Sri.G.Sai Sharath

CC No. 280 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS-CUM-II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDCHAL -

MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, UPPAL, AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. K. SOWJANYA, IV AJMFC, Uppal at LB Nagar

FAC VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM-II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UPPAL AT L.B. NAGAR.

Dated on this day of 21 st day of April 2025

Calendar Case No. 280 of 2017

Between:

The State represented through the Station House Officer, P.S. Uppal.

...Complainant

And

A1) Kasolu Narasimha Chary, S/o. Laxminarayana, age 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No-4, Telephone colony, Boduppal.

A2) M. Shankara chary, S/o. Shiva Linga Chary, age 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 1-10-28/228/15/B, Shiva Sai Wooden Furniture, Nagarjuna colony, Kushaiguda, RR Dist. …Accused

This calendar case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned APP for the State and M/s. Narender

Goud, learned counsel for Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, PS. Uppal laid a charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 in Cr. No. 380 of 2016 for the offence

1 of 13

CC No. 280 of 2017

punishable U/Secs. 420, 506 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16-05-2016 at 5.30 pm a court referred complaint originally lodged by LW1/ Kiran

Kumar was received in police station alleging that accused no.1 and accused no.2 are his brothers-in-law and well known since long time.

The de-facto complainant was an MBA graduate and searching for jobs. The accused no.1 informed him that he was having good relations with industry people and if LW1/Kiran Kumar provides

Rs.1,75,000/- he would be able to provide job in a reputed company with high salary. Thereafter, accused no.1 and accused no.2 approached the complainant on 21-05-2015 and took Rs.1,75,000/- from him with a promise to provide job within one month.

Thereafter, the complainant approached accused no.1 and accused no.2 several times asking them about his job but they postponed the same on one pretext or the other but they failed to provide as per promise. After several requests and demand for repayment of amount, accused no.1 issued cheque bearing no. 627239, dt.26-03- 2016 for Rs.1,00,000/- and accused no.2 issued cheque bearing no.

000081, dt. 26-03-2016 for Rs.75,000/-. The complainant presented the cheque in his bank but the same were dishonoured with reason insufficient funds. Later, the complainant questioned accused no.1

2 of 13

CC No. 280 of 2017

and accused no.2 for the amount over phone and then accused no.1 and accused no.2 came to his house along with anti social elements on 08-04-2016, threatening him to see his end if he asks for amount.

Basing on the above report the case was registered, statements of witnesses were recorded and notice U/s.91/160 Cr.P.C.

was issued to LW1/ Kiran Kumar for production of documents in support of his case, accordingly he provided photostat copies of cheque. Subsequently, the SI of police addressed letter to the

Branch Manager of HDFC and ICICI banks with a request to furnish details of the above two cheques which he received from the bank officials. After completion of investigation charge sheet is filed against accused no.1 and accused no.2.

3. The case was taken cognizance against the accused no. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/secs. 420, 506 of IPC. On appearance of accused before the court copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused no.1 and 2 were examined U/s. 239 CrPC to which they denied the offence. Charge for the offence punishable

U/secs. 420, 506 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in their vernacular language. They pleaded not guilty and

3 of 13

CC No. 280 of 2017

claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex. P1 to P8. Ex.D1 marked during cross- examination of PW3 in support of defence of accused.

6.After conclusion of prosecution evidence both the accused were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. duly putting the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused have denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides arguments

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

Point :-

9.In order to prove the offence U/s. 420 IPC and in the present case, the offence alleged is in phases and as such the prosecution must prove on the following points. Firstly, that PW1 is an MBA graduate. Secondly, that he was an unemployee. Thirdly, that the accused have promised/lured PW1 to provide a job. Nextly,

4 of 13

CC No. 280 of 2017

that basing on the above promise of the accused, PW1 had given

Rs.1,75,000/- to the accused. Next, that the accused have neither provided job nor repaid the amount. Further, that they issued cheques Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 which were dishonoured and when questioned for dishonour of cheques the accused threatened PW1.

