western owner of plaintiff’s vendor Gutha Lingaiah through Northern gates to reach the plaintiff’s vendor i.e., G.sriramulu’s land”

(Motham Ac.10.81 cents Serimeraka bhoomi ee vikraya Asthiki

padamaraga vunna Gutha Lingaiah gari Bhoomi ki madyalo nunchi

sadaru Lingaiah gari bhoomki padamaraga gala maa thaluku bhoomi

ki vutharapu gate gundanu ee vikrayasthiloniki arakalu, vagarailu

povu hakku saha vikrayam).Though Ex.A2 stating that there is a way for purpose of ingress and egress for carrying ploughs and carts through the land of western owner Gutha Lingaiah towards Western land of plaintiff’s vendor’s vendor through Northern gates to reach the plaintiff’s vendors land. But Ex.A1 sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff not showing this recitals and there is no mention about way on western side, western boundary is shown as Gutha

Krishna Murthy lands. But “as per the Ex.A1 way was shows towards

Eastern side stating that plaintiff and one Rangisetty Venkata Ratnam

jointly left 15 cents of land for the purpose of way in which 8 cents of

land belongs to plaintiff which is situated towards Eastern side but not

towards Western side”.

12.As per Ex.A1 there is no cart way right given from or through

Western side property to plaint schedule property, the link documents are showing that his vendor Gutha Sriramulu was given cart way right from Gutha

Lingaiah’s property. Plaintiff in his plaint and long cause title and short cause title not shown 1st defendant father’s name. Defendants denying the cart way passing across from the middle of their property and Ex.A1 is also not supporting plaintiff’s contention. More over Gutha Sri Ramulu not sold away the entire extent of his Ac.11­83 cents in R.S.No.267/2 and 267/3 only part of land was sold. There is no mention about the remaining land who is in possession whether plaintiff’s vendors themselves or sold to any other person

OS.01/2011 Page 10 of 15

with western cart way rights. If plaintiff’s vendor sold him property along with the cart way right acquired from his vendor the same definitely will be recited in plaintiff’s sale deed. If the said recital is not there in plaintiff’s document and he is claiming said right basing on the link document of his vendor. The proper person who can answer and give explanation for not mentioning recital about western way in his document and enjoyment of said right is his vendors Gutha

Sri Ramulu and his sons. Plaintiff not examined his vendors. There is no mention whether they are available or not. Non examination of proper parties who can give proper explanation about the disputed ABCD cart way right is deemed that suppression of the material witness under section 114(g) of Indian

Evidence Act. 

13.P.W.2 and P.W.3 are no way concerned with the schedule property neither they are attesters or present at the time of purchase of the property.

P.W.2 evidence is no way help to the plaintiff, on scrutinizing his evidence it looks that he is a planted witness he deposed contra to his chief evidence contents not supported the plaintiff case. P.W.2 in his chief examination stated that he has landed property upper side towards the plaint schedule property.

But in his cross examination he testified that he do not know plaint schedule property and admitted that he did not possess any land abutting to the land of the plaintiff and he do not know any disputes between plaintiff and defendants.

P.W.3 is 3rd party who is only agricultural coolie as per his evidence he used to go to plaint schedule property for agricultural operations only. He deposed that except the said way plaintiff has no other alternative way. P.W.3 not filed any documentary proof to show that he is an agricultural coolie and used to work in plaintiff’s fields. P.W.3 is not a proper person to depose about the right and ownership of plaintiff and he has only way ABCD path way for ingress and egress. His evidence not admissible without proper authenticity. As discussed above the proper person who can testify is predecessors in title i.e., Plaintiff’s vendor. But plaintiff not ventured to examine his vendors. So he suppressed

OS.01/2011 Page 11 of 15

the material witnesses with regard to the disputed path way.

14. Defendants 2 and 3 examined them selves as Dw1 and Dw2 by filing their chief affidavits reiterating written statement averments and no documents filed. During cross examination Dw1 admitted that his land is situated between land of Guravaiah and Gangaiah and it is their ancestral property. Further admitted that the order of lands fell to the respective shares of sons of Gutha Lingaiah as shown in plaint plan and the ABCD area shown in the plan is the way on the ground is true. And shown his ignorance about the sale of property by G.Guravaiah and Gangaiah to plaintiff’s vendor G.Sri

Ramulu and also mention of use of cart way in the said sale deeds. Further admitted that plaintiff enjoying 18 cents as way to go to his land. Further he has no objection to enjoy the right of the plaintiff in the said 18 cents. From

Dw2 cross examination nothing elicited except suggestions, which are denied by the witness. 

