Smt G Pratibha Devi

IN THE COURT OF THE XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: SMT. G. PRATHIBHA DEVI,

XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT HYDERABAD

Tuesday, 18th day of December, 2018.

A.S No.44 of 2014

Between: Smt. Mukkamala Shanta, W/o. Mukkamala Syamala Rao, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Household, R/o.10-4-771/7,1st Floor, Western side open space & shed, Sri Ram Nagar colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad,Rep. by her GPA holder, Mukkamala Syamala, S/o. late Mukkamala Hanumantha Rao, Aged about 76 years, Occ: Retired Govt. employee, R/o.10-4-771/7, 1st floor, western side open space & shed, Sri Ram Nagar colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

…..Appellant/Plaintiff.

A N D Kasturi Subba Rao, S/o. Late K. Somasundra, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Housekeeping, R/o. 10-4-771/7, Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

...Respondent/Defendant.

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2013 PASSED

IN O.S.No.650/2012 ON THE FILE OF IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: AT HYDERABAD.

O.S.No.650 OF 2012

Between:

Smt. Mukkamala Shanta, Rep. by her GPA holder,

M. Syamala Rao....Plaintiff.

AND

Kastturi Subba Rao. ...Defendant.

This Appeal suit is coming on 22.11.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Sreedhar Reddy, Advocate for Appellant/Plaintiff and of Sri S. Amarender Reddy, Advocate for Respondent/Defendant and upon hearing and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- 2 A.S.No.44 of 2014

J U D G M E N T

1.Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the learned IX Junior Civil

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed in O.S.No.650 of 2012 dated

29.10.2013, the appellant/plaintiff preferred the appeal.

2.The array of the parties will be as plaintiff and defendant for better adjudication.

3.The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the property of the plaintiff.

4.Brief averments of the plaint in O.S.No.650 of 2012 are:

The suit schedule property originally belongs to one Smt. Sarojini W/o.

M. Hanumanth Rao and M. Hanumanth Rao purchased the schedule property in the name of M.Sarojini to an extent of 410 sq.yards situated at House bearing

No.10-4-771/7, Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad i.e. the suit schedule property. Plaintiff purchased the said house from Sri Ramnagar

Colony Society through a deed in the year 1962-63. M. Hanumanth Rao constructed ground floor consisting of 9 rooms and 3 rooms on the upper floor and left open space on the western side of the suit schedule property. Later on a shed was raised in the western side open space with tinned roof and also constructed two additional rooms on the upper floor all together comes to six rooms.

5.Plaintiff and her family members were residing on the upper floor. M.

Saroji and M. Hanumanth Rao are issueless and they brought the children of late Kasturi Somasundara Rao. When the plaintiff was aged about 8 years M.

Hanumanth Rao brought the plaintiff and gave education and also performed 3 A.S.No.44 of 2014 the marriage with his brother’s son and kept them in the suit schedule property and also permitted them to stay in 5 rooms portion in the upper floor. He also brought the defendant who is none other than the brother of the plaintiff and plaintiff and defendant are sister and brother.

6.Plaintiff husband got job in Agriculture University, Rajendranagar and they stayed in the schedule property. After marriage defendant left the schedule property for 4 years and there was no cordial relationship with them and plaintiff used to look after the welfare and services of M. Sarojini till her death on 07.07.2006 in the suit schedule property and during the life time of

Smt. M. Sarojini she executed a will deed in favour of the plaintiff and defendant on 24.09.1996 bequething the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and defendant into 2 equal shares and open space. Western side was given to the plaintiff and ground floor with 9 rooms was given to the defendant and upper floor with 6 rooms and western side open space with shed was given to the plaintiff. The said will deed came into light after the death of Smt. Sarojini on 07.07.2006 when Hanumantha Rao himself handed over the said will deed to the plaintiff. After the death of Smt. M. Sarojini, plaintiff approached

M.Hanumantha Rao seeking property as per the will deed and on his advise she did not pressurize him for partition till the death of Hanumanth Rao on 04.12.2010. After his death she approached the defendant for partition as per the will deed, but the defendant postponed the same and also came forward with new plan that the entire schedule property given for development for residential complex. Later that can be shared with plaintiff and defendant.

4 A.S.No.44 of 2014

Believing his words she has handed over all the original documents including will deed to the defendant. After receiving all the documents, the defendant changed his version and asked the plaintiff to vacate the schedule property and also informed he is the absolute owner of the property. Hence, she constrained to file the suit for seeking injunction.

7.Defendant filed written statement alleging that he is adopted son of late

Hanumanth Rao who purchased the schedule property from A.P. Government

Employees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Hyderabad through registered sale deed dated 28.03.1964. Later constructed groiund floor, first floor and he was issueless. Hence, he adopted defendant No.1.

8.Hanumantha Rao executed a registered gift deed dated 25.02.2006 in favour of the defendant in respect of the schedule property and defendant became absolute owner and possessor of the property and the property was mutated in the name of defendant. Hanumanth Rao died on 04.12.2010 and the plaintiff got knowledge about all these facts. Since the building became old, hence he handed over it for development to construct a residential apartments and defendant’s adoptive mother not executed any will deed and she has no right to execute the same. Story of handing over the originals to the defendant by the plaintiff does not arise. Hence, the plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands. Hence, prays the court to dismiss the suit.

9.The trial court framed 2 issues :

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

5 A.S.No.44 of 2014

And answered the issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit against which the present appeal is filed on the grounds:

1.The trial court did not looked into the chief examination of DW.1 that during the life time of Hanumanth Rao he used to enjoy the rents as absolute owner and possessor and defendant has no relation with the tenant of late Hanumanth Rao and mere receiving rents does not give right to the defendant to claim ownership and there is no proof to show that the defendant was adopted by Hanumantha Rao. Infact both the plaintiff and the defendant are fostered by the said Hanumanth Rao and Sarojini, but the fact is not considered by the trial court.

2.Lower court not appreciated the evidence of PW.2 in proper lines and the evidence of PW.2 is important to adjudicate the suit before the trial court.

3.The lower court has given more weight to the gift deed i.e. Ex.B.5 and came to a wrong conclusion that the defendant was owner in respect of the schedule property and also the name of the defen- dant is also wrongly shown in the documents marked on behalf of the defendant.

4.The lower court not considered the documents filed by the plaintiff i.e. Ex.A.3 household card and also telephone bills and receipts.

5.The lower court also not considered Ex.A.13 will deed and DW.1 also confronted with Ex.A.13 and basing on the will deed defendant got mutated his name.

6.The lower court also not considered the cross-examination of PW.1 and also admissions in the cross-examination of PW.1 and came to a wrong conclusion and dismissed the suit.

10.In the trial court, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.21 documents are marked. On behalf of the defendant, DWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B.1 to B.15 are marked.

11.In the appellate court no one is examined and no documents are marked.

6 A.S.No.44 of 2014

12.Now the points for consideration are:

1.Whether the appellant/plaintiff is having title to the suit schedule property and entitled to perpetual injunction against the defendant?

2.Whether the plaintiff has proved Ex.A.13 will as per the procedure?

3.Whether the registered gift deed dated 25.02.2006 executed by M. Hanumanth Rao in favour of the defendant is true and valid?

4To what relief?

13.Points No.1 to 3 :-

The learned plaintiff counsel who filed written arguments arguing that the plaintiff along with her husband are staying in the schedule property and plaintiff was brought up by the M. Hanumanth Rao and Sarojini and Saroniji executed a will on 24.09.1996 and as per the will deed the western side open place and 6 rooms in the upper floor are bequeathed to the plaintiff and 9 rooms in the ground floor are bequeathed to the defendant and the original will deed is in possession of the defendant. After the death of M. Hanumanth Rao the plaintiff demanded the defendant but he postponed and trying to grab the entire house and want to give the house for development and pressurizing the plaintiff to vacate the property. Hence, she constrained to file the suit for perpetual injunction.

