Smt.G.Premlatha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT : Smt. G. Prema Latha,

Senior Civil judge, Vikarabad,

Monday, this the 15th day of April, 2019

O.S. No. 102 of 2007

Between:

Pagudala Chandrappa S/o Veerappa, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Govt. Servant, R/o. Alampally,Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

.. Plaintiff

And

1.Pagudala Ramalingappa S/o Veerappa, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Syedpally Village, Parigi Mandal, RR Dist.

2. Setty Baswaraj S/o Chennappa, Aged about 48 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mathur Village, Daulathabad Mandal,

3. Setty Pedda Chinnaiah S/o Mogulappa, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Yerpumala Village, Bomrespet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. Dorsetty Veeramani Died per Lrs.

5. Dorsetty Chinnaiah S/o Kotappa, Aged about 45 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 16-2-145/5, Miryalakalan, Residing at Patni X-Road, Malakpet.

6. Bramarsha W/o Ramesh, Aged about 35 yrs, Occ: House wife, R/o. 3-10-117, Gokulnagar Colony, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

2

7. Dorsetty Chandrashekar S/o Late Kotappa, Aged about 30 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.16-2-358/364, Mukthar Gunj, Hyd.

.. Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence Sri M.Gopal Reddy, counsel for Plaintiff and of

Sri.G.Hanmanth Reddy, counsel for Defendant No.1 and

M.Vasundara Counsel for Defendant No.4 to 7 and Defendant No.2 & 3 were set exparte; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

[1]This is a suit filed by plaintiff praying the court to pass a preliminary decree by partitioning the suit land bearing Sy.No.80 adm Ac:11-30 gts of Syedpally Village, Parigi into 2 equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff.

[2]The brief averments of the plaint are that :

The Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 are the real brothers and both are the sons of Late Pagudala Veerappa and Defendant No.2 is the father in law of Pagudala Ganesh and Defendant No.3 is the father-in-law of Pagudala Mallesham both Ganesh and Mallesham are sons of the Defendant No.1. That Late Veerappa the father of the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 was the absolute owner and possessor of the ancestral agriculture land bearing Sy.No. 80 Adm 3

Ac:11-30 gts situated at Syedpally Village, Parigi Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District which is called as suit schedule property. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 have one sister by name Smt.Veeramani @

Rajamma who is elder to both brothers and her marriage was performed earlier to the year 1956 hence she has no right in the suit schedule property and she is not necessary or proper party to the suit.

That the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are the members of

Joint Family and the suit lands are the undivided joint Hindu Family property and the patta of the suit lands is transferred in the name of the 1st Defendant in the revenue records as he is elder son. The plaintiff is an employee in the postal department and due to the job the plaintiff stayed at Vikarabad and the 2nd Defendant only has been looking after the agriculture affairs of the joint family. Due to hike in the prices of the lands the Defendant No.1 with collusion of his two sons viz., Ganesh and Mallesham tried to alienate the suit property to 3rd parties and started mis managing the suit properties by taking advantage of the name of the first defendant in the revenue records and without rendering accounts and seeing the attitude of the 1st defendant the plaintiff demanded partition of the suit lands on 26.12.2006 & 30.03.2007 for which the defendant No.1 refused the partition but without knowledge of the plaintiff the defendant No.1 with the collusion of his sons executed the registered sale deed 4 document no.5 / 2007 dated: 02.01.2007 to an extent of Ac:6-00 gts from the suit land in favour of the defendant No.2 Setty Baswaraj who is the father in law of Ganesh the 2nd son of Defendant No.1 and also executed a sale deed doc no.6/07 dated:2.01.2007 in favour of

Defendant No.3 Setty Pedda Chinnaiah who is the father-in-law of

Mallesham the elder son of the Defendant No.1. As the suit property is Joint family property, the defendant No.1 has no right to alienate the same and the alleged sale deeds do not confer any right or title upon the defendant No.2 & 3 and the sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff.

[3]Defendant No.1 & 4 filed their Written Statement separately.

Defendant No.2 & 3 were set exparte, Defendant No.4 died during the pendency of this suit. Defendant No.5 to 7 are the Lrs of Defendant No.4 and no written statement has been filed by them.

Breif averments of the Written Statement of Defendant no.1 are as follows:

While denying the contentions of the plaintiff pleaded in the plaint the Defendant No.1 pleaded that his father Veerappa was the

Pattadhar of the suit land who died 30 years back and immediately on his death the suit land was sanctioned mutation in the name of

Defendant No.1, as he was only the surviving legal heir entitled to 5 inherit and succeed the properties of Veerappa on his death and during the life time of Veerappa and after his death also the defendant No.1 alone was in possession of the suit land and he divided the suit land in the year 2001 with his sons giving each

Ac: 6-00 gts and Ac:4-00 gts out of the suit land. The Sy.No.61 is not the subject matter hence need no reply. The plaintiff was given in adoption to the family of Nuli Parmaiah of Vikarabad. The adoption has taken place with the consent of the parties. Since the date of adoption the plaintiff has seized all the ties with the natural family including the right in the properties and after death of Veerappa also he disclaimed his rights by relinquishing if any at the time of granting mutation in the name of Defendant No.1. He also succeeded the properties of the adoptive father N.Paramaiah of Vikarabad and he is enjoying the said property. Sister of the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 by name Veeramani though married before 1956, but her father died after 1956. therefore she is entitled for the share and the suit is bad for non joinder. The plaintiff is residing at Vikarabad since the date of adoption in the house of Paramaiah but not on the employment. The

Defendant No.1 alone succeeded the properties as such he alone is enjoying the same. The mutation is also sanctioned in the name of

Defendant No.1 alone with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff as he relinquished in favour of the defendant No.1 since he went in adoption. Therefore the plaintiff has not challenged the mutation and 6 he never claimed any interest in the property for the last more than 30 years. The Defendant No.1 in the year 2001 itself orally partitioned the suit property with his two sons. Accordingly their names also recorded in pahanies. They being the exclusive owners of their share of land sold in favour of defendant no.2 & 3 under the sale deeds and they are in possession of the same as purchasers.

The plaintiff is not entitled to question the same and not entitled to any share in the suit property. The suit property is not the joint property and the plaintiff is not the member of the joint family, as such the suit is not maintainable under the law. The suit is bad for non joinder of Mallesham and Ganesh the sons of Defendant No.1 as parties to the suit and they are necessary and proper parties to the suit. The Plaintiff’s rights if any stood extinguished and ousted not only by virtue of adoption, but also being out of possession and not claimed the properties and interest at any time for more than 30 years, since the date of death of the father. The suit is barred by limitation and also doctrine. The payment of the court fee on the basis of joint possession is not correct and the plaint is liable to be rejected for want of proper valuation. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

[4] Defendant No.4 pleaded in her written statement pleaded that after her marriage her father Veerappa sold away Sy.No.61. The 7 marriage of Defendant No.4 was performed by her father about 40 years back. The father of defendant No.4 died after 4 to 5 years of her marriage. The father of defendant No.4 had 2 sons along with her namely Plaintiff and defendant No.1. The family of the plaintiff,

Defendant No.1 & 4 is the undivided Joint Hindu family and the property is joint family property not partitioned with metes and bounds. After the death of the father of Defendant No.4, the

Defendant No.1 as elder son is recorded in the revenue records looking after the affairs of joint family by managing the agriculture as the plaintiff is residing at Vikarabad in view of his job in postal department. The defendant No.1 used to give share in the crops to her but since 3 or 4 years he stopped giving share. Further

Defendant No.1 with the collusion of his sons Mallesham and

Ganesh and their father-in-law’s fraudulently executed sale deed in favour of Defendant No.2 & 3 and the Defendant No.1 has no right to alienate the same and Defendant No.2 & 3 do not acquire any legal right under the said documents which are not binding on the defendant No.4. The Defendant No.1 with an intention to deprive the legal share of defendant No.4 from the suit land. In fact the defendant No.4 is entitled 1/3rd share in the suit lands. Hence prayed to allot 1/3rd share each to Plaintiff, Defendant No.4 &

Defendant No.1.