15.On analyzing the defendant’s evidence Dw1 admitted after partition acquiring order of respective shares by sons of Lingaiah as shown in plaint plan. Further admitted about the existence of 18 cents as pathway and using the same by plaintiff to go to his land. But shown his ignorance that plaintiff’s predecessors in title transferred the right to plaintiff’s vendor and in turn he transferred the same right to plaintiff. No doubt as per admission of

Dw1 plaintiff using 18 cents of land for his ingress and egress to his land. No doubt plaintiff enjoying easement right over ABCD cart way for his ingress and egress to his land. But through this suit plaintiff claiming absolute right to use the ABCD cart way but not mere injunction to restrain defendants from obstructing usage of cart way. To claim absolute right plaintiff has to prove his right through documentary evidence. As discussed above his own document

Ex.A1 silent with regard to passing of right to use ABCD cart way towards western side of his property. Though link documents Ex.A2 and A3 specifying right to use by his vendor but plaintiff’s vendor not gave any right to plaintiff

OS.01/2011 Page 12 of 15

the same not proved by examining his vendor. Plaintiff not claiming injunction basing on his possession but declaration of absolute right to use cart way so in declaration suits plaintiff has to prove his right, ownership and title on his own strength but not on the weakness of defendants. 

16.Advocate Commissioner was appointed for the purpose of ascertaining the existence of path ways. It is the case of plaintiff that he has only one way for his ingress and egress to suit schedule property and there is no other alternative way except ABCD cart way, hence claiming for declaration of absolute right over ABCD pathway. As per the Advocate Commissioner report western Donka visible apparently up to the land of Veeraiah s/o

Lingaiah and thereafter it is slightly slanted towards Northern direction and passes through the land of Gutha Veeraiah s/o Krishna Murthy up to the land of plaintiff.

17.There is another way ridges starts from Donka and passes through the land of Veeraiah s/o Lingaiah slanting towards South­Eastern direction up to certain extent and it takes ‘U’ turn at Neem tree and thereafter the way was reduced to a pedestrian's way and it extends up to the South­West corner of the land of the plaintiff i.e., warrant schedule property.

18.There exists another way with signs of old ridges and covered with green grass over it, which starts as the middle of the land of Veeraiah s/o

Lingaiah and meets at the middle of the way that passes through the land of

Veeraiah s/o Lingaiah from ‘DONKA’. There exists yet another way which starts from ‘DONKA’ and proceeds towards Southern direction and it appears with old ridges with shallow ridges appear to have been farmed recently through green grass densely grown over it and there are signs of tractor tire on one or two places in the shallow ridges. The said shallow ridges extends up to the corner as shown in the sketch and from that corner point, the shallow ridges forming the way proceeds towards Eastern direction through the Southern edge of the

Wet lands where in harvested remains of crop are seen over the land. The said

OS.01/2011 Page 13 of 15

way passes through bunds and extends up to the end of the wet land of the plaintiff.

19.As per the Advocate Commissioner report there are alternative ways are in existence from Western donka to plaint schedule property. As plaintiff alleging that there is no alternative way except ABCD cart way but the commissioner report nullifying the contention. Plaintiff not claiming easmentary right over ABCD cart way but he claiming absolute right to use basing on the link documents as discussed above no schedule given and not examined the proper person to identify the disputed cart way and to prove his right.

20. Further as per the evidence of P.W.1 it s clear that as on the date of filing of the suit his two daughters, wife and himself are owner of property shown in plaint schedule. As per admission of Plaintiff in his cross examination due to partition in the year 2010 between himself and his major daughters and subsequently during pendency of suit in the year 2014 he gifted his share of property to his 3rd daughter by that he lost ownership over suit schedule property. He filed suit only on his name but, he not impleaded other owners and sharers i.e his daughters. As he was claiming absolute right to use the

ABCD cart way for the total extent of Ac.6­97 cents. So, he has no locus standi to claim absolute right to use ABCD path way on behalf of other owners without the authorization or General Power of attorney from absolute owners.

