Smt G. Rajeswari

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, PILER

Present:-Smt.G.Rajeswari, Assistant Sessions Judge, Piler.

Monday the Eighteenth (18th ) day of July, 2022.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 97 of 2021

in P.R.C. No. 04 of 2020 of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpad.

Cr.No. 08 of 2020 Kalakada P.S.

Between

The State, represented by the Sub Inspector of police, Kalakada Police Station in Cr.No. 08 of 2020 of Kalakada P.S. … Complainant

And:

1. Mude Raveendra Naik, aged about 30 years, son of Sankar Naik, Kothagandlapalle village, Hamlet of K.Batavaripalle , Kalakada mandal.

2. Mude Sankar Naik, aged 56 years, son of late M.Mune Naik, Kothagandlapalle village, Hamlet of K.Batavaripalle, Kalakada mandal. … Accused

This case is coming on 08.07.2022 before me for hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri R.Chandrasekhar, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of police, Kalakada police station, filed charge sheet against Accused 1 and 2 for the offense under sections 307, 447, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC of Kalakada P.S in Cr.No.8 of 2020.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that, on 16-01- 2020 at about 8.40 pm at Kothagandlapalle village A1 has levelled 2 the land with the help of JCB without defacto complainant’s willing.

Then complainant returned and raised objection for the accused for trespassing into his patta land. When he questioned A1 and A2 both of them abused complainant and his family members in filthy language in the public road and also threatened him with dire consequences and they tried to assault him with an intention to murder him. A1 stabbed with a knife and caused bleeding injury . In the meanwhile the villagers rushed there and shifted the complainant to hospital . On receiving of hospital intimation on 17.1.2020 the statement of LW1 was recorded. Basing on his statement a case in Cr.No.8 of 2020 u/s 307, 447, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC

REGISTERED AND INVESTIGATED. During the course of investigation witnesses were examined and scene of offense was observed and blood stained clothes shirt and pant were seized under the cover of police proceedings and A1 and A2 were arrested and crime weapon was seized under the mediator report. A1 and A2 were forwarded to judicial custody and after receiving of wound certificate and RFSL report and after completion of investigation laid charge sheet against the accused.

3.On appearance of Accused 1 and 2 before the Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Vayalpaad they were furnished with copies

of documents and the case was committed to Sessions Court,

Chittoor under sections in Cr.No.08/2020 of Kalakada P.S. which was registered as S.C.No.97 of 2021 and made over to this court for trial.

3

4. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel on record and after perusing the material available on record, charge under Sections under sections 307, 447, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC of Kalakada P.S in Cr.No.8 of 2020 was framed, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined PWs1 to PWs7 and marked Exs P1 to P8 are marked. . On behalf of the accused no witness is examined.

6. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused in the prosecution evidence 313 Cr.P.C. examination is dispensed with.

7. Heard the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for accused.

8. Now the point for determination is,

Whether the accused has committed any offense u/s under sections 307, 447, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC , If so, whether they are liable for conviction ?

POINT No.1 :

9. It is the case of the prosecution that PW1 is injured himself who stated that he know the accused and about two years back he noticed some galata on the road and he went there , he received injury in that galata and his mother shifted him to hospital. He does 4 not know who caused the injuries. He admitted his signature on the statement which is marked as Ex P1. He stated he does not know its content. His 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex P2. PWs2 to 5 are said to be the eye witnesses . All of them turned hostile. They have stated that they do not know anything about this case. Their 161 Crpc statements are marked as Exs P2 to P6.

10. PW6 is the mother of the injured. She also stated that she came to know her son was injured but she does not know who caused the injuries. Her 161 Crpc statement is marked as Ex P7. So all the witnesses have turned hostile . They did not support the case of prosecution include the person who received the injuries. So there is absolutely no evidence against the accused to prove that it was the accused who caused injury.

11. PW7 also turned hostile. There is absolutely no evidence against the accused. The prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses as the material witness turned hostile. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. . Point answered accordingly.

12. In the result, accused 1 and 2 found not guilty for the offense under Sections 307, 447, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC and they are 5 acquitted u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked property shall be destroyed after appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for 6 months U/sec. 437 –A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Steno Typist, after her transcription, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th day of July, 2022.