8 [5]Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed by my predecessor:

1]Whether the plaintiff went in adoption and relinquished his rights in respect of suit properties?

2] Whether the sister of the plaintiff and defendant by

name Veeramani is also entitled to claim a share and the suit is

bad for non joinder of said Veeramani?

3] Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of

partition and separate possession.

4] Whether the court fee by the plaintiff U/sec. 34 (2) of

A.P.C.F and S.V. Act is sufficient?

5] To what relief ?

[6]On behalf of Plaintiffs, PW-1 & 2 are examined and Ex.A-1 to

A-6 are marked and closed the plaintiffs evidence. On behalf of the

Defendant No.1 DW-2 & DW-3 are examined and Ex.B-1 & B2 are marked. On behalf of Defendant No.4 she herself is examined as

DW-1.

[7]Heard both sides. Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 filed their written arguments. Hence the matter is reserved for judgment.

9 [8]ISSUE No.1:

Now the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the plaintiff is the joint family member along with Defendant No.1 and he was not the adopted son of Nuli Paramaiah. To prove his case the plaintiff himself is examined as PW-1 and he relied on the documents Ex.A1 to A6. In his chief examination he reiterated the same contents as stated in the plaint. The relationship of the plaintiff and defendants is not disputed. The mutation of the patta of Suit land in the name of the defendant No.,1 is not disputed.

Learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the documents

Ex.B1 B2 are not public documents and concerned persons are not examined by Defendant no.1. With the said documents as such the fact of adoption cannot be established. Mere marking of documents does not amount to proof of documents as held by Hon’Ble High

Court of A.P. in Chinthalapati Krishna Reddy Vs. Razia Sultana

reported in 2016 (4) ALD 349. The suit schedule property is an undivided Hindu Joint Family property inherited by Plaintiff,

Defendant No.1 & 4 and not partitioned with metes and bounds.

During cross examination the suggestions given by counsel for

Defendant No.1 are record based suggestions but no such documents are filed, hence mere suggestions are not evidence and no value can be attached to them as held by Hon’ble High Court of 10

AP in Mrs. Murali Hiden Vs. Mrs.Dulcie M.Ropp reported in 1991 (1)

ALT 5. On the other hand Pw-1 established that he is the joint family member with Defendant No.1 by marking Ex.A1 toA6. Ex.A4 is the

SSC Board of Secondary Certificate in which Veerappa the name of natural father of PW-1 is shown so also in Ex.A5 original appointment order of PW-1 the name of the natural father of PW-1 is shown. So also in Ex.A6 house supply card, Veerappa the name of natural father of PW-1 is shown. The Defendant No.1 admitted in his cross examination that he has not filed any document to prove adoption of PW-1 with the family Nuli Paramaiah. Required ceremonies of adoption are not proved. The defendant No.1 has not pleaded date, year and place of adoption, name of pandit who performed adoption ceremony, the names of relatives and witness who attended adoption ceremony. As per the evidence of DW-3

Patel Paramaiah and other elders negotiated with Defendant no.1 and taken the plaintiff to Alampally village in adoption about more than 40 years ago. It gives a presumption that Defendant No.1 as a brother gave plaintiff in adoption as such the D.1 is not competent to give his own brother in adoption. Except the oral evidence there is no other reliable evidence produced by D.1 to prove and legally establish relinquishment of rights of the plaintiff in joint family suit properties. The alienation in favour of Defendant No.2 & 3 are not for joint family purpose and the said alienations are not valid and not 11 binding. By submitting the above arguments the counsel filed number of citations and prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

[9]This court perused the documents of Ex.A1 to A6, Ex.A6 is the

Chesaal Pahani for the year 1955-56, 19556-57, 1957-58 under which Pagidala Veerapa father of defendant No.1 and natural father of plaintiff is shown as pattedhar the same is not disputed by the both the parties. Ex.A2 & A3 are the sale deeds executed by

Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 & 3. Ex.A4 is the Board of Secondary certificate of plaintiff, Ex.A5 is the appointment order

dt:1.3.1978. Ex.A6 is the house hold card of Plaintiff.

[10]During cross examination of PW-1 he deposed that his

marriage was performed in the year 1971 at Vikarabad before

the House of Nuli Paramaiah. He studied up to SSC at

Vikarabad. Two or three years after marriage he got the job in postal department as post man. His father’s native place is Syedpally which is located at 30 Kms away from Vikarabad. His father died in the year 1968 or 69. He admitted that his father has no relatives at

Vikarabad. He is not having any property standing on his name at

Vikarabad. His wife is also not having any property at Vikarabad. He

is residing at Alampally in the house no.4-9-126 in front of this

house his marriage was performed. The said house is standing

12 in the name of Paramaiah and he is no more. Paramaiah died in

the year 1978. He is staying in the said house prior to the death

of Paramaiah and also after his death, the witness adds that he was on rent giving rent to brother-in-law of Paramaiah after his death. The said property is not standing in the name of brother- in-law of paramaiah. Pw-1 further replied that his sons

parameshwar and sangameshwar are constructing a house at

Alampally main road. Earlier there was house in the said land

belonging to Paramaiah. It was about 40 to 50 Sq.Yards. After

the death of Nuli Paramaiah the said house was not mutated in

any other persons name. His sons have obtained permission

for construction. His sons are living separately from him since from 2 years. He performed the marriage of his daughter and she was given in marriage to Somaram Village. The marriage invitation was

printed at the time of marriage of his daughter in the said

patrikas [marriage invitation], it is mentioned as NULI as they were residing in the house of paramaiah. Nuli Paramaiah is not

having any issues. He admitted that he performed the last rites

of Nuli Paramaiah. He adds that his wife brought up by Nuli

Paramaiah as he was not having any sons, he performed his last rites. He admitted that he has not casted his vote at Syedpally

village after starting residing at Vikarabad. Though he worked

at different places, he stayed at Vikarabad and casted his vote

13

at Vikarabad. He was also having ration card at Vikarabad. He

was having ration card since last 10 to 12 years.

[11]With regard to suit schedule property he replied that his name is not mentioned in the possessor column of pahanies. From the date of death of his father Defendant No.1 is cultivating the land and Defendants No.1’s name is continued in revenue records in possessor column also. He has not filed any application before the

RDO against the mutation proceedings of Defendant No.1. His mother died about 10 years back. The last rites of his mother was performed by Defendant No.1. In Ex.A6 his surname is

mentioned as Patel instead of Pagidala. He admitted that Nuli

family and his brother-in-laws are called as Patels. He has not made Mallesham and Ganesh who are sons of Defendant No.1 as parties to the suit. Defendant No.1 & his sons sold the suit lands.

[12]In further cross examination with regard to Ex.B1 & B2 he replied that he belong to Veera Shaiva Community and there

is Veera Shiava Samaj for their community. His son is running a

general store in the name of Parameshwara Kirana Shop. His

mobile number is 9966726993. The photograph shown to him is

containing his photograph, his wife and his son it is Ex.B1.

Ex.B2 is the diary in which Ex.B1 photograph is published. The

14

persons found in the photographs of Ex.B2 diary are of their

community.

[13]The plea of the plaintiff is that he is residing at Vikarabad as he is working at Postal Department is contrary to his evidence as in his cross examination he stated that he studied upto SSC at

Viakrabad and two or three years after marriage he got the job in postal department. From the admissions made by him during cross examination it is clear that Pw-1 is residing at Vikarabad with

Nuli Paramaiah, he studied at Vikarabad and his marriage also took place at Vikarabad, married here and after two or three years he got the job. His marriage was also performed in front of house of Nuli

Paramaiah.His father died in the year 1968 or 69 and he has no relatives at Vikarabad and he or his wife are not having any property at Vikarabad. He is residing at Alampally in house no.4-9- 126 where his marriage was performed. The said house is in the name of Paramaiah. The witness Pw-2 also in his cross examination deposed that the plaintiff is resident at Vikarabad for his HSC studies at that time the age of the plaintiff was about 16 or 17 years.