14.Defendant argued the matter. The learned defendant also filed written arguments arguing that the suit itself is not maintainable and defendant is claiming title to the schedule property in view of the registered gift deed executed by late M. Hanumanth Rao in favour of the defendant which is marked as Ex.B.5 and the plaintiff without having any title over the property 7 A.S.No.44 of 2014 alleged will deed which is marked as Ex.A.13 has no evidenciary value as

Sarojini got no right to execute the will deed as the schedule property is originally purchased by M. Hanumanth Rao under Ex.B.4 sale deed dt.

28.03.1964 from housing society as M. Hanumanth Rao was a Government employee and under that scheme he got the property and later got constructed the building and also the defendant was adopted son of M. Hanumanth Rao.

Hence, the trial court considered the documents of the defendant and rightly dismissed the suit. Hence, argued that there is no ground in the appeal to set aside the Judgment.

15.In view of the rival contentions the court has to see the title to the prop- erty once the defendant pleaded title denying the title of the plaintiff, suit for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable as defendant is directly denied the title of the plaintiff in view of the Ex.B.5 document as Ex.B.5 is the registered gift deed dated 25.02.2006 executed by M. Hanumanth Rao in favour of the defendant and also Exs.B.1 and B.2 wedding card of defendant and also invitation card of defendant’s daughter marriage and Ex.B.3 is the original death anniversary invitation card of M. Hanumanth Rao clearly shows the defendant is the adopted son of M. Hanumanth Rao and in the Ex.B.2 wedding card the defendant was shown as adopted son of M. Hanumanth Rao and this defendant has performed death ceremonies of M. Hanumanth Rao in the capacity of his son. Evne though no adoption deed is marked but in view of the

Ex.B.5 registered gift deed, there is no necessity for the defendant to prove the adoption to show that the late M. Hanumanth Rao adopted the defendant.

8 A.S.No.44 of 2014

Further Exs.B.2 and B.3 are sufficient and apart from that Ex.B.9 property tax receipt. Ex.B.10 electricity bills and Ex.B.13 Electoral roll clearly shows that the defendant name to the suit schedule property and also property mutated in the name of defendant and Ex.B.6 is the Household card.

16.In the other hand, the plaintiff is claiming title to the property under

Ex.A.13 will deed. According to the plaintiff who is examined as PW.3 as the husband of plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and third party examined as PW.2 wife of M. Hanumanth Rao i.e. Sarojini executed will deed under Ex.A.13 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant equally partitioning the property but defendant is strongly denying Ex.A.13 and it is the case of the plaintiff the original of Ex.A.13 along with some other documents are handed over to the defendant but later the defendant changed his attitude and set up title. Even though,for arguments sake, if we take the evidence of plaintiff that Sarojini executed will bequeathing the property to the plaintiff and defendant but the plaintiff has not taken any steps to prove Ex.A.13 will as it is mandatory to examine atleast one of the attesting witness to the will as contemplated under

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.

17.On perusal of Ex.A.13 will which is certified copy, there are two witnesses to the said document, but the plaintiff has not taken any steps to examine atleast one witness as contemplated under Section 68 of the Indian

Evidence Act. Hence, we can say the plaintiff failed to prove her title in respect of the schedule property, apart from that, the court has to see whether Sarojini got right to execute Ex.A.13 and the learned defendant counsel also rightly 9 A.S.No.44 of 2014 argued when M. Hanumanth Rao purchased the property under ExB.4 sale deed in the year 1964, and he executed registered gift deed in favour of the defendant on 25.02.2006 and also by waiting till the death of M. Hanumanth Rao even though Sarojini executed the will in the year 2006 there is no explanation why plaintiff kept silent. According to the defendant, M. Hanumanth Rao died on 04.12.2010 in view of Ex.B.3 so prior to the death of M. Hanumanth Rao itself his wife executed Ex.A.13 will dated 24.09.1996, but how the wife of M.

Hanumanth Rao i.e. Sarojini got title to that property as there is no explanation from the plaintiff and there is no material that M. Hanumanth Rao executed any documents in favour of his wife. Hence, there is no merit in the case of the plaintiff claiming title to the property as per Ex.A.13 will and also there is no explanation why she waited till the death of M. Hanumanth Rao and according to the plaintiff during the life time of M. Hanumanth Rao she approached the

M. Hanumanth Rao and at his advice she did not claimed the property but absolutely there is not material on record corroborating the evidence of plaintiff and viewed in any angle the plaintiff’s title to the property cannot be believed.

18.The learned plaintiff counsel further argued the suit is only for injunction simplicitor. It is sufficient when the plaintiff able to establish her possession over the schedule property by the date of filing suit, for which, the husband of the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 identity card and

Ex.A.2 Election Identity Card and Ex.A.3 Household card and Exs.A.1 and A.2

Election cards are issued in the year 1996 and husband of the plaintiff examined as PW.1 and categorically stated eastern side of the house baring No.10-4- 10 A.S.No.44 of 2014 771/7/1 belongs to one Shastri and the house number shown as 10-4-771/7/1 on

Exs.A.1 and A.2 are not belongs to the plaintiff. The plaint schedule also shows eastern side house as stated by PW.1 is 10-4-771/7/1. Hence, Exs.A.1 and A.2 are also not helpful for the plaintiff.

19.The other documents relied by the plaintiff are Ex.A.7(receipt) and

Ex.A.8(telephone bill), but telephone bills also not disclosed clearly mentioning the 1st floor since the plaintiff is claiming she is residing in the 1st floor and

Exs.A.10 and A.11 Photo Electoral Roll-2013 does not show that they are residing in the first floor of the suit schedule property and Ex.A.17 pass book, but all these documents not shown the possession of plaintiff over the schedule property.

20.In order to prove the possession the plaintiff has to file property tax bills and electricity bills in respect of the schedule property to show that she is residing in the first floor, there is no doubt with regard to the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. They are brother and sister. It is also an admitted fact that M. Hanumanth Rao and Sarojini are issueless and plaintiff has to establish her case that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properly i.e.6 rooms in 1st floor and shop on the western side of the suit property bearing No.10-4-771/7.

21.PW.1 also pleaded ignorance in respect of the sale deed in the name of M.

Hanumanth Rao and in the plaint the plaintiff pleaded she has purchased the property during the year 1962-63 that also falsifies in view of the registered sale deed in the name of M. Hanumanth Rao.

11 A.S.No.44 of 2014

22.The plaintiff herself examined and filed chief affidavit as PW.3 and the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and categorically stated the 1st floor was given to lease and he is collecting the rents, so when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property the question of interference by the defendant to the property does not arise.

23.PW.2 is also categorically deposed that he is not having talking terms with M. Hanumanth Rao prior to 2006 itself. Hence, the evidence of PW.2 cannot be considered and PW.3 also failed to depose in her cross-examination what are the boundaries to the plaint schedule property in which she is residing according to the plaintiff. That also shows that plaintiff is not having knowledge in respect of the boundaries. Hence, there is merit in the arguments of the learned defendant counsel that plaintiff is not residing in the schedule property. Hence, she is not in position to say the boundaries to the schedule property.

24.In the other hand, the defendant relied on Ex.B.5 registered gift deed to show his title and Ex.B.6 is the household card. Ex.B.8 is the Aadhar card and property tax bills are also paid by the defendant under Ex.B.9 and Electricity bills under Ex.B.10 shows the possession and enjoyment of the defendant.

PW.1 is the husband of the plaintiff. Naturally he is interested witness.

25. On behalf of the defendant, DW.2 is examined. She categorically deposed that schedule property consists of ground and first floor and during the life time of her husband M. Hanumanth Rao he used to reside in the first floor 12 A.S.No.44 of 2014 and defendant with his family residing in the ground floor and also deposed he had executed a registered gift deed dated 25.02.2006 under Ex.B.5 in favour of the defendant.

26.As seen from the cross-examination of DW.2 by the learned plaintiff counsel, DW.2 is working as teacher and she further deposed that M.