Asst. Sessions Judge,

Piler. .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:- FOR DEFENCE : NONE

P.W.1 : Radha Krishna.

P.W.2 : Ramana Reddy.

P.W.3 : S.Reddy Prasad.

P.W.4 : M.Venkata Ramana.

P.W.5 : E.Rajeev.

P.W.6 : Reddemma.

PW.7 : Reddy Basha.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex P1 : Signature of PW1- Radha Krishna.

Ex P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1-Radha Krishna.

Ex P3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2-Ramana Reddy,

Ex P4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3-S.Reddy Prasad.

Ex P5 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4-M.Venkata Ramana..

Ex P6 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5 E.Rajeev..

Ex P7 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6- Reddemma.

Ex.P8: 161 Crpc statement of PW7-Reddy Basha.

FOR DEFENCE:

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

PILER.

6

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, PILER

Present:-Smt.G.Rajeswari, Assistant Sessions Judge, Piler.

Monday the Eighteenth (18th ) day of July, 2022.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 97 of 2021

in P.R.C. No. 04 of 2020 of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpad.

Cr.No. 08 of 2020 Kalakada P.S.

Date of offence: 16-01-2020

Date of complaint: 16-01-2020

Date of apprehension of accused : 16-01-2020

Date of taken on file: 09-04-2021

Date of commencement of trial: 28-06-2022

Date of close of trial:08-07-2022

Date of sentence or order: 18-07-2022

Complainant: The State, represented by the Sub Inspector of police, Kalakada Police Station in Cr.No. 08 of 2020 of Kalakada P.S.

Name of the accusedFather's NameAge

A1:Mude Raveendra Naik. S/o Sankar Naik. 30 years.

A2: Mude Sankar Naik. S/o Late M.Mune 56 years. Naik.

Village and MandalReligionCalling

A1 and A2 belongs toHindus A1 and A2 are Coolies Kothagandlapalle, H/o K.Batavaripalle.

Offence charged : under sections 307, 447, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC

Plea of the accusedAccused 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty.

7

Finding of the Court Accused 1 and 2 found not guilty.

Sentence of Order:- In the result, accused 1 and 2 found not guilty for the offense under Sections 307, 447, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked property shall be destroyed after appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for 6 months U/sec. 437 –A Cr.P.C.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

PILER.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PILER.

Present:-Smt G.Rajeswari.,

Senior Civil Judge, Piler.

Friday the Fifteenth (Fifteenth th ) day of July, 2022

O.S. No. 99 of 201 7

Between :

P.Subba Reddy.

… Plaintif

And

1.G.Amaranatha Reddy.

2. G.Krishnamma (died) now represented by her legal heir the first defendant.

The first defendant is the legal heir of the second defendant.

Added as per orders in I.A.No.97 of 2021 dt:7.12.2021.

… Defendant s

This Suit is coming on 21-06-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Bhavani Sankara, Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri P.Showkath Ali, Advocate for the defendants and upon hearing their arguments; upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this

Court, delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintif for passing of preliminary decree for recovery of Rs.14,08,000/- being the principal and interest due on a registered mortgage deed dated 09-10-2014 executed by the defendants in favour of plaintif for Rs.8,00,000/- repayable with interest at 24% per 2 annum failing which the schedule property may be ordered for sale and the amount so realized may be paid to him and for costs of the suit.

2). The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

Both the defendants have jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- on 9-10-2014 from the plaintif for family and legal necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., and have executed simple registered mortgage deed as a security for the plaintif. Thereafter inspite of demands they failed to repay the amount.

3. The first defendant filed written statement, second defendant adopted the written statement filed by first defendant denying the material allegations in the plaint and further contended that the suit mortgage deed is not supported by consideration.

There is no demand made by the plaintif against the defendants at any time. Therefore there is no cause of action and prays to dismiss the suit.

4) Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled.

1) Whether the defendant No.1 and 2 jointly borrowed amount of Rs.8,00,000/- on 9.10.2014 and executed a simple mortgage deed dt:9.10.2014 in favour of the plaintif?