Dw-1 also deposed that Defendant No.1 alone is enjoying the suit property for the last 30 years. She deposed [her date of examination is on 02-08-2012] that the plaintiff is residing in 15 the house of Nuli Paramaiah for the last 40 or 50 years. It means that from 1960-70 onwards Pw-1 is residing in the house of Nuli

Paramaiah. Hence the evidence of Pw-2 & Dw-1 also supporting the version of defendant No.1 that Plaintiff has been in the family of nuli

Paramaiah. The above evidence of PW-1 clearly establishes that the

PW-1 is residing with Nuli Paramaiah since his school days and he is staying in the house of Paramaiah prior to the death and after the death of Paramaiah. His sons obtained permission for construction in the place of old house of Paramaiah and in the wedding card of his daughter also the surname of Nuli is mentioned. He performed the last rites of Nuli paramaiah and in Ex.A6 his surname is mentioned as Patel. The above evidence also proves that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Nuli Paramaiah. At this Juncture learned counsel for defendant relied on a citation 2012 (3) ALT 604

Surisetti Suryanarayana & others VS Sarasa Maha

Lakshmamma & another in which it was held that: In all the

cases the parties will not be in a position to produce direct

evidence relating to adoption. Normally the question of validity

of adoption comes for scrutiny before the court long after the

taking of the adoption. In most of the cases it was not possible

for the parties to adduce direct evidence to adoption, in view of

the fact that the persons who witnessed the adoption may not

be alive when the question of the validity of adoption comes for

16

consideration before the court. The court for considering the

validity of adoption can take into consideration the

circumstances such as whether the adopted son has been

treated by the members of his family and relatives as a adopted

son of the person who adopted him. Further the courts also

will have to consider whether he was treated by the public as

the adopted son of particular individual. If there is

evidence to show that a person is the adopted son of the

particular individual the court can presume that he is adopted

son of the said individual. In the present case in view of the admissions made by PW-1 during his cross examination and his way of answers during cross examinations and the circumstances clearly establishes that he has been treated as son of Nuli Paramaiah by his family members, relatives as well as public. The plaintiff raised an objection for all the answers given by the plaintiff during cross examination that they are not supported by the documents and Ex.B1 & B2 are not public documents hence the same cannot be considered. But when the plaintiff himself has given the evidence contrary to the pleadings and admitted the suggestions given by the defendant

No.1, the defendant No.1 does not require any documentary evidence to prove the same. Ex.B1 & 17

B2 are also clearly admitted by Pw-1 if the plaintiff objects for Ex.B1 & B2 he is answerable to clarify as to why the surname Nuli is appearing in Ex.B2. When the photograph under Ex.B2 and the name of the shop run by son of PW-1 and mobile number under

Ex.B2 is admitted and accepted the surname as Nuli is also to be accepted. The citations relied on by the plaintiff ALD 2016 (4)

Chintalapati Krishna Reddy Vs Razia Sultana is not applicable to the present case as Ex.B1 & B2 are marked during cross examination on confrontation to him which are admitted by plaintiff.

Hence the admitted facts need not be proved. Another citation 1991[1] ALT 5 Mrs.Murial Hyden Vs Mrs. Dulcie M.Robb is also not applicable as the printing of wedding card with surname Nuli is admitted by PW-1 and the confrontation of the document to prove the same which is admitted by party is not necessary. When Ex.B1 &

B2 are admitted documents during cross examination on confrontation to PW-1 it does not require for-proof of concerned persons on the ground that they are not public documents. As per u/Sec.58 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 the admitted facts need not be proved, hence all the admissions made by PW-1 during cross examination does not require any proof of documentary evidence and the citations filed by the plaintiff counsel are also not applicable to the present case. With regard to Ex.A4 &A5 study certificate and appointment order, Ex.A4 which is a school record continues from 18 the date of the admission of the boy in the school but not from the date of adoption and the said date of birth will be continued in further records also. Hence the version of the plaintiff that in Ex.A 4 & A5 his natural fathers’ name is mentioned in fathers name column as such he is the joint family member of the Defendant No.1 and he is not the adopted son Nuli paramaiah cannot be accepted. In Ex.A6

House hold ration card also the surname of Plaintiff is mentioned as

Patel but not Pagadala [which is the surname of his natural father].

[14]The objection raised by the plaintiff counsel that the defendant

No.1 has not pleaded the date of adoption, year of adoption and ceremonies of the adoption etc., also not need not be looked into as the defendant established that the plaintiff went into Nuli’s family in his school days and continuing in that family since decades. Since the adoption is about 35 years ago as such the circumstances are required to be gathered as per the judgment of the High Court as cited above in ALT 2012 (3) 604 Surisetti Suryanarayana & others

Vs Sarasa Mahalaxmaamma and others. Hence not giving the date of adoption, venue of adoption, year of adoption, place of adoption is not material to the present case and the citation filed by

Plaintiff counsel AIR 2005 SC Pg-4362 Penkota Sathyanarayana & others Vs Pentakota Seethamma & others is not applicable to the present case. The admissions made by the plaintiff himself binds 19 him as per Sec.17 & 18 Evidence Act, hence the citation ALT 1994

(2) 445 Vulsa Laxminarayana Vs Vulsa Bhoodamma and

Another is not applicable to the present case. The citation AIR

1976 SC Pg-1485 Vishwa Vijay Bharati Vs Fahrul Hassan &

others is also not applicable since school record continues

from the date of his admission.Unless there is any relationship doing and performing all the above acts of performing marriage at the house of Nuli Paramaiah and residing in his house, succeeding his properties, changing surname, performing his last rites cannot be expected but clearly establishes the adoption.

[15] Learned counsel for plaintiff contended that defendant No.1 is only a brother and he is not competent to give in adoption as Dw- 3 deposed that adoption negotiations took place with Defendant

No.1. When the entire circumstances, oral evidence of PW-1 & 2 and the admission made during cross examinations, the answers given during cross examination of Pw-1 and the documentary evidence of Ex.B1 & B2 clearly establishes the plea of Defendant

No-1 that plaintiff is the adopted son of Nuli Paramaiah and he is not the member of the joint family of Defendant-1 the above pleas and contentions of the plaintiff cannot be accepted as it is well settled law that the plaintiff has to establish his own case and cannot depend on the weakness of the defendant.

20 [16]Since the defendant No.1 established that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Nuli Paramaiah, an adopted child considered to be the child of adopted parents for all purposes. As per Sec.12 of

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 an adopted child

shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or

mother for all purposes with effect from the date of adoption

and from such date all the ties of the child in the family and his

or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by

those created by the adoption in the adoptive family.

Provided that -

(a) The child cannot marry any person whom he or she could

not have married if he or she had continued in the family of his

or her birth.

(b) Any property which is vested in the adopted child before the

adoption shall continue to vest in such person subject to the

obligations,. If any attaching to the ownership of such

property , including the obligation to maintain relatives in the

family of his or her birth.

c) The adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which is vested in him or her before the adoption.