Education qualification of PW1 and his employment:

10.According to PW1, he was an MBA graduate. According to

Ex.P1, PW1 was an MBA graduate and he was an employee and that he was in search of job. In his chief examination PW1 deposed that he completed MBA at Bhongir and searching for jobs but due to lack of jobs he was working as a carpenter. PWs 2 and 3 have not deposed anything about the education qualification or the employment of PW1. In his cross-examination PW1 deposed that he completed his MBA in the year 2014. In his further part of cross- examination PW1 deposed that he has been working as carpenter since the year 2014. Thus, according to PW1 he started working as a carpenter immediately after completing his MBA. He has categorically deposed that he has not handed over his education certificates to police nor filed the same along with Ex.P1. Ex.P1 is

dated 12-04-2016 wherein it is mentioned that PW1 was an

unemployee and in search of jobs. Thus, there is contradiction on

5 of 13

CC No. 280 of 2017

this aspect in Ex.P1 with the oral evidence of PW1.

Promise of accused to provide job:

11.It is alleged against the accused that he promised PW1 to provide a job. According to Ex.P1, accused no.2 represented to PW1 that he has acquaintance with industry people and if PW1 gives

Rs.1,75,000/-, the accused no.2 would be able to secure job in a reputed company. Coming to his oral evidence, PW1 deposed that accused no.1 promised PW1 to provide government job and that he introduced him to accused no.2 after which both the accused promised to provide job and requested him to arrange Rs.3,50,000/-.

This being so, Ex.P1 and the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 3 is silent about the date on which the accused have made such promise to

PW1. PW2 has specified that such a promise was made by accused no.1 and accused no.2 in the year 2015. The document Ex.P1 and the oral evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is only to the extent that the accused promised PW1 to provide a job whereas PW1 added to it saying that the accused promised for a government job. Thus, it can be held that PW1 made improvement in his evidence on material aspects of the case and there is contradiction about the amount demanded by the accused, in the oral evidence of witnesses.

Payment of money by PW1 to the accused:

12.According to Ex.P1, accused no.1 and accused no.2

6 of 13

CC No. 280 of 2017

approached PW1 on 21-05-2016 and took Rs.1,75,000/- from him.

From this statement it appears that the amount was given to the accused at the house of PW1, whereas PW1 in his oral evidence deposed that he has paid Rs.1,75,000/- in the house of accused no.1 that too, in the presence of PWs 2 and 3. PWs 2 and 3 deposed that

PW1 gave Rs.1,75,000/- in his presence at the house of accused no.1 located in Telephone colony. PW3 has deposed that PW1 gave

Rs.1,75,000/- to accused no.1 in the presence of him and PW2 at

Boduppal. PW1 admitted that he has not provided any document to show about he giving amount to the accused. He further admitted that he has not filed any document to prove about the source of

Rs.1,75,000/-. He was not able to say the house number of accused no.1 though the same is situated in Telephone colony. Thus, PW1 who is said to be an unemployee and he giving Rs.1,75,000/- to the accused without explaining the source, renders this fact doubtful.

13.Apart from this, the place of giving such amount is deposed contradictorily by the witnesses which is also contradicting to the documents Ex.P1. Therefore, PW1 giving Rs.1,75,000/- to the accused is doubtful.

14.Inspite of it, the prosecution relies on the cheques said to have issued by accused and their dishonour, in support of its case. A

7 of 13

CC No. 280 of 2017

perusal of Ex.P2 cheque shows that it is for Rs.75,000/- drawn in

HDFC bank, dt.26-03-2016 purported to have issued on behalf of

Shiva Sai wooden furniture. This cheque is said to have been dishonoured for reason “payment stopped by drawer” as evident in

Exs.P4 and P8. The other cheque Ex.P3 is also dated 26-03-2016 for

Rs.1,00,000/- purported to have been issued by accused no.1 herein and this cheque has been dishonoured for reason “funds insufficient”, as evident from Exs. P5 and P7. On observing these two cheques keenly, it is clearly discernable that the name of payee “Kiran Kumar” and other details of the cheque are in different inks.