2. Whether the simple mortgage deed dt:9.10.2014 is not supported by consideration?

3. To what relief ?

3

5. On behalf of the plaintif PW1 is examined and got marked Ex

A1.PW2 evidence is eschewed. On behalf of defendant no witness is examined and no documents are marked.

6. Issue Nos1 and 2 :

PW1 in his chief examination has reiterated the content of his plaint stating that 9-10-2014 the defendants have executed suit pronote by receiving consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- . Coming to cross examia5ation he stated that one Sheshadri Reddy and Sivakumar

Reddy were present at the time of execution and they signed as attestor. He stated that he does not know the boundaries of suit schedule property in the total extent of suit schedule property Ac 3.42 cents. It was suggested to him that he has no capacity to lend the amount and no consideration was passed under Ex A1 and there is no necessity for the defendants to borrow such a huge amount, he denied the suggestion. Nothing favourable as elicited in the evidence of PW1. By way of his evidence by producing registered document is to be presumed the transaction under the document has been done as per the recitals in the document and as per Ex A1

Rs.8,00,000/- consideration passed to the defendant. The defendant filed written statement contending that no consideration was passed.

No witnesses are examined on behalf of the defendant. The defendants failed to enter into the witness box to prove his contention that no consideration was passed. The plaintif has 4 proved execution of Ex A1 and passing of consideration. Therefore he is entitled for recovery of the suit amount.

Issue No.3:

7. In the result, preliminary decree is passed with costs for a sum of Rs.14,08,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.8,00,000/-.Time for redemption is three months.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15th day of July, 2022.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PILER.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

The Plaintif The Defendant

PW1P.Subba Reddy. None

PW2:C.P.Seshadri Reddy. (eschewed)

Exhibits marked for

The Plaintif The Defendant

Ex.A1Registered NIL mortgage

dt:9.10.2014

executed by the defendants 1 and 2 for Rs.8,00,000/-.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PILER.

5 6

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PILER.

PRESENT : Smt.G.Rajeswari,

Senior Civil Judge,

Piler.

Monday this the Eighteenth (18th ) day of July, 2022.

S.O.P.No. 03 of 2022

Between :

1.G.Damodara Reddy.

2. G.Lakshmidevi.

3.3. Gurram Jyothsna.

...Petitioners

And

NIL .. Respondents

This Petition is coming on 15-07-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Venkata Raman Reddy, Advocate for Petitioners and upon hearing on petitioners and upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following :

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Section 372 of Indian Succession

Act, 1925 to grant succession certificate in favour of the petitioners to transfer the share certificate in favour of the petitioners from the name of deceased Gurram Yugandhar Reddy and the petitioners under took to pay the court fee payable on this petition if any payable without any default .

2

2. The averments of the petition in short are that the wife of the deceased Gurram Yugandhar Reddy by name Damalacheruvu Bhayva predeceased him on 26-09-2021. They have no issues. After his death when the petitioners approached the Asian Stocks Limited they demanded for succession certificate. Therefore this petition is filed for issuance of succession certificate.

3. Publication was issued on in Prajashakthi daily news paper on 04- 042022, no objector present in the court on 25-04-2022 . Hence it was treated as there was no objectors.

4. First petitioner examined as PW1 got marked Exs P1 to P6.

5. Heard the counsel for petitioners.

6. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the petitioners are entitled for succession certificate as prayed for ?

POINT :

7. PW1 has reiterated the content of petition in his chief examination.

He further stated that he is the father of he deceased and second petitioner is the mother aand third petitioner is the sister. Ex P1 is statement of holdings dt:7.2.2022 to show the shares stands in the name of the deceased. Ex P2 is the communication done with the South

Asian Stocks Limited by the third petitioner. Ex P3 is the death certificate of late Gurram Yugadhar Reddy. Ex P4 is the death certificate of deceased wife which shows that deceased wife predeceased him. Ex P5 is the family member certificate issued by Tahsildar, Piler wherein the 3 names of the petitioners have been shown. Ex P6 is the marriage certificate of deceased and his wife. All the exhibits clearly show that deceased has invested amounts in Asian Stocks Limited and the family member certificate shows that the petitioners are the family members along with his wife. These documents clearly establishes that the petitioners are entitled for succeeding the petition schedule property .