Hanumanth Rao died in the suit schedule property and also as per Ex.B.3 the defendant in the capacity of adopted son performed the death ceremonies of late

M. Hanumanth Rao and also show the suit schedule property address and it is also corroborated with the independent evidence of DW.2 that late

M. Hanumanth Rao used to reside in the first floor and defendant with his family used to reside in the ground floor. So, considering all these aspects the trial court rightly came to a conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish her case that she is not in possession of the schedule property. Hence answered the issue against the plaintiff.

27.The formal admissions in the cross-examination of DW.1 will not give scope for the plaintiff to claim title and also seeking injunction as it is an equitable relief. Mere DW.1 stated in his cross-examination that there is no written adoption deed but he clarified the adoption taken place as per the

Hindu rites and customs and he further deposed he did not mention in his official records as M alias K.V.Subba Rao. Hence, there are suggestions to

DW.1 that only to grab the suit schedule property the defendant mentioned his name as M Alias K.V. Subba Rao and according to DW.1 in the year 1963

M. Hanumanth Rao adopted him and plaintiff got married in the year 1965 and 13 A.S.No.44 of 2014 he admitted they performed Shashtipoorthi to the plaintiff and the photographs are marked as Ex.A.12.

28.DW.1 is cross-examined in respect of Ex.A.13 will deed but according to

DW.1 there is only mention of vacant space goes to the plaintiff and there is no mention of the rooms and shed and there are suggestions that Exs.B.4 and B.5 contains the averment to show that he was adopted at the age of eleven years, but the year is not mentioned, but he denied. According to DW.1 Sarojini died on 07.07.2006. Even though there are suggestion prior to Ex.B.5, Ex.B.13 will is in existence, but Ex.B.5 gift deed is registered document. There are suggestions to DW.1 that Ex.A.13 will deed is acted upon but he denied.

Except the formal admissions and the plaintiff is not entitled to take advantage of the decision in the case of when she is claiming the title she has to independently establish her title and possession to the schedule property, but she failed to establish the same. Hence, the trial court correctly dismissed the suit. Hence, the points are answered in favour of the Respondent/defendant and against the appellant/plaintiff.

29.Point No.4:- To what relief?

In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs confirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial court in O.S.No.650 of 2012 passed by the learned IX

Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 29.10.2013.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on Tuesday, 18th day of December, 2018.

Sd/-

XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

14 A.S.No.44 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

-Nil-

Sd/-

XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: SMT. G. PRATHIBHA DEVI,

XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT HYDERABAD

Tuesday, 18th day of December, 2018.

A.S No.44 of 2014

Between: Smt. Mukkamala Shanta, W/o. Mukkamala Syamala Rao, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Household, R/o.10-4-771/7,1st Floor, Western side open space & shed, Sri Ram Nagar colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad,Rep. by her GPA holder, Mukkamala Syamala, S/o. late Mukkamala Hanumantha Rao, Aged about 76 years, Occ: Retired Govt. employee, R/o.10-4-771/7, 1st floor, western side open space & shed, Sri Ram Nagar colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

…..Appellant/Plaintiff.

A N D Kasturi Subba Rao, S/o. Late K. Somasundra, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Housekeeping, R/o. 10-4-771/7, Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

...Respondent/Defendant.

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2013 PASSED

IN O.S.No.650/2012 ON THE FILE OF IX JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: AT HYDERABAD.

O.S.No.650 OF 2012

Between:

Smt. Mukkamala Shanta, Rep. by her GPA holder,

M. Syamala Rao....Plaintiff.

AND

Kastturi Subba Rao. ...Defendant.

This Appeal suit is coming on 22.11.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Sreedhar Reddy, Advocate for Appellant/Plaintiff and of Sri S. Amarender Reddy, Advocate for Respondent/Defendant and upon hearing and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- 2 A.S.No.44 of 2014

J U D G M E N T

1.Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the learned IX Junior Civil

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed in O.S.No.650 of 2012 dated

29.10.2013, the appellant/plaintiff preferred the appeal.

2.The array of the parties will be as plaintiff and defendant for better adjudication.

3.The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the property of the plaintiff.

4.Brief averments of the plaint in O.S.No.650 of 2012 are:

The suit schedule property originally belongs to one Smt. Sarojini W/o.

M. Hanumanth Rao and M. Hanumanth Rao purchased the schedule property in the name of M.Sarojini to an extent of 410 sq.yards situated at House bearing

No.10-4-771/7, Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad i.e. the suit schedule property. Plaintiff purchased the said house from Sri Ramnagar

Colony Society through a deed in the year 1962-63. M. Hanumanth Rao constructed ground floor consisting of 9 rooms and 3 rooms on the upper floor and left open space on the western side of the suit schedule property. Later on a shed was raised in the western side open space with tinned roof and also constructed two additional rooms on the upper floor all together comes to six rooms.

5.Plaintiff and her family members were residing on the upper floor. M.

Saroji and M. Hanumanth Rao are issueless and they brought the children of late Kasturi Somasundara Rao. When the plaintiff was aged about 8 years M.

Hanumanth Rao brought the plaintiff and gave education and also performed 3 A.S.No.44 of 2014 the marriage with his brother’s son and kept them in the suit schedule property and also permitted them to stay in 5 rooms portion in the upper floor. He also brought the defendant who is none other than the brother of the plaintiff and plaintiff and defendant are sister and brother.

6.Plaintiff husband got job in Agriculture University, Rajendranagar and they stayed in the schedule property. After marriage defendant left the schedule property for 4 years and there was no cordial relationship with them and plaintiff used to look after the welfare and services of M. Sarojini till her death on 07.07.2006 in the suit schedule property and during the life time of

Smt. M. Sarojini she executed a will deed in favour of the plaintiff and defendant on 24.09.1996 bequething the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and defendant into 2 equal shares and open space. Western side was given to the plaintiff and ground floor with 9 rooms was given to the defendant and upper floor with 6 rooms and western side open space with shed was given to the plaintiff. The said will deed came into light after the death of Smt. Sarojini on 07.07.2006 when Hanumantha Rao himself handed over the said will deed to the plaintiff. After the death of Smt. M. Sarojini, plaintiff approached

M.Hanumantha Rao seeking property as per the will deed and on his advise she did not pressurize him for partition till the death of Hanumanth Rao on 04.12.2010. After his death she approached the defendant for partition as per the will deed, but the defendant postponed the same and also came forward with new plan that the entire schedule property given for development for residential complex. Later that can be shared with plaintiff and defendant.

4 A.S.No.44 of 2014

Believing his words she has handed over all the original documents including will deed to the defendant. After receiving all the documents, the defendant changed his version and asked the plaintiff to vacate the schedule property and also informed he is the absolute owner of the property. Hence, she constrained to file the suit for seeking injunction.

7.Defendant filed written statement alleging that he is adopted son of late

Hanumanth Rao who purchased the schedule property from A.P. Government

Employees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Hyderabad through registered sale deed dated 28.03.1964. Later constructed groiund floor, first floor and he was issueless. Hence, he adopted defendant No.1.

8.Hanumantha Rao executed a registered gift deed dated 25.02.2006 in favour of the defendant in respect of the schedule property and defendant became absolute owner and possessor of the property and the property was mutated in the name of defendant. Hanumanth Rao died on 04.12.2010 and the plaintiff got knowledge about all these facts. Since the building became old, hence he handed over it for development to construct a residential apartments and defendant’s adoptive mother not executed any will deed and she has no right to execute the same. Story of handing over the originals to the defendant by the plaintiff does not arise. Hence, the plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands. Hence, prays the court to dismiss the suit.

9.The trial court framed 2 issues :

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

5 A.S.No.44 of 2014

And answered the issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit against which the present appeal is filed on the grounds:

1.The trial court did not looked into the chief examination of DW.1 that during the life time of Hanumanth Rao he used to enjoy the rents as absolute owner and possessor and defendant has no relation with the tenant of late Hanumanth Rao and mere receiving rents does not give right to the defendant to claim ownership and there is no proof to show that the defendant was adopted by Hanumantha Rao. Infact both the plaintiff and the defendant are fostered by the said Hanumanth Rao and Sarojini, but the fact is not considered by the trial court.