In the present case it is established that the defendant No.1 has been in possession of the suit property succeeding the same from 21 his father and plaintiff and defendant No.4 were never in possession of the suit property and they have not challenged the mutation also effected in favour Defendant No.1 before RDO all these years i.e., for more than 3 decades. The plaintiff is not vested any property with him before his adoption in his natural family. He seized to exist in the natural family and all his relations get severed from the natural family. In view of Sec.12[b] the plaintiff is not entitled for any

share over the suit schedule property as he was not vested with

any property of his natural father before his adoption or from

the date of his stay in Vikarabad with Nuli family. As such the

question of divesting his property in his natural father’s family

U/sec.12 [C] of the Act does not arise. Hence the citations filed by plaintiff counsel on this aspect i.e., AIR 1987 SC 398 Vasanth & antoher vs Dattu & others and AIR 1990 SC 1153 Dhinaji & others

Vs.Daddhi & others, 2015 (1) ALT 67 Madhala Ethiraju Vs. Madala

Chinna Anthiaiah are not applicable to the present case.

Accordingly this Issue No.1 is decided in favour of Defendant No.1.

[17] ISSUE NO-2:

The contentions of Defendant No.1 is that in the year 2001 the defendant No.1 orally partitioned the suit property with his two sons.

Accordingly their names were also recorded in the pahanies. In the written statement of Defendant No.4 she pleaded that her marriage 22 was performed about 40 years ago. The father of the Defendant

No.4 after 4 to 5 years of her marriage it means that for more than 30 years she did not demand for any partition. During cross examination also she admitted that the Defendant No.1 alone is enjoying the suit property for the past 30 years and she did not challenge the mutation proceedings which took place in the name of

Defendant No.1 before RDO. She kept quite during life time of her father and also after death of her father. After 3 decades and after alienation of the suit property in favour of Defendant No.2 & 3 on 02-01-2007 she came on record of the suit on 11.03.2010 and claiming for partition. She failed to prove her joint possession over the suit schedule property along with Defendant No.1. She has not adduced any evidence showing that the suit schedule property was not partitioned as on the date of filing the suit. Hence she is not entitled for any relief of her share over the suit schedule property.

Accordingly this Issue No.2 is decided in favour of Defendant No.1

The plaintiff and defendant No.1 have filed number of citations. This court perused all those citations. Except the citations as discussed above the remaining citations are not applicable to the present case hence this court is not inclined to apply those citations.

23 [18]ISSUE NO.4:

It is admitted by the plaintiff that he was never in possession of the suit property. Since the plaintiff ceased to be member of the joint family and the suit properties were alienated to Defendant No.2 & 3 prior to the date of filing of the suit the court fee paid by the plaintiff under Section 34(2) APCF & SV Act is also not sufficient and the plaintiff ought to have paid the Court fee under 34(1) APCF & SV

Act.

[19]ISSUE NO.3:

Since Issue No.1,2 & 4 are decided in favour of Defendant

No.1 the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed by him and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

[20]ISSUE No.5:

In the result the suit is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of April, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R.R. DIST.

24

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW-1 : Mr.Pagudala Chandrappa

PW-2 : Mr.Sanjanagari Ananth Reddy.

For Defendants:

DW-1 : Smt.Dorsertty Veeramani.

DW-2 : Mr. P.Ramalingappa.

DW-3 : Mr.Jambula Rajanna.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A-1: C.C of pahani for the years 1955-56 to 1957-58.

Ex.A-2: C.C of Regd., Sale deed vide Doc No.5/2007.

Dated:02.01.2007.

Ex.A-3: C.C of Regd., Sale deed vide Doc No.6/2007

Dated:02.01.2007.

Ex.A-4: CC of Original Board of Secondary Certificate Roll No.18029.

Ex.A-5: Original appointment order vide memo No.B5/ED/21

Dated: 01.03.1978.

Ex.A-6: House hold supply card card No.PAP15900700091

Dated:28.08.2005.

For Defendants:

Ex.B-1 : The photographs of plaintiff, his wife & his son published in a diary.

Ex.B-2 : The diary in which Ex.B1 photograph is published.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R.R. DIST.

1 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIKARABAD

R. R. DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE

Present: Smt. G. Prema Latha,

Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad

Wednesday, this the 17 th day of April, 2019

L.A. O.P. No. 9 of 1996 Between:

1. Dammi Hanmaiah (died per Lrs C.6 to C7)

2. Dammi Balakistaiah [died per C9 to 11]

3. Dammi Kistaiah [died per Lrs C12 to 14]

4. Dammi Narsamma [Died per Lr 15]

5. Badrunisa Begum (died per Lrs. C8)

6. Dammi Narsamma [died per Lr 16]

7. Dammi Rukkamma [Died per Lr 17] 8.Munawar Jahan Sadia D/o Late Badrunisa begum Aged 48 yrs, Occ: Flat No.104, Akber Towers New Malakpet Hyderabad. 9.Dammi Rathnamma w/o Late Dammi Bala Kistaiah, aged 65 yrs, Occ: Agril., 10.Dammi Chinnaiah s/o Late Dammi Balakistaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ: Agril.,

11. Dammi Venkat Ramulu w/o Late Dammi BalaKistaiah, Aged 42 years, Occ: Agril., Both 9 & 10 R/o. H.No.1-20, Goyenkepally Vill, Doma Mandal, R.R.District. 12.Dammi Sathyamma w/o Late Dammi Kistaiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Agril.,

13. Dammi Adivaiah s/o Late Dammi Kistaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Agril.,

14. Dammi Narsimulu s/o Late Dammi Kistaiah, Aged about 48 years,Occ: Agril., R/o. H.No.1-158, Dogayenkepally Village, Doma Mandal, RR District.

15. Dammi Bichanna w/o Late Buchaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. 1-124, Dogayenkepally Village, Doma Mandal, RR District 16.Dammi Chinamma w/o Ramchandri, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Agril., 17.Dammi Penttamma w/o Ramchandri, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Agril., 2 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996

R/o. H.NO.1-21, Dogayenkepally Village, Doma Mandal, RR District. ...Claimants

And

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by Land Acquisition Officer , (R.D.O of Chevella Division)

... Respondent

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Kamal Reddy Advocate, Counsel for the Claimant No.2, 6 & 7,9 to 17 Sri.D.Ramulu, Advocate for Claimants No. 3 & 4 and of Sri.M.Gopal Reddy Advocate for the Claimant No.8 and of Sri.M.Venkantaiah Asst. Government Pleader for Respondent; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:

O R D E R

This is a reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer (RDO of Chevella Division) U/Sec. 30 of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) by the Land Acquisition Officer vide letter dated 15.03.1996 for the apportionment and payment of the compensation amount deposited with this court among the claimants No.1 to 5, after determining that who are entitled to the compensation amount and at what ratio.

[1]The breif facts of the case are as follows:

The Land Acquisition Officer who is the RDO of Chevella

Division vide the award proceedings No.1/2108/88 dated: 08-09- 1995 acquired Ac:7-37 guntas of land in Sy.No.39 of Allapur Village among other lands in other survey numbers for the restoration of

Sudramma Cheruvu and awarded the total compensation of Rs.1,35,180/- for Ac:7-37 guntas of land in Sy.No.39. As per the 3 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996 revenue record the LAO found one Dammi Balaiah (father of claimants No.1 & 2) as pattedhar and claimant No.3 and husband of claimant No.4 as the occupiers. During the pendency of proceedings, claimant no.5 Badrunisa Begum filed a protest petition claiming that she was the owner of the property and she was entitled to the entire compensation and whereas the claimants

No.1 to 4 were not entitled to any compensation. In view of the rival claims from the claimants No.1 to 5, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to this court U/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.

[2]After the reference was made to this court, the 1st claimant

Hanmaiah died and on that his wives were brought on record as claimants No.6 & 7. The claimant No.5 Badrunisa Begum also died during the pendency of this reference on that her daughter was brought on to the record as claimant No.8. As per the record that the claimant No.5 is having two sons and according to the claimant

No.8 her brothers and residing in America they have orally gifted the land in Sy.No.39 to her and therefore she alone is the legal representative of her mother to receive the compensation amount.

[3]After receiving the notices, the claimants No.2,3,4,6,7 and 8 engaged separate counsels and filed their claim petitions.