Even after issuance of public notice by way of publication in the newspaper nobody came , therefore it is deemed to be no objectors. Ex

P5 clearly establish they are the only family members entitled for succeeding the petition schedule property. Point answered accordingly.

8. In the result, the petition is allowed granting succession certificate in favour of the petitioners namely 1. G.Damodara Reddy, 2.G.Lakshmidevi and Gurram Jyothsna to transfer the share certificate in favour of the petitioners from the name of deceased Gurram Yugandha

Reddy.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 18th day of July, 2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

Piler.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONERS : RESPONDENT :

P.W1 : G.Damodar Reddy. NIL 4

EXHIBITS MARKED MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONERS :

Ex P1 : Statement of holdings dt:7.2.2022 issued by South Asian Stocks

Limited in the name of late Yugadhar Reddy.G. Ex P2 : Copy of e-mail sent by Sough Asian Stocks to the third petitioner.

Ex P3 : Death certificate of late Gurram Yugadhar Rreddy. Ex P4 :

Death certificate of late Damalcheruvu Bhavya.

Ex P5: Family member certificate dt:2.12.2021 issued by Tahsildar, Piler for the family members deceased Gurram Yugadhar Reddy.

Ex P6: Certificate of marriage issued by Marriage Registrar, ( Sub Registrar, Piler) for the marriage of G.Yugadhar Reddy aand

Damalcheruvu Bhavya dt:21.12.2020.

RESPONDENS : None.

SCJ Piler.

5

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PILER.

PRESENT : Smt.G.Rajeswari,

Senior Civil Judge,

Piler.

Monday this the Eighteenth (18th ) day of July, 2022.

H.M.O.P.No. 107 of 2021

Between :

G.Vijaya Saradhi.

.. Petitioner

And :

G.Rukmini .. Respondent.

This Petition is coming on 15-07-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Chandra Kumar Reddy, Advocate for Petitioner and

Sri Dinakar, Advocate for the respondent and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following :

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of

HinduMarriageAct,1955fordissolvingthe marriage between the petitioner and the respondent by a decree of divorce which was performed on 23-10-2015.

2. The averments of the petition in brief are as follows :

The petitioner’s marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 23-10-2015 at Lakshmi Ganesh Kalyana Mandapam,

Kanipakam, Chittoor District as per customs in their community. The 2 respondent was suffering with ill health but the same was not informed to the petitioner ad performed the marriage and the marriage was also performed without the willingness of the respondent by forcing the respondent.

3. The marriage is not consummated as the respondent was not fit and he always stated that she used to take rest on one cause or other .

She always stating that she is tied up with household work. The respondent is suffering with severe mental ill health, . She used to assaulting him, misbehaving with colleagues aand relatives of the petitioner causing humiliation and embarrassment to the petitioner.

When he wanted to treat the respondent, he came to know that the respondent was taken treatment since 2003 but she could not recover.

The respondent refused to undergo any treatment aand went to her native place. As there is no chance of reunion this petition is filed for dissolution of marriage.

4. Respondent reported no counter.

5. On behalf of the petitioner PW1 is examined and Exs P1 and Ex p2 are marked.

6.Heard the counsel for petitioner.

7.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether respondent subjected PW1 to cruelty and intentionally deserted him, if so, whether he is entitled for dissolution of the marriage and decree of divorce ?

3

POINT :

8. The petitioner in his chief affidavit has reiterated the content of his chief examination . Ex P1 and P2 are marked. Ex P1 is wedding card of the petitioner aand the respondent. Ex P2 is photograph of petitioner and respondent. He further stated that the respondent was suffering with ill health and the same was suppressed and marriage was performed.

He further stated that the respondent used to slap him and humiliate him. This evidence of petitioner is unchallenged by way of cross exami5ation. It clearly shows that he was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty. Apart from that he also deposed that the marriage was not consummated which also becomes a ground for divorce. He is only seeking divorce on the basis of cruelly. So when a wife slaps her husband aand did not cooperate with him for conjugal life which definitely causes mental agony to the petitioner which amounts to mental cruelty. The petitioner by way of his evidence clearly established that he was subjected to cruelly both mentally and physically. Therefore he is entitled for dissolution of marriage. Point answered accordingly.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent from this day which was held on 23-10-2015 at Lakshmi Ganesh Kalyana Mandapam, Kanipakam,

Chittoo District No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 18 th day of July, 2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

Piler.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONER :RESPONDENT :

P.W1 : G.Vijaya Saradhi. . Exparte.