2.Lower court not appreciated the evidence of PW.2 in proper lines and the evidence of PW.2 is important to adjudicate the suit before the trial court.

3.The lower court has given more weight to the gift deed i.e. Ex.B.5 and came to a wrong conclusion that the defendant was owner in respect of the schedule property and also the name of the defen- dant is also wrongly shown in the documents marked on behalf of the defendant.

4.The lower court not considered the documents filed by the plaintiff i.e. Ex.A.3 household card and also telephone bills and receipts.

5.The lower court also not considered Ex.A.13 will deed and DW.1 also confronted with Ex.A.13 and basing on the will deed defendant got mutated his name.

6.The lower court also not considered the cross-examination of PW.1 and also admissions in the cross-examination of PW.1 and came to a wrong conclusion and dismissed the suit.

10.In the trial court, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.21 documents are marked. On behalf of the defendant, DWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B.1 to B.15 are marked.

11.In the appellate court no one is examined and no documents are marked.

6 A.S.No.44 of 2014

12.Now the points for consideration are:

1.Whether the appellant/plaintiff is having title to the suit schedule property and entitled to perpetual injunction against the defendant?

2.Whether the plaintiff has proved Ex.A.13 will as per the procedure?

3.Whether the registered gift deed dated 25.02.2006 executed by M. Hanumanth Rao in favour of the defendant is true and valid?

4To what relief?

13.Points No.1 to 3 :-

The learned plaintiff counsel who filed written arguments arguing that the plaintiff along with her husband are staying in the schedule property and plaintiff was brought up by the M. Hanumanth Rao and Sarojini and Saroniji executed a will on 24.09.1996 and as per the will deed the western side open place and 6 rooms in the upper floor are bequeathed to the plaintiff and 9 rooms in the ground floor are bequeathed to the defendant and the original will deed is in possession of the defendant. After the death of M. Hanumanth Rao the plaintiff demanded the defendant but he postponed and trying to grab the entire house and want to give the house for development and pressurizing the plaintiff to vacate the property. Hence, she constrained to file the suit for perpetual injunction.

14.Defendant argued the matter. The learned defendant also filed written arguments arguing that the suit itself is not maintainable and defendant is claiming title to the schedule property in view of the registered gift deed executed by late M. Hanumanth Rao in favour of the defendant which is marked as Ex.B.5 and the plaintiff without having any title over the property 7 A.S.No.44 of 2014 alleged will deed which is marked as Ex.A.13 has no evidenciary value as

Sarojini got no right to execute the will deed as the schedule property is originally purchased by M. Hanumanth Rao under Ex.B.4 sale deed dt.

28.03.1964 from housing society as M. Hanumanth Rao was a Government employee and under that scheme he got the property and later got constructed the building and also the defendant was adopted son of M. Hanumanth Rao.

Hence, the trial court considered the documents of the defendant and rightly dismissed the suit. Hence, argued that there is no ground in the appeal to set aside the Judgment.

15.In view of the rival contentions the court has to see the title to the prop- erty once the defendant pleaded title denying the title of the plaintiff, suit for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable as defendant is directly denied the title of the plaintiff in view of the Ex.B.5 document as Ex.B.5 is the registered gift deed dated 25.02.2006 executed by M. Hanumanth Rao in favour of the defendant and also Exs.B.1 and B.2 wedding card of defendant and also invitation card of defendant’s daughter marriage and Ex.B.3 is the original death anniversary invitation card of M. Hanumanth Rao clearly shows the defendant is the adopted son of M. Hanumanth Rao and in the Ex.B.2 wedding card the defendant was shown as adopted son of M. Hanumanth Rao and this defendant has performed death ceremonies of M. Hanumanth Rao in the capacity of his son. Evne though no adoption deed is marked but in view of the

Ex.B.5 registered gift deed, there is no necessity for the defendant to prove the adoption to show that the late M. Hanumanth Rao adopted the defendant.

8 A.S.No.44 of 2014

Further Exs.B.2 and B.3 are sufficient and apart from that Ex.B.9 property tax receipt. Ex.B.10 electricity bills and Ex.B.13 Electoral roll clearly shows that the defendant name to the suit schedule property and also property mutated in the name of defendant and Ex.B.6 is the Household card.

16.In the other hand, the plaintiff is claiming title to the property under

Ex.A.13 will deed. According to the plaintiff who is examined as PW.3 as the husband of plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and third party examined as PW.2 wife of M. Hanumanth Rao i.e. Sarojini executed will deed under Ex.A.13 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant equally partitioning the property but defendant is strongly denying Ex.A.13 and it is the case of the plaintiff the original of Ex.A.13 along with some other documents are handed over to the defendant but later the defendant changed his attitude and set up title. Even though,for arguments sake, if we take the evidence of plaintiff that Sarojini executed will bequeathing the property to the plaintiff and defendant but the plaintiff has not taken any steps to prove Ex.A.13 will as it is mandatory to examine atleast one of the attesting witness to the will as contemplated under

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.

17.On perusal of Ex.A.13 will which is certified copy, there are two witnesses to the said document, but the plaintiff has not taken any steps to examine atleast one witness as contemplated under Section 68 of the Indian

Evidence Act. Hence, we can say the plaintiff failed to prove her title in respect of the schedule property, apart from that, the court has to see whether Sarojini got right to execute Ex.A.13 and the learned defendant counsel also rightly 9 A.S.No.44 of 2014 argued when M. Hanumanth Rao purchased the property under ExB.4 sale deed in the year 1964, and he executed registered gift deed in favour of the defendant on 25.02.2006 and also by waiting till the death of M. Hanumanth Rao even though Sarojini executed the will in the year 2006 there is no explanation why plaintiff kept silent. According to the defendant, M. Hanumanth Rao died on 04.12.2010 in view of Ex.B.3 so prior to the death of M. Hanumanth Rao itself his wife executed Ex.A.13 will dated 24.09.1996, but how the wife of M.

Hanumanth Rao i.e. Sarojini got title to that property as there is no explanation from the plaintiff and there is no material that M. Hanumanth Rao executed any documents in favour of his wife. Hence, there is no merit in the case of the plaintiff claiming title to the property as per Ex.A.13 will and also there is no explanation why she waited till the death of M. Hanumanth Rao and according to the plaintiff during the life time of M. Hanumanth Rao she approached the

M. Hanumanth Rao and at his advice she did not claimed the property but absolutely there is not material on record corroborating the evidence of plaintiff and viewed in any angle the plaintiff’s title to the property cannot be believed.

18.The learned plaintiff counsel further argued the suit is only for injunction simplicitor. It is sufficient when the plaintiff able to establish her possession over the schedule property by the date of filing suit, for which, the husband of the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 identity card and

Ex.A.2 Election Identity Card and Ex.A.3 Household card and Exs.A.1 and A.2

Election cards are issued in the year 1996 and husband of the plaintiff examined as PW.1 and categorically stated eastern side of the house baring No.10-4- 10 A.S.No.44 of 2014 771/7/1 belongs to one Shastri and the house number shown as 10-4-771/7/1 on

Exs.A.1 and A.2 are not belongs to the plaintiff. The plaint schedule also shows eastern side house as stated by PW.1 is 10-4-771/7/1. Hence, Exs.A.1 and A.2 are also not helpful for the plaintiff.

19.The other documents relied by the plaintiff are Ex.A.7(receipt) and

Ex.A.8(telephone bill), but telephone bills also not disclosed clearly mentioning the 1st floor since the plaintiff is claiming she is residing in the 1st floor and

Exs.A.10 and A.11 Photo Electoral Roll-2013 does not show that they are residing in the first floor of the suit schedule property and Ex.A.17 pass book, but all these documents not shown the possession of plaintiff over the schedule property.

20.In order to prove the possession the plaintiff has to file property tax bills and electricity bills in respect of the schedule property to show that she is residing in the first floor, there is no doubt with regard to the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. They are brother and sister. It is also an admitted fact that M. Hanumanth Rao and Sarojini are issueless and plaintiff has to establish her case that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properly i.e.6 rooms in 1st floor and shop on the western side of the suit property bearing No.10-4-771/7.