The handwriting on both the cheques with regard to the name “Kiran

Kumar” appears to be the same. Contra to this, Ex.P1 and the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 reveal that both the cheques were dishonoured for insufficient funds in the account of accused. PW3 has testified the reason for dishonour and his evidence is only to the effect that the cheques were bounced. PW1 has clearly testified in his cross-examination that he did not mention in his complaint or in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that one of the cheques was dishonoured due to “payment stopped by drawer”.

15.With regard to the cheques Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, it is the defence taken by the accused that the brothers-in-law of PW1 by

8 of 13

CC No. 280 of 2017

name Paraganti Narasimha chary who is also brother of PW3 had financial transactions with accused no.1 and accused no.2 in the course of which the cheques were given by the accused to the said

P. Narasimha chary which are misused for filing the present case.

PW1 was suggested about the criminal case pending between these two parties vide Cr.No765 of 2015 of PS Uppal and about the understanding entered into by handing over cheques, which PW1 submitted his ignorance. He also pleaded his ignorance about the said case ending in compromise.

16.PW2 has admitted that there were transactions between

P. Narsimha chary and accused no.1 but he does not know about the police case or its compromise. He further admitted that PW1 is not related to the present case and the transaction was in between one

P. Narsimha chary and accused no.1. For the first time PW3 has also given the details of transactions between his brother P. Narsimha chary and accused no.1 for which they went to police station and also approached court and that an undertaking dt.27-10-2015 was executed. He also admitted that the two cheques were with his brothers-in-law and the same were handed over to PW1 who in turn filed the present case. This sole admission of PW3 is sufficient to brush aside the entire prosecution case. And when Ex.D1

9 of 13

CC No. 280 of 2017

undertaking is looked into it is explicit that accused no.1 took handloan of Rs.5,30,000/- from P. Narsimha chary agreeing to repay

Rs.6,50,000/- including interest, according to the said promise he gave Rs.2,00,000/- on 02-10-2015 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 29-10-2015 while agreeing to repay the remaining amount of Rs.3,50,000/- by 15-01-2016. There is also mention that both the accused have issued cheques and promissory notes in favour of P. Narsimha chary.

This undertaking is said to have executed in the presence of elders.

This undertaking could not be disproved by the prosecution and therefore Ex.D1 adds to the disaster already occured to the prosecution case with the evidence of PW3.

Conclusion:

17.To summarize the case of prosecution and the evidence let in, it is manifest that the prosecution case suffers from no proof of education qualification of PW1 and that he is an employee as on the date of Ex.P1. They have also failed to prove that the accused have promised to provide job to PW1 and on luring of such promise,

PW1 gave the sum to the accused. Therefore, the cheques and the cheque return memos are of no avail to the prosecution case. The oral evidence of PW3 and the document Ex.D1 are sufficient to sweep aside the prosecution case. For all the above reasons, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused

10 of 13

CC No. 280 of 2017

beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused are entitiled for acquittal.

11. In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 506 of IPC and they are accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21st day of April 2025.

VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

-CUM-II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT,

UPPAL AT LB NAGAR

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined for

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: K. Kiran Kumar - None - P.W.2: P. Yadagiri Chary P.W.3: P. Balaiah P.W.4: C. Venkateshwarulu, SI of Police

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex. P1 complaint,

Ex. P2 the cheque for Rs.75,000/- issued by A2, dt. 26.03.2016,

Ex. P3 the cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- issued by A1, dt. 26.03.2016,

Ex. P4 the cheque return memo, dt.30.03.2016,

Ex. P5 the cheque return memo, dt.30.03.2016,

Ex. P6 FIR,

Ex. P7 letter received from the ICICI bank,

11 of 13

CC No. 280 of 2017

Ex. P7 letter received from the HDFC bank.

For Defence:

Ex.D1Undertaking, dt.27-10-2015, admitted by PW1.