In his cross examination specifically admitted for question No.15, that “you do not have any right in the plaint schedule property? for that he gave answer that

“yes” and voluntarily stated that he came to the court on behalf of their

children. As it is settled law that admitted facts need not be proved U/S.58 of

Evidence Act, Pw1 admitted that he has no right in the plaint schedule property and he came to the court on behalf of his children who are majors at the time of filing the suit. But, he was not taken any authorization or GPA from them and also after filing the suit due to subsequent changes as per his

OS.01/2011 Page 14 of 15

admission in his cross examination that he gifted away an extent of Ac.1.02 cents to his younger daughter Vijaya Lakshmi on 07­08­2014 which fell to his share in partition dated 13­12­2010 so, he lost ownership over the suit schedule property and he was no way concerned to the suit schedule property by subsequent changes, as he was claiming absolute right over the cart way to the suit schedule property on which he has no right at all. Due to subsequent changes during the pendency of the suit and also prior to the filing of the suit due to family partition between himself and his daughters he lost ownership, title and right over the plaint schedule property. He suppressed the material fact which is in his knowledge and filed the case he came to court with unclean hands. Defendant relied on our own Hon’ble High Court ruling in 2017 (2) ALD 53 between P.John Nelson Vs Benjamin in which it is held that declaration of title and right is purely discretionary relief court cannot exercise such relief unless plaintiff establishes his title by cogent and satisfactory evidence approaching with clean hands and at para 26 it is held that when court declines grant of declaratory relief granting of consequential relief of permanent injunction does not arise. Though facts and circumstances of in the above ruling and present case on hand are different but the legal position is amply applicable. In this case on hand though Dw1 admitted that plaintiff using 18 cents of site for his ingress and egress to plaint schedule land but plaintiff suppressed his loss of ownership which is in his knowledge as on the date of filing the suit he is not absolute owner of suit schedule property and came to court with unclean hands hence he was not entitled for discretionary relief. As per the discussion supra plaintiff has no right to claim the relief both issues 1 and 2 answered accordingly against plaintiff in favour of defendants.

Hence, I am inclined to dismiss the suit with costs.

ISSUE NO.3:

21.In view of fore going discussion and holding in issues 1 and 2 plaintiff not entitled for reliefs claimed. 

OS.01/2011 Page 15 of 15

In the result the suit is dismissed with costs.

Transcribed and Typed to my dictation by stenographer­Gr.III, Corrected and

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 03rd day of May, 2018.

Sd/­

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

JAGGAYYAPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff Defendants

P.W.1 – Thotakura Mohana Rao. D.W.1 – Gutha Veeraiah. P.W.2 ­ Rachamalla Venkateswarlu. D.W.2 – Gutha Veeraiah. P.W.3 ­ Para Samyel.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff 

Ex.A1 ­ Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 18­06­1981.

Ex.A2 - certified copy of the registered sale deed of predecessor in title under Ex.A1.

Ex.A3 - Certified copy of the registered sale deed of predecessor in title of vendee under Ex.A1 dt.15-03-1969.

Ex.A4 - Pattadar pass book of the Plaintiff.

Ex.A5 ­ Certified of Field Measurement book No.267 along with Resettlement register copy.

Ex.A6 ­ true copy of the Adangal.

Ex.A7 ­ Land Revenue receipt.

Defendants ­Nil­

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

JAGGAYYAPET

//True copy//

OS.35/2012 Page 1 of 14

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: Jaggayyapeta

Present: Smt G.Kalarchana.,

Principle Junior Civil judge, Jaggayyapeta Wednesday, Dated this the 02nd day of May, 2018

OS.35/2012

Between:- 1.Gutta Padmavathi, w/o Narasimhayya, Hindu, Age 70 years. 2.Naramaneni Venkayamma, w/o Viswanadham, Hindu, Age 50 years. 3.Gutta Krishna Murthy, s/o Narasimhaiah, Hindu, Age 48 years, Cultivation. 4.Uppugandla Bharathi, w/o veeraiah, Hindu, Age 52 years. 5.Gutta Madhusudana Rao, s/o Lakshminarayana, Hindu, age 50 years cultivation. 6.Naramaneni Viswanadham, s/o Subbayya, Hindu, Age 65 years, Cultivation. 7.Naramaneni Srinivasa Rao, s/o Viswanadham, Hindu, Age 35 years, Cultivation. 8.Naramaneni Rama Krishna, s/o Viswanadham, Hindu, age 30 years,

Cultivation. …..Plaintiffs

(All are the residents of Vatsavai Village and Mandal, Krishna District.) (Plaintiffs 6 to 8 are added as per orders dated 21-09-2015 in

IA.140/2015).

AND

1.Nelluri Gopaiah, s/o Narayana, Hindu, age 75 years, cultivation. 2.Chinthoti Krishna Murthy, s/o Basavaiah, Hindu, Age 70 years, Cultivation.

…..Defendants

(Both are the residents of Vatsavai village, vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District.)

This suit is coming on 20-04-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri B.Venkatramaiah, Advocate for the D1, D2 is set Ex-parte and on a perusal of record and having stood over to this day for consideration this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, relatives and followers from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner along with costs.

