Sri.G.Srinivas

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 1 of 30

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARAYANPET

PRESENT : Sri G.Srinivas,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANPET .

Monday, this the 30th day of September, 2024.

O.S. NO.36 of 2014

Between:- 1.Pinjari Ayashabee W/o Mahabubsab insane represented by her husband Mahabubsab s/o Nabbisab, age:62 years, Occ:Agriculture

2. Pinjari Babu Miya S/o Mahabubsab, Age:31 years, Occ:Agriculture,

3. Pinjari Masthanbee W/o Late P.Moulana, Age:30 years, Occ:Agriculture, All R/o Kankurthy village of Damargidda Mandal, Mahabubnagar district …Plaintiffs

VS

1. Mohd Khasim S/o Magulansab, Age:70 years, Occ:Agriculture,

2. Kanike Savithramma W/o late K.Thammanna, Age:61 years, Occ:Agriculture,

3. Kanike Anuradha D/o Late K.Thammanna, Age:30 years, Occ:Agriculture, defendants 1 to 3 are R/o Kanukurthy village of Damargidda mandal, district Narayanpet

The defendant Nos.4 to 6 are added as per the order in I.A.No.91 of 2024 dated 11.6.2024.

4. Mumtaj Begum w/o Pinjari Moulana, Age:45 years, Occ:Household, R/o Gandeed village and Mandal, district Rangareddy

5. Mohamad Gouse W/o Late Mohed Khasim, Age:43 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Kanukurthy village of Damargidda mandal, district Narayanpet

6. Choti Begum W/o Pinjari Alisab, Age:40 years, Occ:household R/o Chandapoor village of Sedum Tq.Gulburga District, Karnataka.

... Defendants

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 2 of 30

This suit is coming before me on 12.8.2024, 11.9.2024, 25.9.2024 and 26.9.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Mallikarjun, Advocate for the plaintiffs, and Sri M.Chenna Reddy, Advocate for defendants 2 to 6 and Defendant No.1 is exparte and having heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:-

::JUDGEMENT ::

1.The plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the defendants for the land in Survey

No.451 to an extent of Acs.7-25 guntas, situated at Kankurthy village of Damargidda mandal and also to declare the registered document

No.232/1986 and 730/1987 of SRO Kodangal as not binding on the plaintiff, and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants for restraining them from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff.

2.The suit schedule property described in the plaint is as under:

“The land Sy.No.451 to an extent of Acs.7-25 guntas, situated at Kankurthy village of Damargidda mandal, bounded as under: East: Land of Mallikarjun West: Land of K.Ashanna North: Land of Mallikarjun South: Land of defendant No.2 and 3 in the land in sy.No.451.”

3.The brief averments of the plaint are that one Ashabee (plaintiff No.1 in the cause title is referred as Ayashabee) is insane person and she used to go away from the home without informing in the house and she is totally mentally disordered and as such, her

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 3 of 30 husband and plaintiff No.2 used to look after the welfare of the family; plaintiff No.2 is the son of insane plaintiff and plaintiff No.3 is wife of late brother of plaintiff No.2. It is mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint, “he is the owner” of the land in Survey No.451 to an extent of Acs.15- 10 guntas situated at Kankurthy village of Damargidda mandal shown in the plaint schedule. Originally the land in survey No.451 to an extent of Acs.15-10 guntas, situated at Kankurthy village belongs to late Hassainsab, including other landed properties, and he died by leaving behind 2 sons by name Magulansab and Peersab and the said two sons divided the said landed properties in equal shares, and to an extent of Acs.7-25 guntas was left to the share of the father of insane plaintiff towards northern side and southern side to the father of defendant No.1 (as per amended neat copy of plaint), to the grandfather of defendant Nos.4 to 6; and the father of the plaintiffs was blessed with two daughters, one among is the insane plaintiff. In order to avoid the future consequence, the father of the insane plaintiff gifted the suit land to the insane plaintiff during his life time.

Accordingly, the suit land was mutated in the name of the insane plaintiff. That she is kept in the house and her marriage was performed by bringing her husband as adopted son-in-law. Since then, there is no talking terms between the family of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, as defendant No.1 and his father might be under the

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 4 of 30 impression that in case the father of the plaintiff performed the marriage of his two daughters nd they leave the village, he will enjoy the total proeprty etc., but contrary to their expectation, the father of the plaintiff performed the marriage of the plaintiff by bringing the illitam son in law. Soon after the death of the father of the plaintiff, because of economic necessity, in the year 1976, she obtained loan by creating the charge over the suit land through registered document

No.1130 of 1976, soon after in the year 1982 she mortgaged the suit land to one Narayana through registered mortgage deed document

No.827 of d1982 for a period of 10 years. Since 6 years insane plaintiff badly effected with the mental imbalance and as such, she used to go away from the house without infroming in the house and she used to remain out of the house months together and whenever plaintiff No.2 used to bring her back to the house she used to run away and as such, plaintiff No.2 and his father lost hope and they left her to her fate to live as she likes, as they treated her in the hosptial, but she refused to have the medicine and as such, she was not cured mentally.