21.PW.1 also pleaded ignorance in respect of the sale deed in the name of M.

Hanumanth Rao and in the plaint the plaintiff pleaded she has purchased the property during the year 1962-63 that also falsifies in view of the registered sale deed in the name of M. Hanumanth Rao.

11 A.S.No.44 of 2014

22.The plaintiff herself examined and filed chief affidavit as PW.3 and the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and categorically stated the 1st floor was given to lease and he is collecting the rents, so when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property the question of interference by the defendant to the property does not arise.

23.PW.2 is also categorically deposed that he is not having talking terms with M. Hanumanth Rao prior to 2006 itself. Hence, the evidence of PW.2 cannot be considered and PW.3 also failed to depose in her cross-examination what are the boundaries to the plaint schedule property in which she is residing according to the plaintiff. That also shows that plaintiff is not having knowledge in respect of the boundaries. Hence, there is merit in the arguments of the learned defendant counsel that plaintiff is not residing in the schedule property. Hence, she is not in position to say the boundaries to the schedule property.

24.In the other hand, the defendant relied on Ex.B.5 registered gift deed to show his title and Ex.B.6 is the household card. Ex.B.8 is the Aadhar card and property tax bills are also paid by the defendant under Ex.B.9 and Electricity bills under Ex.B.10 shows the possession and enjoyment of the defendant.

PW.1 is the husband of the plaintiff. Naturally he is interested witness.

25. On behalf of the defendant, DW.2 is examined. She categorically deposed that schedule property consists of ground and first floor and during the life time of her husband M. Hanumanth Rao he used to reside in the first floor 12 A.S.No.44 of 2014 and defendant with his family residing in the ground floor and also deposed he had executed a registered gift deed dated 25.02.2006 under Ex.B.5 in favour of the defendant.

26.As seen from the cross-examination of DW.2 by the learned plaintiff counsel, DW.2 is working as teacher and she further deposed that M.

Hanumanth Rao died in the suit schedule property and also as per Ex.B.3 the defendant in the capacity of adopted son performed the death ceremonies of late

M. Hanumanth Rao and also show the suit schedule property address and it is also corroborated with the independent evidence of DW.2 that late

M. Hanumanth Rao used to reside in the first floor and defendant with his family used to reside in the ground floor. So, considering all these aspects the trial court rightly came to a conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish her case that she is not in possession of the schedule property. Hence answered the issue against the plaintiff.

27.The formal admissions in the cross-examination of DW.1 will not give scope for the plaintiff to claim title and also seeking injunction as it is an equitable relief. Mere DW.1 stated in his cross-examination that there is no written adoption deed but he clarified the adoption taken place as per the

Hindu rites and customs and he further deposed he did not mention in his official records as M alias K.V.Subba Rao. Hence, there are suggestions to

DW.1 that only to grab the suit schedule property the defendant mentioned his name as M Alias K.V. Subba Rao and according to DW.1 in the year 1963

M. Hanumanth Rao adopted him and plaintiff got married in the year 1965 and 13 A.S.No.44 of 2014 he admitted they performed Shashtipoorthi to the plaintiff and the photographs are marked as Ex.A.12.

28.DW.1 is cross-examined in respect of Ex.A.13 will deed but according to

DW.1 there is only mention of vacant space goes to the plaintiff and there is no mention of the rooms and shed and there are suggestions that Exs.B.4 and B.5 contains the averment to show that he was adopted at the age of eleven years, but the year is not mentioned, but he denied. According to DW.1 Sarojini died on 07.07.2006. Even though there are suggestion prior to Ex.B.5, Ex.B.13 will is in existence, but Ex.B.5 gift deed is registered document. There are suggestions to DW.1 that Ex.A.13 will deed is acted upon but he denied.

Except the formal admissions and the plaintiff is not entitled to take advantage of the decision in the case of when she is claiming the title she has to independently establish her title and possession to the schedule property, but she failed to establish the same. Hence, the trial court correctly dismissed the suit. Hence, the points are answered in favour of the Respondent/defendant and against the appellant/plaintiff.

29.Point No.4:- To what relief?

In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs confirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial court in O.S.No.650 of 2012 passed by the learned IX

Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 29.10.2013.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on Tuesday, 18th day of December, 2018.

Sd/-

XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

14 A.S.No.44 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

-Nil-

Sd/-

XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

1 CC 199 of 2005 

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN 

MAGISTRATE: AT HYDERABAD

Present: Smt. G.Pratibha Devi, B.Sc., M.L. III Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 4th day of April, 2012

CC No. 199/2005

BETWEEN:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Banjara Hills Complainant AND 1 K. Nagesh S/o Naganna aged 24 yrs. Occ : Scrab R/o Giani Jail Singh Nagar Filmnagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderagbad.

2 K.Parshuram 3 M.Veeraswamy S/o M.Narsaiah aged 25 yrs. Occ: Scrap business R/o GJN Nagar, Filmnagar, Banjara Hills, 4 K.Sunkanna S/o K.Anjaneyulu aged 18 ys. Occ: Scrap business R/o GZN Nagar, Filmnagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

5 K.Ramulu .. Accused.

6 Urukonda @ Chinna S/o E.Pedalaxmaiah aged 24 yrs. Occ; Scrap business, R/o GZN Nagar, Filmnagar, Hyderabad.

(Present case is tried against A1, A3, A4, A6) (Case against A2, A5 is split up vide CC No.585 of 2011)

This case is coming before me today for final disposal in the presence of Learned APPO appearing for the prosecution and Mr. Mallepally Srinivas, Counsel for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1 The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under secs. 326 r/w sec.34 IPC.

2 CC 199 of 2005 2 The brief facts of the case are that there is a dispute between the B.Krishna party and accused regarding financial transaction. IN this regard there was quarrel between them earlier which was pacified. But the accused kept the grudge in mind and were looking for an opportunity. Accordingly on 9.10.2004 there was petty quarrel between the B. Krishna and A1 and taking that as advantage A1 along with A2 to A6 beat B. Krishna, K.Krishna, K.Rangaswmay, Smt. 

B.Govindamma, K.Anjaneyulu with rod causing bleeding injuries to them. 

3 The charge sheet was taken on file under sec. 326 r/w sec. 34 

IPC against the Accused. On appearance of Accused, copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to them. A1, A3, 

A4 and A6 were examined under sec. 239 Cr.P.C. Charge under secs. 

326 r/w sec. 34 IPC has been framed against the accused. Read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 CC 199 of 2005 4On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.7 are examined and Exs P.1 to P.9 are marked.

5 On behalf of the accused no witness is examined and no documents are marked.

6 After closure of prosecution evidence, A1, A3, A4 and A6 were examined under sec. 313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available against them. Accused denied the same.

7 Now the point for consideration is “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under secs. 326 r/w sec. 34 IPC”? 

POINT 8 The case of the prosecution is this accused beat the defacto complainant and others and inflicted injuries. The motive for the offence is there are disputes in respect of chit amounts as p.W.1 used to do chit business. So, the prosecution has to prove P.W.1 and others sustained injuries in the hands of accused. 

9In order to prove the same the prosecution examined all the injured in this case. 

4 CC 199 of 2005 10P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and injured. According to him all the accused came to his house at about 2.00 a.m. In the mid night and beat him and also his father Anjaneyulu and also brother 

Rangaswamy and others. So, they went to police station and police recorded his statement.

11As seen from the cross examination of P.W.1 that one 

B.Krishna and A1 conducted chit business and also there are suggestions one B.Krishna failed to pay alleged chit amount and A1 acted as agent for which P.W.1 denied the same. So, in view of the cross examination of P.W.1 also we can safely come to conclusion that there are disputes between P.W.1 and accused in respect of the chit transaction. It was also suggested one Govindamma who is the wife of B.Krishna committed suicide. In this case the defacto complainant and injured i.e. L.W.1 B.Krishna is not examined by the prosecution, but, other injured K.Krishna is examined as P.W.1. So, 

P.W.1 is the brother in law of L.W.1 B.Krishna and the whereabouts of 

L.W.1 B.Krishna are not known to P.W.1 as after the death of his sister Govindamma, L.W.1 B.Krishna absconded. 