2.Brief averments of the plaint:­ 

Plaintiffs submits that suit schedule property is an extent of Ac.0­ 12 cents in R.S.No.166/1 of Vatsavai village shown in plaint schedule with

OS.35/2012 Page 2 of 14

specific boundaries herein after called plaint schedule or suit schedule property. Plaintiffs further submits that actually one Gutta Rama Kotaiah had two sons namely 1.Narasimhayya, 2.Lakshminarayana and all of them constituted a Hindu joint family. The said Rama Kotaiah and his sons had got partitioned their joint family properties under a registered partition dt.28­11­ 1957 and kept in joint an extent of Ac.0­12 cents of vacant site in

R.S.No.166/1 of Vatsavai village by showing it as ‘D’ schedule therein. While they are enjoying their respective shares the said Rama Kotaiah died intestate leaving his wife and his sons Narasimhaiah and Lakshminarayana as his legal heirs. Thereafter the said Rama Kotaiah’s wife namely Gangamma also died intestate leaving her sons Narasimhayya and Lakshminarayana. As such the said site of Ac.0­12 cents in R.S.No.166/1 of Vatsavai village which was left joint at the time of aforesaid partition becomes the absolute joint property of said Narasimhayya and Lakshminarayana. While they are enjoying the said property, they died intestate leaving their respective legal heirs i.e., the plaintiffs. The 1st plaintiff is the wife and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of Narasimhaiah and the 4th and 5th plaintiffs are the children of

Lakshminarayana, the plaintiffs being their respective legal heirs are in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The defendants who are the adjacent land owners have no manner of any right or possession over the plaint schedule property trying to encroach into the property. 

Plaintiff further submits that 2nd plaintiff died intestate pending the trial of the suit and consequently the plaintiffs 6 to 8 who are no other than the husband and sons were added as her legal representatives of deceased

Venkayamma as per orders in IA.140/2015 dated 21­09­2015.

Plaintiffs further submits that in the aforesaid partition, the husband of 1st plaintiff and father of 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs namely Narasimhaiah has got Ac.1­94 cents in the same suit survey number R.S.NO.166/1 of

Vatsavai village towards his share and while he was enjoying the said property

OS.35/2012 Page 3 of 14

he sold away Ac.0­77 cents to the 2nd defendant under a registered sale deed dt.11­08­1969 out of his entire Ac.1­94 cents. And Ac.1­12 cents sold out of the remaining land of Ac.1­17 cents to the 1st defendant under a registered sale deed dt.05­04­1977 and kept with him Ac.0­05 cents on eastern side and to the south of the suit schedule property as shown in the plaint plan filed along with this plaint. But taking the advantage of their respective registered sale deeds, the defendants wanted to grab the schedule property i.e. joint site of

Ac.0­12 cents and in pursuance of their nefarious design they have been proclaiming in the village for the last two months that the plaintiffs had no schedule property nor joint site of Ac.0­12 cents in the said survey number and thereby they are denying the plaintiffs title over the schedule property.

Plaintiff further submits that on 19­03­2012 at about 9­00 A.M., the defendants have highhandedly tried to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property, but they were resisted by the plaintiffs. While the defendants were going away, they threatened the plaintiffs with dispossession of the schedule property and they also threatened the plaintiffs that they will not allow them to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and that they will occupy the same even by force. In fact the defendants have no manner of any right or possession over the schedule property. Further contends that plaintiffs are the lawful owners, possessors and enjoyers of the schedule property, they got a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and if the defendants are allowed to indulge in their illegal acts, the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable loss and for which any amount of compensation could not be the adequate relief, except preventing them from doing so by way of prohibitory orders of injunction.

Hence, this suit for declaration and consequential relief of Permanent

Injunction.

3. Brief averments of written statement:- 2nd Defendant set Ex­parte. 1st Defendant appeared through his

OS.35/2012 Page 4 of 14

counsel and filed the written statement. Denyed the material allegations in the plaint which are not specifically admitted and claimed the plaintiff to put to strict proof of all allegations. 1st defendant shows his ignorance about the partition between Gutta Rama Kotaiah and his two sons in the year 1957 and keeping the suit schedule property in joint possession. Denied the cause of action and contended that plaint plan is not correct it is fabricated and invented for the purpose of the suit and not binding on the defendants denied the possession of the plaintiffs on suit schedule property.