Material Objects Marked:

- None -

VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

-CUM-II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT,

UPPAL AT LB NAGAR

12 of 13

CC No. 280 of 2017

F O R M No: 71

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District: Medchal-Malkajgiri : FAC VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class – cum –II Addl. Junior Civil Judge Medchal-Malkajgiri District

Calendar of case tried by : Smt. K. Sowjanya

FAC VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class – cum –II Addl. Junior Civil Judge Medchal-Malkajgiri District

Date of Offence : 30-03-2016

Date of report or complaint : 16-05-2016

Date of apprehension of accused :-

Date of commencement of trial :11-07-2018

Date of Closure of trial :18-12-2024

Date of sentence of order : 21-04-2025

Explanation of delay and remarks :-

Judgment and calender case No :280 of 2017

Complainant :P.S. Uppal

Name of the Accused :A1) Kasolu Narasimha Chary

A2) M. Shankara chary

Offence :U/Sec. 420, 506 of IPC

Finding :Not guilty

Sentence :Acquitted U/s. 248(1) of Cr.P.C

VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

-CUM-II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT,

UPPAL AT LB NAGAR

Copy to: Metropolitan District and Sessions Judge, MM District at Kushaiguda.

13 of 13

Page 1 of 5 OS No.747 of 2024 II AJCJ -cum- VI AJFCM.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MEDCHAL- MALKAJGIRI, UPPAL AT LB NAGAR.

Present: Smt. K. Sowjanya FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class , Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Uppal at LB Nagar.

Thursday, the 24 thday of April, 2025.

Original Suit No.747 of 2024

Between:

City Union Bank Limited Having its Regd Office at 149, T.S.R. (Big) Street, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, Tamil Nadu-612001 and one of its Branch at Boduppal, No. 216, Sy. No. 46 & 48, Main Road (NH- 202), Peerzadiguda, Uppal Bus Depot, Buduppal, Hyderabad - 500039 Rep by its Power of Attorney Sri. D.Rajesh Kanna S/o S.Durai Raj

…..Plaintiff.

A N D

1) M/s. Vishwa Karma Enterprises: A proprietary concern, rep by its Proprietor Sri H. Vijay Kumar Aged about. 31 years, Occ: Business, H.No. 2-94, Vani Nagar Vasanthpuri Colony, Malkajgiri, Medchal Malkajgiri District – 500047.

2. Sri H. Vijay Kumar S/o. Hari Babu, Aged about. 31 years, Occ: Business, Resident of H.No. 2-94, Vani Nagar Vasanthpuri Colony, Malkajgiri, Medchal Malkajgiri District – 500047.

3. Smt. Sai Krupa W/o. H.Vijay Kumar, Aged about 27 years, Resident of H.No. 2-94, Vani Nagar Vasanthpuri Colony, Malkajgiri,

Page 2 of 5 OS No.747 of 2024 II AJCJ -cum- VI AJFCM.

Medchal Malkajgiri District - 500047

....Defendant nos. 1 to 3

This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of R. Rajendra Prasad, Counsel for Plaintiffand of Defendant nos.1 to 3 are set exparte and upon having hearing the and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendants 1 to 3 seeking recovery of Rs.8,59,946.28/- with interest @18% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of suit till the date of realization.

2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the defendant no.1 is a proprietary concern represented by defendants no. 2 and 3.

They approached plaintiff bank for loan of Rs.9,00,000/- which the plaintiff has sanctioned. At the time of availing loan the defendants undertook to repay the loan with interest on agreed terms and conditions i.e., to repay the same in 60 monthly installments with interest @12.5% p.a. and monthly installment being Rs.20,245.15/-.

All the amounts paid by the defendants were duly credited to the loan account and the plaintiff bank has calculated interest as per agreements between the parties and as per RBI guidelines. Having availed loan facility the defendants failed to repay the amounts as agreed despite repeated reminders. As such, the loan account of the

Page 3 of 5 OS No.747 of 2024 II AJCJ -cum- VI AJFCM.

defendants was classified as NPA. After which the plaintiff bank got issued legal notice dt.30.05.2024 demanding to repay the outstanding due amounts of Rs.8,46,636/- as on 29-05-2024. The legal notices were returned as “addressee left”. As on the date of filing of the suit the outstanding amount is Rs.8,59,946.28/-. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendants no. 1 and 2 did not appear before the court inspite of issuing paper publication against them and hence they were set exparte.