5 CC 199 of 2005 12P.W.2 is another injured corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 about this accused beating P.W.1 and others. According to him he was beaten by A2 with iron rod. According to P.W.2 B. Krishna is his relative.

13P.W.3 is also one of the injured corroborated the evidence of 

P.W.s 1 & 2 about A1 beating P.W.1 and other injured and it was also elicited alleged incident has taken place at about 2 a.m. mid night. So, there are suggestions to P.W.3 whether any case was booked against 

L.W.1 B.krishna for the death of Govindamma. Any way we cannot give much importance to the death of Govindamma as limited point for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to establish this accused beat the injured.

14P.W.4 is the son of L.W.1 B.Krishna. According to him P.W.1 is his maternal uncle. P.W.3 is his grand father and 5 years back in the mid night all these accused beat P.W.1 and other injured and he was also pushed aside when he intervened. So, there are suggestions to P.W.4 that B.Krishna running chits. So, P.W.4 is also one of the injured. P.W.4 further denied about L.W.1 B.Krishna running chits. So, 6 CC 199 of 2005 

P.W.4 is one of the injured supported P.W.s 1 to 3 version. 

15P.W.5 is Head Constable who recorded the statement of 

L.W.1 B.Krishna under Ex.P.1. So, according to P.W.5 L.W.1 

B.Krishna came to police station and he recorded his statement. So, non examination of L.W.1 B.Krishna is fatal in respect of the injuries sustained to L.W.1 B.Krishna but in respect of other injured there is ample evidence to show this accused beat them apart from L.W.1 

Krishna. P.W.5 denied that L.W.1 Krishna did not state before P.W.5 that specific overtacts. On perusal of Ex.P.1 statement which was recorded by P.W.5 in Telugu the specific overtacts attributed were also deposed. So, there are suggestions P.W.5 prepared Ex.P.1 but there is no necessity for P.W.5 being Head constable to prepare false statement under Ex.P.1. There is no enmity in between P.W.5 and accused.

16P.W.6 altered section of law from 324 IPC to 326 IPC as one of the injured P.W.3 sustained grievous injuries as per medical certificate.

7 CC 199 of 2005 17P.W.7 is Investigating Officer who examined witnesses and also seized iron rods used by the accused to beat the injured and he arrested the accused.

18As seen from the cross examination of P.W.7 it was suggested with regard to minor omissions in recording 161 Cr.P.C. 

statement and in evidence before the court but it will not throw away the entire prosecution case. The accused are more in number. So, there may be some discrepancies in respect of the injured as the injured were altogether 6 in number but the prosecution has only examined 4 injured and L.W.1 B.Krishna defacto complainant and injured is not examined and one of the injured i.e. Wife of the Krishna i.e. L.W.4 B.Govindamma is no more as she consumed poison and died. But, the doctor who treated the injured is not examined but the wound certificates of the injured were marked as Exs.P.4 to P.9 through Investigating Officer. So, we can say Exs.P.4 to P.9 are not proved but we can safely come to conclusion this P.W.1 and other injured have sustained injuries in the hands of accused even though 

P.W.3 Anjaneyulu as per his wound certificate sustained grievous 8 CC 199 of 2005 injury but the X ray films were not produced and doctor who treated injured is not examined and the prosecution also not taken any steps for the reasons best known to them. So, the contents of Exs.P.4 to P.9 are not proved. But, according to sec. 319 IPC ­ Hurt “Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt”.

So, in this case P.W.s 1 to 4 sustained injuries in the hands of accused which is sufficient to constitute the offence under the definition of sec. 321 IPC. According to sec. 321 IPC – Voluntarily causing hurt : ­ “Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said “voluntarily to cause hurt”.

So, even the accused are charged for the offence under sec. 326 IPC but the prosecution failed to prove in respect of grievous injury sustained to P.W.3 and all the remaining injured have sustained simple injuries as per Exs.P.4 to P.9. Due to non examination of the doctor the contents of Exs.P.4 to P.9 are not proved. So, instead of 9 CC 199 of 2005 giving conviction under sec. 326 IPC as there is ample from P.W.s 1 to 4 that all these accused went to the house of defacto complainant and inflicted injuries. It is not the case of accused L.W.1 B. Krishna is only injured apart from L.W.1 B.Krishna there are other injured they were examined. So, the prosecution has established the case against the accused to show these accused beat P.W.s 1 to 4 and inflicted injuries. So, we can convict the accused for the offence under sec. 

323 IPC who caused bodily pain and injuries on the bodies of P.W.s 1 

P.W.4.

19According to sec. 222(2)Cr.P.C. : When the offence proved included in offence charged:­ “When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduced it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it”.

Even though charge was framed for the offence under sec.326 IPC r/w sec. 34 IPC against Accused, but, due to non examination of the doctor the prosecution failed to prove P.W.3 sustained grievous injury in the hands of Accused, so, we can convict the accused for the minor 10 CC 199 of 2005 offence under sec. 323 IPC instead of for the major offence under sec. 

326 IPC. Hence, the point is answered accordingly against the accused.

20 In the result, I find A1, A3, A4 and A6 are guilty for the offence under sec. 323 IPC and they are convicted of the same under sec. 

248(2) Cr.P.C. But, I find A1, A3, A4 and A6 are not guilty of the offence punishable under sec. 326 r/w sec. 34 IPC and they are acquitted of the same under sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in the open court on this 4th day of April, 2012. 

III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:HYD.

A1, A3, A4 and A6 are questioned with regard to quantum of sentence. They pleaded lenient view may be taken against them. As seen from the record the prosecution failed to establish the offence under sec. 326 r/w sec 34 IPC against the accused but only able to establish the offence under sec. 323 IPC and this is a matter of 2005. 

Already 8 years have been elapsed. As seen from the record these accused are regularly attending before this court and also they are having respective families and children to look after and doing cooli 11 CC 199 of 2005 work. Considering their socio economic back ground of the accused and the alleged offence is only under sec. 323 IPC proved, lenient view has taken against the accused and they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/­ each in default to undergo SI for 3 months.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in the open court on this 4th day of April, 2012. 

III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:HYD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE 

PW1 is K. Krishna, injured. Nil. PW2 is K.Rangaswamy, witness. PW3 is K.Anjaneyulu, witness. PW4 is Mallesh, witness. PW5 is Yesudas, recorded statement of Head constable. PW6 is K.Sudarshan, Investigating officer. PW7 is N.Subhash Babu, First I.O.

 No. of exhibits marked for

Ex.P.1 : Complaint. Ex.P.2 : FIR. Ex.P.3 : Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P.4 : MLC Ex.P.5 : MLC. Ex.P.6 : MLC. Ex.P.7 : MLC. Ex.P.8 : MLC. Ex.P.9 : MLC. Nil.

No. of M.O.s marked for

Nil

III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:HYD

1 CC 2016 of 2010 

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN 

MAGISTRATE: AT HYDERABAD

Present: Smt. G.Pratibha Devi, B.Sc., M.L. III Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2012

CC No. 2016/2010

BETWEEN:

The State through Inspector of Police, P.S. Banjara Hills Complainant AND

Smt. Soumya Leela w/o Late Upender aged 37 years, R/o Plot No.7 Pragathinagar, Yousufgudua,

Hyderabad. .. Accused.

This case is coming before me today for final disposal in the presence of Learned APPO appearing for the prosecution and Mr. M. Arjuna Rao, Counsel for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1 The Inspector of Police, P.S. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under secs. 3 & 4 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956. 