1st defendant submits that he purchased an extent of Ac.1­12 in

R.S.No.166/1 of Vatsavai village from Gutta Narasimhaiah and Krishna

Murthy on 05­04­1977 for a valid consideration. The 1st plaintiff is the wife and 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs are the children of the said Narasimhaiah. As per the recitals of the sale deed the boundaries are East­ the land of the vendors in the same survey number, South­ D.Venkata Reddy, West­Donka, North­Chinthati

Krishna Murthy. So as per the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed there is no mention of the 0­05 and Ac.0­12 cents of properties as alleged by the plaintiffs and there is no mention in the recitals about the boundaries. As per the recitals of the sale deed the plaint plan filed by the petitioners is not correct and their contention that there is Ac.0­05 cents of their own site and

Ac.0­12 cents of joint site on east of the land of 1st defendant is not correct and without any proof. The plaintiffs wrongly shown eastern side boundary as curve which is actually in straight line but not as shown in the plaint plan. The boundaries of the defendants on all sides of his land are having equal lengths in measurements but not as shown by the plaintiffs on eastern side which is wrong. The north side boundary line and south side boundary line of the land of 1st defendant is having equal lengths so also the eastern and western side boundaries are in equal lengths. And he does not know About the extent of the remaining land of his vendors. The defendant is concerned only with his land of Ac.1­12 cents and he never tried to interfere with the plaintiff’s land and it is

OS.35/2012 Page 5 of 14

the plaintiffs who are wrongly trying to interfere with his land. And there is no cause of action against the defendant to file the suit and there are no merits in the suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs. 

4.Basing on the rival contentions following issues are framed by predecessor in office for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration, declaring

them as absolute owners of the plaint schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for consequential relief of

permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial 5th plaintiff examined himself as p.W.1 filed his evidence affidavit reiterating plaint averments and marked Ex.A1 to A4 in his support examined one G. Gangi Raju 3rd party to the suit as P.W.2. 1st Defendant examined himself as D.W.1 through him no documents marked in his support D.W.2 and D.W.3 were examined.

6.Heard, both learned counsels, perused entire record along with oral and documentary evidence.

ISSUES NO.1 and 2 :

7.It is the case of the plaintiffs that Plaintiffs are absolute owners and possessors of suit schedule property an extent of 12 cents in

R.S.NO.166/1 of Vatsavai village bounded by East – Donka, South – Site of plaintiffs 1 to 3, Chinthoti Venkateswarlu and Nelluri Gopaiah (1st defendant),

West – land of 1st defendant, North – Land of 2nd defendant. Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that actually plaintiffs acquired suit schedule property along with other properties from their father. Initially plaintiffs ancestor Gutta Rama

Kotaiah and his two sons Narasimhaiah and Lakshminarayana partitioned their joint family properties on 28­11­1957 in that partition Ac.4­0 cents of land in R.S.No.166/1 of Vatsavai village partitioned equally between two sons an extent of Ac.1­94 cents each leaving 12 cents in joint as D­schedule and B­

Schedule acquired by Gutta Narasimhaiah an extent of Ac.1.94 cents along

OS.35/2012 Page 6 of 14

with other properties and C­Schedule fell to the share of Gutta

Lakshminarayana in which Ac.1.94 cents in R.S.No.166/1 and other properties, A­Schedule fell to the Rama Kotaiah, D­Schedule is joint property an extent of 12 cents in R.S.166/1. Out of the acquired properties,

Narasimhaiah sold away an extent of 77 cents to 2nd defendant on 11­08­69 and in remaining Ac.1.17 cents an extent of Ac.1.12 cents sold to the 1st defendant on 05­04­1977 retained 5 cents towards East side of D1’s property and Southern side to the joint property. There is also dispute with regard to the 5 cents of property retained by Narasimhaiah to the extent of 5 cents of property legal heirs of Narasimhaiah filed suit vide O.S.No 34/2012 for declaration and consequential relief of Permanent Injunction. In this case the dispute is with regard to the 12 cents of joint family property which is kept joint at the time of partition under registered partition deed as D­Schedule. 

1st plaintiff is wife of late Narasimhaiah, mother of plaintiffs 2 and 3. 2nd plaintiff is daughter of 1st plaintiff died during pendency of suit, so her legal heirs husband and children brought on record as plaintiffs 6 to 8. Plaintiffs 4 and 5 are children of Lakshminarayana. Since the death of said Narasihaiah and Lakshminarayana, the plaintiffs being their respective legal heirs are in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Defendants are adjacent land owners without any right or possession over the schedule property trying to interfere. 