4. During the course of trial, the plaintiff bank represented by D. Rajesh Kanna himself is examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked on its behalf.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the point for determination is “whether the suit can be decreed as prayed for”?

Point:

7. The Manager of plaintiff bank has filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination wherein he has reiterated the averments of the plaint. He got marked Exs.A1 to A6 indicating that loan was sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1 to which defendants

Page 4 of 5 OS No.747 of 2024 II AJCJ -cum- VI AJFCM.

no.2 and 3 are guarantors. Ex.A9 statement of account reveals the outstanding due amount, Exs.A7 legal notice and Ex.A8 would indicate that the defendants have defaulted in making payments of suit amount to the plaintiff bank. This evidence adduced by the plaintiff is not disproved by the defendants and rather they failed to challenge the same as they did not cross-examine PW1. Moreover, the above evidence clearly establishes the case of the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally for Rs.8,59,946.28/- with costs and interest @12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and future interest @6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 thday of April, 2025.

FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff:

PW-1 : D. Rajesh Kanna

For defendant: None.

Page 5 of 5 OS No.747 of 2024 II AJCJ -cum- VI AJFCM.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Sanction letter dated 06-10-2021

Ex.A2 :Application cum undertaking for Loan,

dated 11-10-2021

Ex.A3 :Demand Promissory note dated 11-10-2021

Ex.A4 :Agreement of loan cum Hypothecation,

dated 11-10-2021

Ex.A5 :Guarantee Agreement executed by the Defendant No.2, dated 11-10-2021

Ex.A6 :Guarantee Agreement executed by the Defendant No. 3, dated 11-10-2021

Ex.A7 :Legal notice dated 30-05-2024

Ex.A8 :Postal receipts

Ex.A9 :Statement of account for Loan A/c. No. 501912090019626 along with Bankers certificate

For defendants:-Nil-

FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar.

Page 1 of 5 OS No.896 of 2024 II AJCJ -cum- VI AJFCM.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MEDCHAL- MALKAJGIRI, UPPAL AT LB NAGAR.

Present: Smt. K. Sowjanya FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class , Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Uppal at LB Nagar.

Wednesday, the 23 rdday of April, 2025.

Original Suit No.896 of 2024

Between:

1) Sri Koyyana Prakash Reddy, S/o. Late K. Satyanarayana Reddy, aged about 77 years, Occ: Retired, R/o.H.No.5-2-224, Thirumala Nagar, H.B. colony, NFC Road, Meerpet, Moula-Ali, Secunderabad – 500040. (TG).

2) Dr. Koyyana Siddhi Sudarshan Reddy, S/o. Sri Koyyana Prakash Reddy, aged about 36 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.5-2-224, Thirumala Nagar, H.B. colony, NFC Road, Meerpet, Moula-Ali, Secunderabad – 500040. (TG).

…..Plaintiffs.

A N D

1) The Tahisildar Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District – 501401.

2) All concerned

....Defendant nos. 1 and 2

This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. E. A. Srikanth Raju, Counsel for Plaintiffsand of Defendant nos.1 and 2 are set exparte and upon having hearing the and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 seeking to

Page 2 of 5 OS No.896 of 2024 II AJCJ -cum- VI AJFCM.

declare them as legal heirs of late Koyyana Uma Maheshwari, W/o.

Koyyana Prakash Reddy in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., open plot no. 166, phase III, Sy. no.196, admeasuring 300 square yards or 250.80 sq.mts., situated at Madaram village, Ankushapur

Grampanchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal within specified boundaries.

2. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief is that, plaintiff no.1 is husband and plaintiff no.2 is son of late Koyyana Uma Maheshwari who died intestate on 06-10-2022. During her lifetime she had purchased the suit schedule property vide registered document no.11190 of 2007, dt. 24-11-2007 from M/s. Sri Sai Surya Gardens private limited who had originally purchased Ac. 17-05 Gts. of land in sy. No.196 of Medaram village vide registered sale deed document no.