4 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996 [4]The claimant No.2,6 & 7 filed a common claim petition and their contention, is as follows:-

Late Dammi Balaiah who is the father of claimant No.1 and 2 was the protected tenant of 8 acres 32 guntas of land in Sy.No. 39 of Allapur village. The Government gave the ownership certification

U/s. 38-E of Tenancy Act in respect of 35 guntas of land in

Sy.No.39 in favour of Dammi Balaiah. Dammi Balaiah died 20 years back leaving his two sons Dammi Hanmaiah and

Balakistaiah who are the claimants No.1 and 2 as his legal heirs.

The first claimant died about 5 years back leaving his wives claimants 6 & 7 as his legal heirs. The Government acquired the land in sy.No.39 for the purpose of laying Sudarama Cheruvu. The land in question in Sy.No.39 was the tenancy land of Dammi

Balaiah as he was the protected tenant. The Government granted ownership certificate only in respect of Ac:0-35 gts, but the rest of the land is covered by protected tenancy. The other claimants are not entitled to any portion of the compensation amount. The claimants No.2,6 & 7 only are entitled to the compensation amount.

[5]The claimants 3 & 4 filed their claim petition and their contention is as follows:- 5 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996

The claimants No.3 & 4 submitted their title deeds and other documents before the LAO after receiving notice and the possession of the land was taken by the LAO from them. The

Government issued the patta certificates in the name of claimant

No.3 and the husband of the claimant No.4 by name Buchaiah to the extent of Ac:3-76 cents each in the year 1979. At the time of issuing patta certificates, the land was kept fallow, the patta holders developed the land by spending nearly Rs.4,000/- per acre.

Thereafter the patta holders were cultivating the land and at that time it was acquired by the Government. The claimants No.3 & 4 only are entitled to the compensation amount.

[6]The claimant No.8 filed two claim petitions before this court, one is on 29-8-96 and another is on 30.03.1998 and her contention from both the claim petition, is as follows:-

The claimant No.5 Badrunisa Begum was the absolute owner and pattedhar of the land measuring Ac:7-92 cents in Sy.No.39/2 of

Allapur village and it was acquired by the Government. The total extent of the land in Sy.No.39 is Ac:8-80 cents and out of that patta was granted in favour of Dammi Balaiah for 88 cents in 1974-75 and it is covered by Sy.No.39/1. The remaining extent of Ac:7-92 6 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996 cents is covered by Sy.No.39/2. Regarding the land in Sy.No.39/2, no patta was granted to any other person and therefore, the patta of the said land was remained in the name of Badrunisa Begum.

One Dammi Buchaiah and Dammi Kistaiah were the assignees and the assignment certificates were issued to them. As per the executive instructions of the Government the other assignees are not entitled to receive the compensation. If the assignees have invested any amount in developing the land they are entitled to receive those charges only. Badrunisa Begum filed her declaration

before the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer and that case is

still pending before the ceiling authorities. The compensation shall not be paid to the others unless and until the case is finally decided. The claimant No.5 is the absolute owner and pattedar of the land in Sy.No.39/2. The land measuring 88 cents for which a patta was granted to Dammi Balaiah is not acquired by the

Government. Therefore, the claimants No.1 & 2 are not entitled to receive this compensation amount. The claimant No.8 is the daughter of claimant No.5 and she is legal representative. The claimant No.8 is the daughter of claimant No.5 and she is the legal representative. The claimant No.8 as the L.R. of claimant No.5 alone is entitled to receive the compensation, as she is the actual 7 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996 owner and pattedhar. The other claimants are not entitled to receive the compensation amount.

[7]Originally this case was disposed of on 21.01.2004 by my predecessor. Aggrieved by the orders of this court the claimant

No.8 who is the legal heir of Claimant No.5 preferred an appeal no.

2860/2004 before Hon’ble High Court of Telangana & Andhra

Pradesh. Hon’ble High Court on 12.02.2014 disposed of the same remanding the matter to this court for fresh consideration. In view of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court PW-1 who is claimant No.8 adduced further evidence and EX.A14 & A15 are marked on her behalf. The other claimants have not adduced any further evidence. After hearing both sides the matter is posted for orders.

[8]To prove their case the claimant No.8 is examined as Pw-1 and she relied on Ex.A1 to A6 & A13, 14, 15. Pw-2 Balakistaiah is examined on behalf of Claimants No., 2,6 & 7 and he relied on

Ex.A7 to A10. PW-3 Buchamma is examined on behalf of Claimant

No.3 & 4 and she relied on Ex.A11 & A12.

[9] The point for consideration is that who among the

claimants No.2 to 4 and 6 to 8 are entitled to the

8 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996 compensation amount and at what ratio.

The claimant No.5 Smt.Badrunisa begum who is not more now is the mother of the claimant No.8 and claimant No.5 was the original owner of the acquired land measuring 7 acres 37 guntas in

Sy.No.39 of Allapur Village. This land of Ac:7-37 gts in Sy.No.39 along with the other lands of Allapur Village were acquired by the

Government for the restoration of Sudarama Cheruvu and the Land

Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation of Rs.1,35,180/- and same is deposited before this court.

[10] Among the documents Ex.A1 to A15, Ex.A1 is the proceedings of the land reforms tribunal – II at Vikarabad dt:

14.03.1978 under which the defendant No.5 has filed the declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal – II Vikarabad and the defendant No.5 Late Badrinussa Begum was declared as surplus land holder and she was directed to surrender the land in excess of ceiling area as on the notified date i.e., 01.01.1975 under sec.10[1] of the Ceiling Act. Ex.A2 is the proceedings of the Land

Reforms Tribunal Dated: 16.10.1978 under which the claimant

No.5 surrendered the Sy.No.39 along with other survey numbers and that surrender was accepted as per Sec.10 of AP Land 9 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996

Reforms [COAH] Act 1973 in consequence of the said order the

RDO has taken the possession of the lands in Sy.No.39 to an extent of AC:7-52. Both the Ex.A1 & A2 are not disputed by any claimants. Ex.A4 is the letter addressed by Claimant No.8 as GPA

Holder of her mother dated: 04.11.1996 requesting the RDO to revert back the land of Sy.No.39/2 adm ac:7-92 cents. Ex.A5 is the

True Copy of pahani for the year 1985-86 under which Dammi

Balaiah father of Claimant No.1 & 2 is the possessor and Claimant

No.5 is the pattedar in Sy.no.39/2 to an extent of Ac:7-37 gts .

Ex.A6 is the True Copy of Faisal Patti for the year 1980-81 under which for Sy.No.39 the name of Claimant No.5 is shown for ‘Ceiling

Kammi’ Dammi Buchaiah who is husband of Claimant No.4 is shown for Ceiling Ejafa to an extent ac:3-30 gts and for remaining

Ac:3-0 gts no name is shown. In the remarks columns it is stated that in view of patta certificate the issuing authority of Ex.A6 proposed for ceiling Ejafa. The above Ex.A6 is also not disputed by any claimants. Ex.A7 is the True copy of Extract of the final tenancy Register. Ex.A8 is the true copy of pahani for the year 1965-66 under which Climant No.5 is pattedhar and the father of

Claimant No.1 & 2 Dammi Balaiah is the protected tenant. Ex.A9 is the true copy of pahani for the year 1981-82 under which 10 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996

Claimant No.5 is pattedhar and the father of Claimant No.1 & 2

Dammi Balaiah is the protected tenant to the extent of Ac:7-37 gts.

Ex.A10 is the true copy of pahani for the year 1984-85 under which Claimant No.5 is pattedhar and the father of Claimant No.1 & 2 Dammi Balaiah is the protected tenant to the extent of Ac:7-37 gts. Ex.A11 is the original patta certificate issued in the name of

Dammi Buchaiah husband of Claimant No.4 for Sy.No.39 to an extent of Ac:3-76 cents. Ex.A12 is the original patta certificate issued in the name of Dammi Ksitaiah Claimant No.3 for Sy.No.39 to an extent of Ac:3-76 cents.