2nd defendant was set Ex­parte, only 1st defendant contesting the suit learned counsel for 1st defendant argued that there is no alleged 12 cents of joint property is in the existence, further urged that as per the recitals of 1st defendants sale deed Ex.A3, Plaint plan is not correct. Denied the existence of 5 cents of plaintiffs 1 to 3 property on East side of D1’s property and 12 cents of joint site on East side of their land and contending that his Eastern side boundary is in straight line, but not as shown in plaint plan. further alleged that the boundaries of 1st defendant on all sides of his land are having equal

OS.35/2012 Page 7 of 14

lengths in measurements but not as shown by the plaintiffs on eastern side which is wrong and he do not know the extent of execess land of his vendors and he was only concerned with his land which is an extent of Ac.1.12 and he never tried to interfere with the land of plaintiffs. But plaintiffs themselves wrongfully trying to interfere with his property.

8.Plaintiffs to prove their case examined 5th plaintiff as P.W.1, he filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of his examination of chief and exhibited

Ex.A1 to A4, Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the registered partition deed, Ex.A2 is the CC of registered sale deed stands in the name of D2, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the sale deed stands in the name of D1, Ex.A4 is the plaint plan. During Cross­examination P.W.1 admitted that husband of 1st plaintiff, father of 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs sold an extent of Ac.1.12 cents to him in the year 1977 through registered sale deed by mentioning eastern boundary as the land of plaintiff no.3 and his father and also admitted that he has no title to the

Ac.1.12 cents sold by the 3rd plaintiff and his father, he shown his ignorance that whether in Ex.A1 mentioned or not about the joint property of P.W.1’s father and his senior Paternal Uncle Narasimhaiah i.e an extent of 12 cents of land. It is mentioned that one property of 12 cents belonging to his father and his senior paternal uncle situated at the North, East corner of the land sold to the D1.

9. Plaintiff examined one 3rd party G.Gangi Raju as P.W.2 he filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief and corroborated the plaintiffs case that plaintiffs are absolute owners of schedule property and it is succeeded by them from their ancestors which is joint property and defendants have no manner of right or possession over the suit schedule property, 1st defendant has owned property on the Western side of suit schedule property purchased from late Narasimhaiah and D2 also has his site purchased from the Narasimhaiah towards Northern side of the schedule property and their respective properties are separate. During cross examination of P.W.2 fails to

OS.35/2012 Page 8 of 14

mention suit survey number and its extent, but admitted that Ac.1.12 cents of property was purchased by D1 from 3rd plaintiff and his father and admitted that 1st defendant is in possession of Ac.1.12 cents. On analyzing the plaintiffs evidence it is clear that 1st and 2nd defendants purchased property from 3rd plaintiff and his father i.e. Narasimhaiah and they are in possession of respective shares. It is also admitted fact that both defendants are adjacent owners of suit schedule property.

10.1st defendant to substantiate his case examined himself as Dw1 and no documents exhibited but his sale deed pertains to his property marked as Ex.A3 through Pw1. D.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that in the year 1957 Gutta Rama Kotaiah and his two sons Narasimhaiah and

Lakshminarayana got partitioned their joint family properties. Further to establish the fact of partition and keeping D schedule (suit schedule property) as joint property, plaintiffs filed certified copy of registered partition deed. First defendant though admitted in his cross examination about partition between

Gutha Rama Kotaiah and his sons but in his pleadings D1 shown his ignorance about the partition. Further D1 pleaded that as per recitals of his sale deed the plaint plan filed by the plaintiffs are not correct and the contention of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 that they have 5 cents of their own site and 12 cents of joint site on the East of his property not correct without any proof.

Plaintiffs to prove their case filed Ex.A1 partition deed to show partition and extent of properties in R.S. No 166/1 fell to their respective shares and keeping suit schedule property in joint. Ex.A1 Registered partition deed Dt 28­11­57 clearly showing the properties acquired by Lakshminarayana, Narasimhaiah and their father Rama Kotaiah and also joint property of 12 cents kept as D­

Schedule . 

On perusal of the partition deed A­schedule fell to the share of Rama

Kotaiah, B­schedule fell to the share of Narasimhaiah, C­Schedule fell to the 2nd son Lakshminarayana along with other properties. As per Ex.A1 B­

OS.35/2012 Page 9 of 14

Schedule property i.e., fell to the Narasimhaiah’s share in R.S.No.166/1 an extent of Ac.1.94 cents is bounded by East – Donka, South – D.Venkata Reddy and others, North – C­schedule property i.e., Lakshminarayana’s property and west – Donka and C­schedule I.e fell to the share of Lakshminarayana showing an extent of Ac.1.94 cents out of Ac.4­0 cents, bounded by East – Donka, south ­A schedule property , west – Donka, North – B schedule property. As per Ex.A1 the property in S.No.166/1 shown as Ac.4­00 out of which Ac.1.94 cents each fell to the share of both Narasimhaiah and Lakshminarayana and remaining 12 cents kept in joint as D­Schedule with boundaries towards East­