5427/2001, dt.22-10-2001 after which they converted the said land into plots and sold one of those plots in favour of the deceased Uma

Maheshwari. Subsequent to death of Uma Maheshwari, the plaintiffs have approached Tahsildar, Malkajgiri Mandal on 14-06-2024 for issue of legal heir certificate but the officials have refused to issue the same and thereby denying status of the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant no. 1 did not appear before the court inspite of service of summons and hence defendant no.1 was set exparte. No objections received for the paper publication and hence defendant no. 2 was set exparte.

Page 3 of 5 OS No.896 of 2024 II AJCJ -cum- VI AJFCM.

4. The plaintiff no.1 is examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A7 are marked in support of case of the plaintiffs.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

6. Now the point for determination is “whether the suit can be decreed as prayed for”?

Point:

7. PW1 has filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief- examination reiterating the averments of the plaint. He got marked

Ex. A1 certified copy of sale deed document no. 11190/2007, dt.24-11- 2007 showing purchase of suit schedule property by the deceased and

Ex.A2 is its link document. Ex.A4 encumbrance certificate shows that there are no alienations subsequent to Ex.A1. Ex.A3 would indicate about death of the deceased on 06-10-2022, Exs.A6 and A7 would indicate about relationship of plaintiffs with the deceased. This oral evidence of PW1 coupled with the documents Exs.A1 to A7 clearly establish the case of the plaintiffs and the defendants did not disprove the same and they did not cross-examine PW1 as such the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly.

Page 4 of 5 OS No.896 of 2024 II AJCJ -cum- VI AJFCM.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs declaring them as legal heirs of late Koyyana Uma Maheshwari, W/o.

Koyyana Prakash Reddy in respect of the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23 rdday of April, 2025.

FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff:

PW-1 : Sri Koyyana Prakash Reddy

For defendant: None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Certified copy of Sale deed no.1190 of 2007, dt. 24-11-2007,

Ex.A2 :Certified copy of link sale deed no.5427/2001, dt. 22-10-2001,

Ex.A3 :Original death certificate, dated 20-04-2023 of Late Smt. Koyyanu Umamaheswari,

Ex.A4 :Original Encumbrance dated 18-06-2024,

Ex.A5 :Original Market Value certificate, dt. 18-06-2024,

Ex.A6 :Aadhar card of plaintiff no.1 vide 431765000079 (Koyyana Prakash Reddy)

Page 5 of 5 OS No.896 of 2024 II AJCJ -cum- VI AJFCM.

Ex.A7 :Aadhar card of plaintiff no.2 vide 8794680531646 (Koyyana Siddhi Sudarshan Reddy)

For defendants:-Nil-

FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VI ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT K. SOWJANYA

FAC II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VI ADDL. JUDIDICAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, UPPAL AT L.B. NAGAR.

On this the 24th day of April, 2025

CC 679 of 2016

BETWEEN:

MARKENDEYULU ….Petitioner(s)

And

KALLEM MALLAIAH….Respondent(s)

DOCKET ORDER

Both parties and their counsels present. The complaint filed petition U/s.257 CrPC intending to withdraw the case as he settled the matter amicably out of court. The said petition is allowed. The case is dismissed as withdrawn, no costs.

(Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of April, 2025)

VI AJMFC

UPPAL AT LB NAGAR

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VI ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS , MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT K. SOWJANYA

FAC II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

VI ADDL. JUDIDICAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, UPPAL AT L.B. NAGAR.

On this the 22nd day of April, 2025

CC 3906 of 2022

BETWEEN:

State of Telangana Through ps uppal ….Petitioner(s)

And

Kasappa Narender….Respondent(s)

DOCKET ORDER

LW1 and counsel present. They reported compromise after observation period. Hence compromise is recorded. The accused is acquittal U/sec. 320(8) Cr.P.C. Hence bail bonds shall stand closed (Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22 nd day of April, 2025)

VI AJMFC

UPPAL AT LB NAGAR