[11]Now Ex.A3, A13 and A14 are crucial to decide this petition.

Ex.A3 is the proceedings of Land Reforms Tribunal dt:27-07-1996 under which the land reforms tribunal passed orders as per the orders of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal i.e., LRA NO.307/94

dt:02.12.1995 [under which the appellate tribunal allowed the

appeal and remanded back the case to this tribunal for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to parties to adduce both oral and documentary evidence]. After due enquiry by land reforms tribunal

Ex.A3 order was passed requesting the RDO to revert back the area already taken by retaining an area of 9.5492 SH inclusive of assigned lands and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer Parigi to 11 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996 complete the assignment of balance area of land immediately.

[13]On 05.04.1975 a declaration was filed by Dammi Balaiah

U/sec.8 [1] of AP ceiling on Agriculture holdings act 1973. On enquiry the Land Reforms Tribunal passed an order under Ex.A13 .

In Ex.A13 dated: 10.11.1976 it was observed that the fact as to how they [Dammi Balaiah & his family] become the share holders in the tenancy lands held by him is not proved. The lands held by him as protected tenants are considered to be self acquired property. As per the declaration given by Dammi Balaiah total extent of lands are 68-20 acres’ out of which the present petition lands Under Sy.No.39 is shown as Ac:8-80 cents. The land

Reforms tribunal ordered that the declarant Dammi Balaiah holds 0.3581 SH in excess of the ceiling area as on the notified date:

01.01.1975 which is liable to be surrendered by him U/Sec10[1] of the Act [AP Ceiling Act on Agriculture Holdings act 1973]. Under

Ex.A13 the protected tenants were directed to surrender their surplus lands U/Sec.10[1] of Act basing on the declaration given by them.

[12]In her chief examination Pw-1 stated that late Dammi

Balaiah filed land ceiling declaration before the land ceiling 12 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996 authority. In that declaration the Sy.No.39 which is the subject matter of this case is also shown. The land ceiling officer passed an order declaring Dammi balaiah as surplus holder and she filed certified copy of that order passed by Land Ceiling officer. Pw-2

Bala Kistaiah who is examined on behalf of Claimant No.2, 6 &

7 who is son of Dammi Balaiah also in his cross examination

clearly stated that the Land Reforms Tribunal held that his

father was having excess holding and he surrendered some

lands also. The government assigned this acquired land of

Ac:7-35 gts to Dammi Buchaiah and Dammi Kistaiah. He

further admitted that the said Dammi Bichaiah and Kistaiah

were in possession of that assigned lands since the time of

issuance of patta certificate and they were in possession of

that property for about 10 to 15 years prior to this acquisition.

He further admitted that himself and his brother were not in

possession of that assigned land of Ac:7-35 gts after it was

assigned to them. Learned Counsel for claimants No.2, 6 & 7 while cross examining Pw-1 put a suggestion that Dammi Balaiah has not surrendered any lands to government and in his oral arguments also he raised the same contention that the protected tenant Dammi Balaiah has not surrendered the petition lands. In 13 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996 view of the oral evidence of his own witness PW-2 and admissions made by Pw-2 during his cross examination the above contention cannot be accepted. In view of the surrender of surplus lands by

Dammi Balaiah the said lands were assigned to claimant No.3 & 4 then onwards Dammi Balaiah ceased to be protected tenant as such Dammi Balalaih and his Lrs claimant No.2, 6 & 7 are no more in the picture. Now the dispute should be between original pattedar i.e., Claimant No.8 (legals heir of Claimant No.5) and claimant No.3 & 4 who are assignees.

[13] PW-1 in her cross examination admitted that Dammi Balaiah was the protected tenant to the extent of Ac:8-27 gts in Sy.No.39 and he cultivated the land for the past 50 years. she also admitted that Dammi Balalaih filed the declaration stating that he was protected tenant of the entire lands in Sy.No.13,34,38 & 39 & 95 of

Allapur Village and the said declaration is true and correct. The government has issued 38 – E certificate to Dammi Balaiah in the year 1975. The above admissions of Pw-1 will not effect her case, in view of the orders passed under Ex.A13 dated: 10.11.1976 declaring Dammi Balaiah as surplus holder is subsequent to the issuance of 38-E Certificate.

14 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996 [14]Ex.A14 is the orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal

dated: 30.07.2014 in CC No.P/1933/75 redetermining the ceiling of

the pattedar and requesting the RDO to revert back the area already taken by retaining 9.5492 SH inclusive of assigned lands.

In pursuance of the above orders the lands under Sy.No.39 were ordered to be re-transfered to the Lrs of Claimant No.5. Accordingly the Tahasildar Kulkacharla in Parigi were directed to deliver the possession of the lands Under Rule.10[A] of AP Land Reforms [CAOH] Rules 1974. By virtue of Ex.A14 the acquired lands of

Claimant No.5 were reverted back to her Lrs i.e., Claimant No.8 including assigned lands.

[15]The claimant No.3 & 4 in their claim petition stated that when the assignment patta certificate were given to them the land was fallow and the patta holders developed the lands by spending nearly Rs.4000/- per acre. There after the patta holders are cultivating the land and at that it was acquired by Government.

Hence the Claimants No.3 & 4 are entitled to compensation amount. Under Ex.A11 & A12 the claimants No.3 & husband of

Claimant no.4 were issued assignment patta certificates. The same is admitted by other claimants also. To prove that they spent

nearly Rs.4000/- per acre the claimant no.3 & 4 have not

15 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996

adduced any evidence. On behalf of them Pw-3 is examined in

her chief examination no where she stated that they spent

about Rs.4000/- per acre. There is no documentary proof also

for that. Hence from the oral and documentary evidence the

claimant No.3 & 4 are not entitled for the amount of Rs.4000/-

claimed by them.

[16]By virtue of Ex.A14 the acquired lands of Claimant No.5 were reverted back to Claimant No.8 who is legal heir of Claimant

No.5 including assigned lands as such the total scenario has been changed. The protected tenants Claimant No.1,2 & 7 and assignees Claimant No.3 & 4 who got patta certificates ceased their right over the acquired lands. Though as on the date of acquisition the assignees were under the possession of the petition lands they are not entitled for any compensation awarded by LAO. The protected tenants No.1,2 & 7 and Claimant No.3 & 4 are nothing to do with the petition lands in view of latest orders of

Ex.A14 on the other hand the legal heir of Claimant No.5 i.e.,

Claimant No.8 herein is entitled for 100% compensation awarded by LAO. Hence the point is answered accordingly.

[18]In the result, the reference is answered to the effect that 16 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996 claimant No.8 is entitled to 100% of the compensation deposited

before this court. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by typist and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of April, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIKARABAD, R.R. DIST.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Claimant No.8 ::

PW.1:: Munuwar Jahan Sadia

For Claimant No.2,6 & 7:

PW.2:: Bala Kistaiah.

For Claimant No.3 & 4:

Pw.3 Smt.Buchamma.

For Respondent::

Nil.

17 Land Acquisition Officer p9 of 1996

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Claimants :

Ex.A1 :: Certified copy of order dt: 14.03.1978 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal. Ex.A2 :: Certified copy of order dt: 16.10.1978 regarding the lands surrendered by claimant no.5. Ex.A3 :: Certified copy of order dt: 27.07.1996 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal. Ex.A4 :: Office copy of the application filed by Claimant No.5. Ex.A5 :: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86.

Ex.A6 :: Certified copy of the Faisalpatti.

Ex.A13 :: Certified copy of order dated: 10.11.1976 passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal Ex.A14 :: Certified copy of orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal

dated: 30.07.2014 in CC No.P/1933/75.