Donka, South, North and West, B­Schedule owner property i.e.,

Narasimhaiah’s property. As per the D­schedule boundaries on all 3 sides i.e.,

South, west and North property is bounded by Narasimhaiah’s property towards Eastern side bounded by donka. So, the property which is towards

South, North and West sold to the D1 and D2 by Narasimhaiah out of Ac.1.94 cents and kept only 5 cents towards eastern side adjacent to Northern side of

D­Schedule property. Ex.A2 and A3 sale deeds of D2 and D1 respectively showing the boundaries.

11.Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the joint property was protruded into the property of Narasimhaiah i.e., B­schedule property, so bounded by Narasimhaiah properties on three sides. So, as per the Registered partition deed Ac.12 cents of property is left as joint property by Rama Kotaiah and his two sons Narasimhaiah and Lakshminarayana all are died intestate being sons of Rama Kotaiah his share fell to the Lakshminarayana and

Narasimhaiah and both Lakshminarayana and Narasimhaiah died intestate leaving behind plaintiffs i.e., legal heirs of late Narasimhaiah and

Lakshminarayana are acquired the property through succession and they are the owners and at present they are in joint possession of schedule property. 

12.As discussed above during cross examination D.W.1 admitted the partition of plaintiff’s ancestors in the year 1957 which is under Ex.A1, but

OS.35/2012 Page 10 of 14

shown his ignorance with regard to the plaint schedule property i.e 12 cents in

R.S.166/1, but Ex.A1 clearly proving joint property of 12 cents as D schedule.

To the extent of 12 cents of property nothing elicited by learned counsel for 1st defendant from the P.W.1 cross examination, except showing his ignorance even not disputed partition deed. Conveniently shows his ignorance that he do not know extent of land retained by Narasimhaiah after selling 77 cents to D2 and Ac.1.12 cents to him, but admitted that some property is retained towards

Eastern side of his property. The admission probabalizes that towards East side of D1’s land plaintiff’s land is situated. This admission probabalizes that towards Eastern side of 1st defendant property plaintiff have some property.

But it is main allegation of the 1st defendant counsel that in his sale deed there is no mention about the 12 cents of joint property. They only mentioned that plaintiff’s property in the survey number (Eee number lo maa thaluku

Bhoomi) so, basing on that recital learned counsel for defendant argued that 12 cents of land was not in existence if really there is any property is in existence, they might mention about extent 12 cents of property as boundary in his sale deed. On the other hand learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the word “Maa Thaluku Bhoomi” itself denotes that Eastern side property belongs to the plaintiffs and there is no need to mention specifically separate extent of propertis i.e., 5 cents exclusive property of legal heirs of Narasimhaiah and 12 cents of joint family property. The contention of learned counsel for plaintiffs is acceptable for the reason that the eastern boundary clearly showing property belongs to plaintiffs so there is no need to specifically mention separate extents.

13.As per discussion supra and Ex.A1 clearly showing that 12 cents of joint property is in existence since from the execution of partition deed i.e., 28­11­57. during cross examination of D.W.1 further admitted that he was not concerned with the land of 12 cents alleged to have been left joint by Gutta

Rama Kotaiah and his sons, and shown his ignorance stating that he do not

OS.35/2012 Page 11 of 14

know where it is situated and whether it is kept joint or not. Denied the suggestion that the 12 cents of suit schedule property is situated on East of his property. Further denied the suggestion that due to existence of 5 cents on the

East to his land, eastern boundary line of his land is not in straight line. But, admitted that after demise of Narasimhaiah, his heirs enjoying the land got by

Narasimhaiah towards East of his land. On perusal of Ex.A3 Sale deed of D1 it is not showing lineal measurements on four sides of boundaries. It is only showing boundaries and extent of property i.e., Ac.1.12 cents but, there is no lineal measurements to prove the contention of the 1st defendant that the length of his property towards North and South are equal in length and boundaries on West and East are in equal length in strait line. But Ex.A1 clearly proving that towards Eastern side of D1’s property i.e., Narasimhaiah property 12 cents are in existence. So Plaintiffs proved the existence of property towards Eastern side of D1’s property. 

14.1st defendant examined one 3rd party Sk.China Masthan as D.W.2 the chief affidavit filed by him stating that he is the neighbour to the D.W.1 as per his chief examination Eastern side boundary is not having any curve.