2 The brief facts of the case are that on 22.3.2010 on receipt of information when B.Ramesh, SI of police, P.S. Banjara Hills with his staff checked the house in plot No.7, Pragathi Nagar, Yousufuguda, 

Hyderabad, noticed the accused is running brothel house with the assistance of her own daughter by name Kum. Lalitha and another lady by name K.Bharathi, by procuring male customers and earning 2 CC 2016 of 2010 huge earnings from them. 

3 The charge sheet was taken on file under secs. 3 & 4 of 

Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act against Accused. On appearance of 

Accused, copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to him. Accused was examined under sec. 239 Cr.P.C. 

Charges under secs. 3, 4 and 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Immoral Traffic 

Act have been framed against the accused. Read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.5 are examined and Exs P.1 to P.4 are marked.

5 On behalf of the accused no witness is examined and no documents are marked.

6 After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under sec. 313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available against him. Accused denied the same.

7 Now the point for consideration is “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under secs. 3, 4 and 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act”? 

3 CC 2016 of 2010 

POINT 8 The case of the prosecution is this accused is organiser and organising prostitution with the help of victim girls including her daughter. So, on information the police raided the house of accused and arrested her and her confessional statement was recorded under the cover of panchanama. So, the prosecution has to prove this accused is organising brothel house. 

9In order to establish the same the Inspector who raided the house was examined as P.W.1. According to him on 22.3.2010 he received information about this accused doing prostitution in Flat No.7, 

Praghathinagar, Yousufguda. So, he prepared search proceedings under Ex.P.2 and obtained permission of his superiors and sent decoy witness. Accordingly, the decoy witness went to the house of accused by taking money. Later, gave signals. Immediately they raided the house along with woman constable and found the accused and victim girls Bharathi and Lalitha. So, their confessional statement was recorded. Under Ex.P.3 cash of Rs.3,000/­, Rs.1,000/­ and Rs.1,000/­ and also cellphones were seized. So, Ex.P.2 is search proceedings. 

4 CC 2016 of 2010 

The accused also signed to show that she got knowledge of the proceedings. The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no document seized to show accused is residing in the said house. 

But, the learned APPO argued that there is no necessity for P.W.1 to foist a false case against the accused as it is the offence under secs. 

3, 4 and 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act.

10As seen from the cross examination of P.W.1, P.W.1 stated the flat of the accused situated in the third floor. There are number of suggestions with regard to examination of any persons in the said flat. 

So, there are number of suggestions P.W.1 did not secure any document to show cellphone belong to accused and others. Further, contention of P.W.1 neighbouring people did not come forward. So, the learned APPO argued that in the offences of Immoral Traffic Act general public will not interfere to come forward to give statement. 

Even though there are suggestions accused is not organiser P.W.1 denied the same.

11The decoy witness is examined as P.W.2 and he deposed that P.W.1 gave Rs.3,000/­ to him. Accordingly he went inside in the 5 CC 2016 of 2010 flat of the accused and he enquired about the call girls and accused showed two girls to him and he bargained and gave the amount and later went inside and gave signals to the Sub Inspector including 

P.W.1 and other staff raided that house. There are suggestions whether P.W.2 enquired whether the said flat belongs to accused or she is residing in a rented house. Learned APPO argued that police people will take action against the owner in Prevention of Immoral 

Traffic cases as after search they will seize the house and there are separate proceedings. So, mere P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not enquire with regard to ownership of the said house is not fatal to the prosecution. 

There are also suggestions whether P.W.2 is on duty. Any way there is no necessity for P.W.2 to depose falsely who acted as decoy witness. 

12P.W.s 3 and 4 participated in the raid along with P.W.1 and they corroborated evidence of P.W.s 1 & 2 that they assisted P.W.1 in arresting the accused and brought them to police station.

13As seen from the cross examination of P.W.3 and 4 around 4.30 to 5 p.m. the raid was conducted. So, there are also suggestions 6 CC 2016 of 2010 to P.W.3 that he has not produced any document being constable accompanied P.W.1 for which we cannot find fault. The learned counsel for the accused argued that there are no independent witnesses examined to prove the case but in the Prevention of 

Immoral Traffic cases we cannot expect the prosecution to produce independent witnesses as on information P.W.1 conducted raid and confirmed by sending decoy witness. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of P.W.2 who acted as decoy witness.

14P.W.4 is Sub Inspector. According to him on 22.3.2010 

P.W.s 1 to 3 produced accused and victim girls and gave report. He registered FIR under Ex.P.4 basing on the report given by P.W.1 and he examined witnesses and sent the accused to remand and also victim girls to concerned welfare home. 

15As seen from the cross examination of P.W.4, there are number of suggestions for not examining independent witnesses as it was already discussed there will be no independent witnesses when the raid was conducted.

7 CC 2016 of 2010 16P.W.5 is Assistant Commissioner of Police who verified the investigation done by P.W.4 and filed charge sheet. According to 

P.W.5, P.W.1 contacted him after getting information. So, he gave oral permission to P.W.1 and made GD entry to conduct search. 

According to P.W.5, all the victims were caught red handedly by 

P.W.1. He figured them as sex workers and they were sent to rescue homes. Learned APPO argued that this accused with the help of her daughter and also other victim girl organising prostitution in the said house and innocent victims are involved. ON perusal of Ex.P.3 it was recorded in the presence of panch witnesses. The accused also signed on it. In the absence of evidence of panch witnesses also we can believe Ex.P.3 as P.W.1 is the person who conducted raid. 5 Cell phones and cash of Rs.5,000/­ was deposited vide PI No.183 of 2010. 

17In this case the accused was charged for the offence under secs. 3, 4 and 5(1)(d) of PITA Act. According to Sec. 3 ­ Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel: 

So, this accused keeping the said flat and running prostitution therein. 

So, she can be convicted for the offence under sec. 3 of The Immoral 8 CC 2016 of 2010 

Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

18According to sec. 4 – Punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution. This accused with the help of her daughter and other victim girl organising prostitution and eking out her livelihood. So, she can be convicted for the offence under sec. 4(1) of The Immoral 

Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

19Accused was further examined under sec. 5(1)(d) of The 

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 – Any person who causes or induces a person to carry on prostitution. In this case the accused is procuring victim girls for the purpose of prostitution and also inducing them including her daughter to do the prostitution. So, sec. 5(1)(d) of the Act is also attracted against the accused. So, considering all these aspects, the prosecution has well established the guilt of accused for the offences under secs. 3, 4(1) and 5 (1)(d) of The 

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Hence, the point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution. 

9 CC 2016 of 2010 16 In the result, I find Accused is guilty of the offences under secs. 3, 4(1) and 5 (1)(d) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and he is convicted of the same under sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in the open court on this 30th day of March, 2012. 

III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:HYD.

Accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence. 

She pleaded that she got unmarried children. But, considering the nature of the offence as innocent victims are involved and accused is living on the earnings by organising prostitution, I am not going to take lenient view against the accused. Accused is sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/­ for the offence under sec. 

5(1)(d) of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The accused also further sentenced to undergo SI for one year and also to pay fine of 

Rs.250/­ for the offence of 3 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. 

The accused also further sentenced to undergo SI for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.250/­ for the offence under sec. 4(1) of The 

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. All the sentences shall run 10 CC 2016 of 2010 concurrently. Remand period if any shall be given set off under sec. 

428 Cr.P.C. Two cell phones i.e. Nokia Cell phone bearing No. 

9908658343 and another cell phone make Classic and cash of 

Rs.1,000/­ which was deposited before this court vide PI NO. 183 of 2010 were returned to one K.Bharathi (one of the victim girl) vide orders in MP No. 2127 of 2010 Dt. 1.7.2010 and she is directed to retain the same after appeal time is over. Remaining cash of 

Rs.4,000/­ shall be confiscated to State. One classic cell phone instrument with sim No. 9391324139, Motorola cell phone instrument (not functioning), Indicom cell phone instrument with sim No. 

9297201868 shall be put in auction and sale proceeds shall be confiscated to State as nobody claimed the said properties. 

Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in the open court on this 30th day of March, 2012. 