Ex.A15 :: True copy of judgment in Appeal Suit No.2860 of 2004 dated: 12.02.2015

For Claimant No.2,6 & 7:

Ex.A7 :: Extract of the final tenancy Register. Ex.A8 :: Certified copy of the pahani for the year 1965-66. Ex.A9 :: Certified copy of the pahani for the year 1981-82. Ex.A10:: Certified copy of the pahani for the year 1984-85.

For Claimant No.3 &4:

Ex.A11: Provisional patta certificate in the name of father of PW.3. Ex.A12: Provisional patta certificate in the name of Claimant No.3.

For Respondent:

NIL.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIKARABAD, R.R. DIST.

1 jt in sc3 of 2014 asa306 B1/12 02-04-2019 [ 1 / ]

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present : Smt. G. Prema Latha,

Asst. Sessions Judge

Sessions Case No. 3 of 2014

Tuesday, on this the 02 nd day of April, 2019

Between:

The State of Telangana, through the Station House Officer, Karankote Police Station,

rep. by the Addl. Public Prosecutor. … Complainant

And

A-1 : Ramakrishna, S/o. Laxmappa, aged 25 years, occ: Employee,

A-2 : Smt. Santhosha, W/o. Ramakrishna, aged 20 years, occ: Housewife,

Both R/o.Gouthapur village of

Tandur Mandal. .. Accused no.1 and 2

This case is coming before me for final hearing

on this day in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor

and of Sri Vijaya Kumar Thirumal, Counsel for Accused

No.1 and 2; and having heard both sides and upon

perusal of material available on record, this court made

2 jt in sc3 of 2014 asa306 B1/12 02-04-2019 [ 1 / ] the following:

J U D G M E N T

[1] The Station House Officer, Karankote Police Station, filed charge

sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 alleging that:

On 16-02-2012 at 04-00 pm the complainant/LW-1 Kompally

Laxmaiah came to PS Karankote and lodged a complaint stating that

“He and his wife Padmamma, eking their livelihood by doing

agriculture at Gowthapur village. His elder son Ramkrishna [accused

No.1 herein] joined army, that about two years back his son got love

marriage with one Santhosha [accused No.2 herein], that after marriage

they lived at Vikarabad in a rented room, that A-1 gave a complaint at

PS Vikarabad and the matter was compromised with the villagers.

Thereafter both the accused came to Gowthapur, that A-1 joined duty

by leaving A-2 along with his parents. But frequently A-2 used to

quarrel with them and she did not provide even food. On 13-02-2012

A-1 came from duty, then A-2 informed A-1 all false things against

them, then both accused scolded them and stated to leave them from

the house. On the next day again both the accused quarrelled with

them for not leaving the house, that they abused and also beat them,

3 jt in sc3 of 2014 asa306 B1/12 02-04-2019 [ 1 / ]

threw household articles out of the house. Due to which, his wife

[Padmamma] disgusted with her life and consumed pesticide poison

and was shifted to Tandur Government Hospital. For better treatment

she was shifted to Balaji Narsing Home, where the doctors referred her

to Osmania General Hospital. On 16-02-2012 at about 02-00 pm while

shifting her to OGH, Hyderabad; she died. On the same day at 04-00

pm he lodged complaint before police who registered the same as

Crime No.21/2012 u/Sec.306 of IPC and conducted investigation.

During the investigation police examined the witnesses and recorded

their statements and arrested both the accused and produced them for

judicial remand and filed charge sheet.

[2] The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, took cognizance

u/Sec.190 Cr.P.C for the offence u/Sec.306 of I.P.C against the accused

No.1 and 2 and upon furnishing of copies of documents u/Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C to the said accused committed the case to the Hon'ble Prl.

District and Sessions Court, Ranga Reddy District, who in turn made it

over to this Court for trial and disposal.

[3] On appearance of the Accused No.1 and 2 they are charged for

the offence punishable u/Sec.306 of IPC and the contents were read

over to them, they denied the same and reported for trial.

4 jt in sc3 of 2014 asa306 B1/12 02-04-2019 [ 1 / ]

[4] The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 8 and closed their

evidence. LW-1 complainant died.

[5] After closure of evidence of the prosecution, both the accused

are examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C and incriminating material was put

to them, who denied the same and reported no defence.

[6] Heard both sides and the case is posted for judgment.

[7] POINT:

Whether the Accused No.1 and 2 abetted the deceased to commit

suicide and committed an offence u/Sec.306 IPC?

[8] ANSWER TO THE POINT:

Among the witnesses examined by prosecution; PW-1 is the son

of LW-1. PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 turned hostile by saying that they

do not know anything about this case and they denied the suggestions

given by Addl. Public Prosecutor and did not support the case of

prosecution.

[9] PW-7 is the doctor. He conducted post mortem examination.

5 jt in sc3 of 2014 asa306 B1/12 02-04-2019 [ 1 / ]

During cross examination he deposed that there are no external

injuries on the dead body of the deceased during physical

examination.

[10] Now the remaining evidence is the evidence of PW-1, PW-6 and

PW-8. PW-1 who is son of LW-1 complainant deposed that about six

years back his mother died by consuming poison. He came to know

through phone that both the accused thrown out her from the house

and harassed her mentally and physically.

During cross examination he deposed that in the same house he

is residing in one portion. His parents and accused and his wife are

residing in other portion with separate mess. This witness is not an

eye-witness to the incident. He came to know the above facts through

phone. Hence his evidence is not much helpful to the prosecution

unless supported by other evidence.

During cross examination he also admitted that a case filed

against him and his wife u/Sec.323, 354 & 504 IPC and they

compromised the matter before the Lok-Adalath.

[11] PW-8 who is the wife of PW-1 deposed that there was differences

6 jt in sc3 of 2014 asa306 B1/12 02-04-2019 [ 1 / ]

between her mother-in-law and accused No.2. On one day there was a

quarrel with Accused No.1 and her mother-in-law and all the household

articles thrown out of the house by accused No.1. After two days her

mother-in-law consumed poison. Accused No.1 is responsible for the

death of her mother-in-law. During cross examination she denied the

suggestions given by the counsel.

[12] The Investigating Officer who is examined as PW-6 deposed

about the investigation done by him. During cross examination he

deposed that he recorded the statements of PW-1 to PW-4 and LW-1 in

the police station; and he denied the remaining suggestions.

[13] Learned counsel submitted that only the witnesses PW-1 and

PW-8 deposed against the accused and from their evidence the

ingredients u/Sec.306 IPC are not established as there is no intentional

aid; nor instigation or conspiracy or abetment. All these elements are

not proved. Hence the offence u/Sec.306 IPC are not established and

prayed to acquit the accused.

[14] As seen from the evidence of PW-1 he is a circumstantial witness

7 jt in sc3 of 2014 asa306 B1/12 02-04-2019 [ 1 / ]

and his evidence is hearsay evidence. From his evidence it is clear

that previously wife of Accused No.2 filed a case against him and the

same was compromised.

Now the witness PW-8 is an eye-witness to the incident deposed

that after two days her mother-in-law consumed poison. From her

evidence it is clear that after two days of the incident of quarrel

between accused No.1 and his mother the deceased committed

suicide. Hence there is no instigation on the part of the accused or

intentional aid to commit suicide. Due to quarrel she committed

suicide after two days. There is a time gap between the incident and

the quarrel. Hence the evidence of PW-3 does not fall u/Sec.306 IPC as

there was no instigation or abetment by accused No.1 towards the

deceased to commit suicide. Even there are no such circumstances to

the deceased except to commit suicide there is no other alternative.