During cross examination his evidence was not supported D1’s evidence as he deposed that he do not know land near to the plaint schedule property, he has land at distance and he was not present at the time of writing the document in favour of 1st defendant. But he deposed that he was present at the time of measuring the land and admitted that plaintiffs have property near to the plaint schedule property even prior to the purchase of land by the D1.

Another 3rd party Gajji Ramulu examined as D.W.3 on behalf of 1st defendant.

He is one of the neighbour stating that he has house near to the suit schedule property and he know about the sale transaction and the suit schedule property is not having any curves on Eastern side. The boundaries of the suit schedule property on east and west are equal in length and south and north are in equal in length and there are no curves. During cross examination

OS.35/2012 Page 12 of 14

D.W.3 deposed that he do not possess any house near to the plaint schedule property and Plaint schedule land is an extent of Ac.1.12 cents and there is some more land in addition to the property purchased by D1 to the plaintiffs.

Admitted that 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the 1st plaintiff and he did not attested the sale deed of 1st defendant as such he was not present at the time of the writing the document and he was present at the time of measuring the land. He deposed that he do not know the measurements of the land and he was not present at the time of measurements of the land and he do not know the measurements in detail, but the land is in equal directions.

Defendant by examining the D2 and D3 who are the 3rd parties to the suit tried to impress upon the court that Eastern boundary is in straight line but not curve. As per the evidence of D2 and D3 they are not present at the time of

Sale transaction, though they deposed that their houses are near by Plaint schedule property but not filed any documentary evidence to prove that they are neighbours of suit schedule property and also D1 fails to file measurements and even D.W.2 and D.W.3 fails to mention when the property was measured in the presence of whom and by whom whether the Government surveyor or private Surveyor even defendant not ventured to appoint Advocate commissioner to measure his land and verify the physical features to show that his Eastern boundary is in straight line and there is no curves. It is settled law that in declaration suit Plaintiff has to prove his case on his own strength he must stand on his own legs but not on the weakness of defendant. Ex.A1 registered partition deed dated 28­11­1957 is mother document of Ex A2 and

A3 through which 1st defendant and 2nd defendant’s vendor acquired property through his ancestors and his boundaries clearly proved by Ex.A1. Further suit schedule property is joint family property kept in joint at the time of execution of registered partition deed between D1 and D2’s vendor and his brother and father proved through Ex.A1. Though D1 denied the existence of 12 cents of property but admitted partition between Rama Kotaiah and his sons in the

OS.35/2012 Page 13 of 14

year 1957. So as per Ex.A1 existence of 12 cents of suit schedule property which is D­schedule in Ex.A1 is proved and its boundaries as per Ex.A1 is clear and Narasimhaiah who is the owner of B­schedule property under Ex.A1 sold property to D1 towards the Western side of D­schedule property and towards Northern side to D2. So, Ex.A1 to A3 clearly proved Ex.A4 plaint plan.

Though P.W.2 evidence is no way helpful to the plaintiffs, but plaintiff prove his case by documentary and oral evidence of P.W.1 nothing elicited from the

P.W.1 evidence and it is admitted fact that Ac.1.12 cents sold to the D1 and 77 cents sold to the D2 after filing the suit also defendants and plaintiffs not measure the lands. But as per the admissions of the D.W.1 towards Eastern side of his land remaining property of Narasimhaiah is in existence on Eastern side which itself shown that there is a curve towards Eastern boundary and as per the Ex.A1, D­schedule property is in existence since from 1957. So plaintiff prove his case by oral and documentary evidence that 12 cents of suit schedule property is a joint family property in existence since 1957 and plaintiffs are legal heirs of Rama Kotaiah i.e., Lakshminarayana and Narasimhaiah entitled for declaration and also consequential relief of Permanent Injunction. Hence,

Issue Nos.1 and 2 decided in favour of Plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO.3:

15. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, relatives and followers from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner.

Transcribed and Typed to my dictation by stenographer­Gr.III, Corrected and

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 02nd day of May, 2018.

Sd/­

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

JAGGAYYAPET

OS.35/2012 Page 14 of 14

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff Defendants

P.W.1 – Gutha Madhusudhana Rao. D.W.1 – Nelluri Gopaiah. P.W.2 – Gangula Gangi Raju. D.W.2 – Shaik China Masthan. D.W.3 – G.Ramulu.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff 

Ex.A1 ­ Certified copy of Registered partition deed dated 28­11­1957. Ex.A2 - Certified copy of sale deed dated 11­08­1969. Ex.A3 - Certified copy of Registered sale deed dated 05­04­1997. Ex.A4 ­ Plaint plan.

Defendants -Nil-

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

JAGGAYYAPET

//True Copy//