EXHIBITS MARKED MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONER :

Ex.P1 : Wedding card of the petitioner ad the respondent. Ex P2: Photograph of the petitioner and respondent.

RESPONDENT : None.

SCJ.

5

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PILER.

PRESENT : Smt.G.Rajeswari,

Senior Civil Judge, Piler.

Monday, this the Eighteenth (18th) day of July, 2022.

H.M.O.P.No. 65of 2021

Between :

Kundavaram Revathi.

.. Petitioner

And :

B.Bhaskarachari. .. Respondent

This Petition is coming on 15-07-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Showkath Ali, Advocate for

Petitioner and Sri B.C.Purushotham Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and upon hearing the petitioner and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following :

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent by a decree of divorce which was performed on 24- 01-2019.

2. The averments of the petition in brief are as follows :

The petitioner’s marriage was solemnized with the respondent on 24-1-2019 at Kalyana Venkateswaraswamy Mandapam, Devarakonda,

Chinnagottigallu mandal, Chittoor district. At the time of marriage one lakh was given towards dowry and 80 grams of gold presented to the petitioner. They lived happily for sometime. They resided at ANR colony at Kalikiri , Chittoor District. There are no issues out of their wedlock.

SCJ, PILER2 H.M.O.P.No. 65 OF 2021

The respondent is working as a lecturer at MITS college, Madanapalle and getting an income of Rs.40,000/- and they have total property of

Rs.60,00,000/-. The respondent addicted to bad vices like drinking and gambling, used to beat her in intoxication condition and demanded her to get more amounts as dowry and harassed her and subjected her to cruelty. The matter was placed before the elders but the respondent did not change his attitude. On 22-32019 the respondent beat her and necked her out. Though mediations were held he did not heed the words of elders. Therefore the petition is filed for dissolution of marriage. ,

3. Respondent filed counter denying the material allegations and further contended that he has no objection for passing of a decree of divorce in faovur of the petitioner.

4.On behalf of the petitioner, PW.1 is examined and Exs.P1 to

P3 are marked.

5.Heard the counsel for petitioner.

6.Now the point for consideration is , “Whether the respondent subjected PW1 to cruelty, if so, whether she is entitled for dissolution of the marriage and decree of divorce ?”

POINT :

7. The petitioner in her chief affidavit has reiterated the content of her chief examination and stated that after the marriage he addicted to ices used to harass her demanding money for his vices, beat her, causing physical harm to her. Inspite of mediations he did not hear the words of the elders and demanded additional dowry. This evidence of PW1 is

SCJ, PILER3 H.M.O.P.No. 65 OF 2021 unchallenged by way of cross examination as respondent remained exparte. Therefore PWs1’s evidence becomes trustworthy and her evidence proves that she was subjected to physical harassment as respondent beat her and caused physical harm to her and harassing for

additional dowry definitely amounts to mental cruelty. PW1 by way of

her evidence and Exs P1 to P3 which are the photographs and wedding card has proved that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and respondent has subjected her to cruelty. Therefore she is entitled for dissolution of marriage. Point answered accordingly

8. In the result, the petition is allowed by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent from this day which was held on 24-1-2019 at Kalyana

Venkateswaraswamy Mandapam, Devarakonda, Chinnagottigallu mandal, Chittoor district. No costs.

Dictated to Stenographer , transcribed by her , corrected and pronounc ed

by me in the open Court, this the 18 th day of July, 2022.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PILER.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONER : RESPONDENT :

P.W1 : K.Rervathi. Exparte.

EXHIBITS MARKED MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONER : Ex.P1 : Photograph of the petitioner and the respondent. Ex P2: Wedding card of the petitioner and the respondent. Ex P3: Aadhar card of the petitioner. RESPONDENT : None.

SCJ, PLR.