Hence from the evidence of PW-1 to PW-8 the offence u/Sec.306 IPC is

not established and the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the

offence u/Sec.306 of IPC and they are acquitted u/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six

8 jt in sc3 of 2014 asa306 B1/12 02-04-2019 [ 1 / ]

months. Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after

appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 02 nd day of April, 2019.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R. R. DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:: For Defence: Nil

PW-1 :: Mr. Naveen Kumar, PW-2 :: Smt. K. Laxmi, PW-3 :: Mr. K. Mallesham, PW-4 :: Smt. Ananthamma, PW-5 :: Mr. K. Shivaraj, PW-6 :: Mr. P. Prasad, PW-7 :: Dr. M. Raju, PW-8 :: Smt. K. Prameela.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:: For Defence: Nil

Ex.P-1 to 3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statements of PW-1 to PW-3. Ex.P-4 : Inquest panchanama. Ex.P-5 : Complaint given by LW-1. Ex.P-6 : FIR. Ex.P-7 : PME report. Ex.P-8 : FSL report.

Material Objects:: NIL

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R. R. DISTRICT

1

jt in sc11 of 2019 a1,2&4 and a3 in jain are aus324,323,504,448,427,436rw34 B1/12 08-04-2019 [ 2 / ]

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present : Smt. G. Prema Latha,

Asst. Sessions Judge

Sessions Case No. 11 of 2019

Monday, on this the 08 th day of April, 2019

Between:

The State of Telangana, through the Sub­Inspector of Police, Police Station Nawabpet, Vikarabad District,

rep. by the Addl. Public Prosecutor. … Complainant

And

A­1 : Mothe Shankar, S/o. Ramaiah, aged 28 years, occ: Labour, A­2 : Smt. Mothe Chennamma, W/o. Ramaiah, aged 55 years, occ: Labour, A­3 : Smt. Mothe Anjamma, W/o. Shankar, aged 25 years, occ: Labour, A­4 : Smt. Mothe Salamma, W/o. Yellappa, aged 25 years, occ: Labour, All R/o. Chittigadda Railway Station, H/o. Chittigidda village,

Nawabpet Mandal. .. Accused No.1 to 4

2

jt in sc11 of 2019 a1,2&4 and a3 in jain are aus324,323,504,448,427,436rw34 B1/12 08-04-2019 [ 2 / ]

This case is coming before me for final hearing

on this day in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor

and of Sri G. Lava Kumar, Counsel for Accused No.1

to 4; and having heard both sides and upon perusal of

material available on record, this court made the

following: 

J U D G M E N T

[1] The Sub­Inspector of Police, Police Station Nawabpet, filed

charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 alleging that:

There are disputes in between the complainant/ LW­1 Nagula

Suresh and his relative Budgajangam Shanker’s [accused No.1

herein] family and there are no talking terms in between them. On

23­10­2018 at about 06­30 pm when the complainant and his wife

Nagamani were in the house, A­1 came in front of their house,

abused them in filthy language, that his [complainant] wife

questioned the same and asked A­1 to leave that place. Then A­1 left

the place, that again after some time A­1 came along with his wife,

parents and sister i.e., the other accused herein and unnecessarily

3

jt in sc11 of 2019 a1,2&4 and a3 in jain are aus324,323,504,448,427,436rw34 B1/12 08-04-2019 [ 2 / ]

quarrelled with them, abused in filthy language, beat with hands

and fell down and kicked him with legs. A­1 beat with a stone and he

received bleeding injuries to his head and right shoulder, that his

wife also received bleeding injuries, that when they came out of

house all the accused criminally trespassed into their house and

damaged T.V and other articles; and set fire to their house, when the

neighbours came to their rescue the accused abused them also. On

the same day at 09­00 pm he lodged complaint before police who

registered the same as Crime No.80 /2018 u/Sec.324, 323, 504, 448, 427,

436 r/w 34 of IPC and conducted investigation. During the

investigation police examined the witnesses and recorded their

statements and arrested both the accused and produced them for

judicial remand and filed charge sheet.

[2] The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, took

cognizance u/Sec.190 Cr.P.C for the offence u/Sec. 324, 323, 504, 448,

427, 436 r/w 34 of I.P.C against the accused No.1 to 4 and upon

furnishing of copies of documents u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C to the said

accused committed the case to the Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions

4

jt in sc11 of 2019 a1,2&4 and a3 in jain are aus324,323,504,448,427,436rw34 B1/12 08-04-2019 [ 2 / ]

Court, Ranga Reddy District, who in turn made it over to this Court

for trial and disposal.

[3] On appearance of the Accused No.1 to 4 they are charged for

the offence punishable u/Sec.324, 323, 504, 448, 427, 436 r/w 34 of IPC

and the contents were read over to them, they denied the same and

reported for trial. 

[4] The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and closed their

evidence. 

[5] As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the

examination of accused under sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

[6] Heard the Addl. Public Prosecutor and the case is posted for 

judgment. 

[7] POINT:

Whether the Accused No.1 to 4 criminally trespassed into the 

house of the injured, quarrelled and abused him in filthy

language and caused bleeding injuries and set fire to his house?

5

jt in sc11 of 2019 a1,2&4 and a3 in jain are aus324,323,504,448,427,436rw34 B1/12 08-04-2019 [ 2 / ] [8] ANSWER TO THE POINT: 

Among the witnesses examined by prosecution; PW­1 is the

complainant. In his chief examination he deposed that about 4 to 5

months back when he went on his work and returned back, he

observed his house was set fire by some unknown persons. He does

not know who set fire. Police obtained his signatures on some

written papers. Ex.P­1 is his signature. This witness is a

complainant, he turned hostile by denying the lodging of complaint

also.

In his cross examination he denied the suggestions given by

Addl. Public Prosecutor and did not support the case of prosecution.

[9] PW­2 also deposed on the same lines of PW­1. PW­3 and PW­4

stated that they do not know anything about this case.

All the witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of

prosecution. PW­1 and PW­2 stated that they do not know who set

6

jt in sc11 of 2019 a1,2&4 and a3 in jain are aus324,323,504,448,427,436rw34 B1/12 08-04-2019 [ 2 / ]

fire to the house of PW­1. Hence from the evidence of all the

witnesses who set fire to the house of PW­1 is not established and no

offence is proved against the accused No.1 to 4. Hence prosecution

failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence

u/Sec.324, 323, 504, 448, 427, 436 r/w 34 IPC and the accused No.1 to 4

are found not guilty and they are entitled for acquittal. 

In the result, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the

offence u/Sec.324, 323, 504, 448, 427, 436 r/w 34 of IPC and they are

acquitted u/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1, 2

and 4 shall remain in force for a period of six months. The accused

No.3 who is in jail, shall be set at free, if she is not required in any

other cases. Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after

appeal time is over. 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08 th day of April, 2019.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R. R. DISTRICT 

7

jt in sc11 of 2019 a1,2&4 and a3 in jain are aus324,323,504,448,427,436rw34 B1/12 08-04-2019 [ 2 / ]

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:: For Defence: Nil

PW­1 :: Mr. Suresh, PW­2 :: Smt. N. Nagamani, PW­3 :: Mr. N. Ramulu, PW­4 :: Mr. M. Nagender Goud.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:: For Defence: Nil

Ex.P­1 : Signature of PW­1 on complaint. Ex.P­2 to 5 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of PW­1 to PW­5. 

Material Objects:: NIL

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R. R. DISTRICT 

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIKARABAD

Present: Sri., Smt.G.Premalatha

Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad

Dated this the 15 th day of April 2019

O.S. No. 89 of 2012

Between:

Latheefa Bee & Others

... Plaintiff/ Petitioner

AND Ayub & Others … Defendant/Respondent

This suit is coming before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri. G.Hanumanth Reddy , Advocate for the Plaintiff/Petitioner and Sri. , Advcoate, for the Defendant/Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered as follows:­

DOCKET ORDER 

15­04­2019 :

Judgment Pronounced (VSJ) In the Result , the suit is decreed, as prayed for.

Given under my hand under seal of this Court on this the 15 th day of

April 2019

Senior Civil Judge,

Vikarabad