III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:HYD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE 

PW1 is B. Ramesh, SI, complainant. Nil. PW2 is V.Anjaiah, constable, acted as decoy. PW3 is Kum. S.Gouri, Woman Constable, assisted IO. PW4 is M.Gurappa, SI, who is the first IO. PW5 is Iqbal Siddiqui, Investigating officer.

11 CC 2016 of 2010 

 No. of exhibits marked for

Ex.P.1 : Complaint. Ex.P.2 : Search proceedings. Ex.P.3 : Panchanama Ex.P.4 : FIR. Nil.

No. of M.O.s marked for

Nil

III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:HYD

1 CC 891 of 2008 

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN 

MAGISTRATE: AT HYDERABAD

Present: Smt. G.Pratibha Devi, B.Sc., M.L. III Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 4th day of April, 2012

CC No. 891/2008

BETWEEN:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. SR NagarComplainant AND

P.Mahender S/oP.Laxmi Narayana aged 21 yrs. occ: Driver of water tanker NO. AP9T 0642 R/o H.No. 5­78

Beind Toddy shop, Narsapur of Medak District. .. Accused.

This case is coming before me today for final disposal in the presence of Learned APPO appearing for the prosecution and Smt. N.Sujatha, Counsel for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1 The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. SR Nagar, Hyderabad, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sec. 304A IPC.

2 The brief facts of the case are that on 11.9.2007 at about 08156 hours while deceased Smt. Suvarna was proceeding on her moped bearing No. AP28AB 3582 from residence to work place, on the way, while she was passing ESI cross roads, SR Nagar, mean time the accused drove the water tanker bearing No. AP09J 0642 in rash and negligent manner with high speed, on the same direction and hit to her 2 CC 891 of 2008 moped from behind. Due to which she fell down on the road, sustained bleeding injuries and fell unconscious. Immediately she was shifted to NIMS hospital, Panjagutta and while undergoing treatment, she was succumbed to injuries on 23.9.2007 due to complications of fracture pelvies. 

3 The charge sheet was taken on file under sec. 304A IPC against Accused. On appearance of Accused, copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to him. Accused was examined under sec. 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence under sec. 304A 

IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.8 are examined and Exs P.1 to P.4 are marked.

5 On behalf of the accused no witness is examined and no documents are marked.

6 After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under sec. 313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available against him. Accused denied the same.

3 CC 891 of 2008 7 Now the point for consideration is “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under sec. 304A IPC? 

POINT 8 The case of the prosecution is this accused is the driver of the crime vehicle AP 289A 3582 water tanker and he drove the water tanker in rash and negligent manner on 11.9.2007 and hit behind his 

Kinetic Honda driven by the deceased which resulted accident and deceased Suvarna died.

9So, the prosecution has to prove this accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and also due to his negligence accident occurred and Suvarna died.

10In order to prove that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle the owner of the crime vehicle is examined as P.W.3. 

According to him water tanker bearing No. AP09J0642 belongs to him and he is the owner and 3 years back accident occurred at ESI cross road and accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident. So, he came to know accident and according to P.W.3 he handedover accused to the police.

4 CC 891 of 2008 11As seen from the cross examination of P.W.3 it is elicited 

P.W.3 is not maintaining any register to show that accused is the driver and also learned counsel who filed written arguments arguing that there is no record to show accused is the driver to the water tanker of P.W.3 and if really P.W.3 employed accused there will be attendance register or any document to show that P.W.3 paid salary to accused. But, I am not satisfied with the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused in this aspect as it is only water tanker and accused is not the Goverment employee and P.W.3 is not maintaining any office. P.W.3 is third party, owner of crime vehicle and he took services of the accused as driver. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of P.W.3 to state that accused is his driver. For private vehicles in general there will not be any record like Government offices by maintaining attendance register and other documents to show that accused is the driver to P.W.3. So, we can believe the evidence of P.W.3 that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident.

5 CC 891 of 2008 12With regard to negligent driving P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased Suvarna. He came to know accident and gave report under 

Ex.P.1. Any way P.W.1 is not eye witness.

13P.W.2 is the husband of deceased. He is also not eye witness to the accident who came to know that his wife met with accident and while undergoing treatment she died.

14P.W.4 is eye witness. According to him he is working as Data 

Processing Entry in NIMS and he knows the deceased as she worked in NIMS hospital. So, P.W.4 is colleague of the deceased. According to him on 11.9.2007 at about 8 a.m. he was coming to hospital from 

Kukatpally to NIMS he noticed deceased Suvarna under tyres middle of the water tanker. So on seeing that accident he shifted Suvarna to 

NIMS and while undergoing treatment Suvarna died. So, immediately after the accident P.W.4 witnessed the accident. P.W.4 is the person who shifted the deceased Suvarna to hospital.

15There is no dispute with regard inquest panchanama as 

P.W.5 mediator according to him inquest panchanama was conducted and opined Suvarna died due to the accident. 

6 CC 891 of 2008 16There is no dispute with regard to death as doctor who conducted post mortem examination and issued Ex.P.2 PME report. 

Cause of death is due to complications of fracture. Even though it was suggested to P.W.6 the above injuries are possible if fallen from 3 or 4 storied building but it is not the case of the accused that the deceased fell down from the 3 or 4 storied building and succumbed to injuries. It is the story of the prosecution she met with accident and while undergoing treatment she died.

17P.W.7 is the material witness in this case and also eye witness as she is also colleague of the deceased. According to her on 11.9.2007 deceased Suvarna is coming to hospital on Kinetic Honda and by the time she reached ESI cross road water tanker came in high speed and dashed against Kinetic Honda and she fell down and she witnessed the accident as she was traveling in the city bus by the time of accident and immediately after noticing the accident she got down from the bus and shifted Suvarna to hospital alongwith another colleague. So, there are suggestions to P.W.7 as p.W.7 is colleague of deceased Suvarna she is deposing false but she denied the same. 

7 CC 891 of 2008 

So, we can take the evidence of P.W.7 with regard to negligent driving of the accused as it is also case of the prosecution on perusal of 

Ex.P.1 report of P.W.1 water tanker dashed against the Kinetic Honda of Suvarna from its back side. So, due to which she lost control and fell down and went under the tyres of the crime vehicle and succumbed to injuries. So, we cannot expect the deceased to see the vehicle on her back. So, we can say the accused drove the crime vehicle in negligent manner and hit the deceased vehicle which resulted the accident.

18P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer in this case who examined witnesses and got the post mortem examination conducted and filed charge sheet. 

19So, the prosecution has established the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle on the alleged date of accident and also established due to his negligence the alleged accident occurred. So, there is no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused that accused is not the driver of the crime vehicle and also he is not negligent. Hence, the point is answered accordingly against the 8 CC 891 of 2008 accused. 

16 In the result, I find Accused is guilty of the offences under sec. 304A IPC and he is convicted of the same under sec. 255(2) 

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in the open court on this 4th day of April, 2012. 

III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:HYD.

Accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence. 

He pleaded that lenient view may be taken against him. As seen from the record the deceased is employee and aged about 35 years and she lost her life in view of the accident. So, I am not going to take lenient view against the accused. He is sentenced to under go SI for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.250/­ in default to undergo SI for one month. Remand period if any shall be given set off under sec. 428 

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in the open court on this 4th day of April, 2012. 

III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:HYD.

9 CC 891 of 2008 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE 

PW1 is V. Venkateshwarulu, brother in law of Nil. deceased. PW2 is Jayaram, Husband of deceased. PW3 is Mohd. Yousuf Ali, owner of crime vehicle. PW4 is N.B.Chanlamaiah, colleague of deceased. PW5 is G.Ramesh, Inquest panchayatdar. PW6 is Dr. K.V.Ramesh, he conducted autopsy. PW7 is M.Shoubhagyamma, colleague of deceased. PW8 is S.Venkat Reddy, Investigating officer.

 No. of exhibits marked for

Ex.P.1 : Complaint. Ex.P.2 : PME report. Ex.P.3 : FIR. Ex.P.4 : Inquest report. Nil.

No. of M.O.s marked for

Nil

III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:HYD