After the death of the father of defendant No.1, their portion was mutated in the name of the mother of defendant No.1, but by the time of filing of ROR appeal the plaintiff heard that defendant No.1 sold his share portion of land to defendants 2 and 3. On receipt of summons from the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal in O.S.No.58 of 2013 itself the

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 5 of 30 plaintiff secured the genuine information stating that out of portion of defendant No.1 mother of defendant No.1 sold to an extent of Ac.1-29 guntas through registered sale deed document No.232 of 1986 to husband of defendant No.2 and to an extent of 6 acres to defendant

No.2 itself through registered sale deed document No.730 of 1987.

Thereafter, defendant No.1, inspite of selling their share through his mother, once again they made false entries in the revenue records. As such, the palintiff preferred ROR appeal through file No.A/1368 of 2011 and the said appeal has been allowed by the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Narayanpet, upon which defendant No.1 preferred the revision, which is pending before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar. After receiving summons on 25.9.2013 from Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal in

O.S.No.58 of 2013, the plaintiff came to know about sale of defendant

No.1 through his mother, and as per the sale deed document No.232 of 1986, it is alleged to be sold to an extent of Ac.1-29 guntas and by the time of said sale it is written in the sale deed as out of Acs.7-10 guntas the mother of the plaintiff sold to an extent of Ac.1-29 guntas etc. But all of a sudden in the sale deed document No.730 of 1987 by selling the rest of the land to an extent of Acs.6.00 guntas, it is written as out of Acs.15-10 gutnas etc, which itself show how they managed to created documents to illegally occupy the suit land from the plaintiff, as in fact defendant No.1 has already sold their portion through his

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 6 of 30 mother. None of the defendants are entitled to dispute the rights and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Defendants 2 and 3 are not entitled to claim any right basing on the registered sale deed document No.232 of 1986 and 730 of 1987 and therefore, the said documents are put to be declared as not binding on the plaintiff, as the existence of the said documents came to knowldege of the plaintiff only on receipt of summons from the court evict fake entries on the revenue records the defendants are disputing the rights and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Defendant No.2 and 3 with a malafide intention to cause damage to the possession of the plaintiff made to evict her from the possession, they filed the suit for injunction through O.S.No.58 of 2013 against the children of the plaintiff, by taking advantage of pendency all the proceedings i.e., proceedings pending before the Joint Collector Mahabubnagar and the

Civil suit pending before the Junior Civil Judge, Kondangal. The

Defendants 2 and 3 with a active collusion with the defendant No.1 came to the suit land on 21.2.2014 and by disputing the rights and possession of the plaintiff tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the possession, as such, the situation bent upon to the plaintiff to file this present suit. The defendants are no way concerned with the suit land and they do not have the rights or possession over the suit land.

Defendant No.1 is concerned, who is alleged to have sold his land in

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 7 of 30

Sy.No.451 through his mother as stated above and as such, he is not entitled to question the rights and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, and the rest of the defendants are concerned, they are not entitled to claim any rights over the suit land basing on the registered documents No.232 of 1986 and 730 of 1987 and as such the said documents are to be declared as not binding on the plaintiff. The cause of action arose on 25.9.2013, on which date the plaintiff came to know about the registered document No.232 of 1986 and 730 of 1987 and on 21.2.2014 on which day defendants 2 and 3 with an active collusion with defendant No.1 came to the suit land by disputing the rights and possession of the plaintiff, tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the possession; the cause of action arose at Kankurthy village of

Damargidda mandal, which comes within the jurisdiction of this court.

The subject matter of the suit comes to Rs.7,62,500/- and one half of which comes to Rs.3,81,000/- upon which as per Section 24 (1) (b) of

AP.C.F and S.V Act the court fee comes to Rs.6,326/- and the plaintiff sought for the relief of declration that the registered document No.,232 of 1986 and 730 of 1987 are to be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and also for perpetual injunction court fee is paid under Section 24 (b) of AP.C.F and S.V Act. Hence, the suit.

4.Defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement denying the contents of the plaintiff and mentioning that orginally the land in

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 8 of 30

Survey No.451 to an extent of Acs.15-10 guntas, situated at

Kankurthy village of Damargidda mandal was held in the name of grandfather of defendant No.1 by name Hussainsab who died at the time of police action by Government of India against Hyderabad state.

Husssainsab has two sons by name Mogulansab (father of defendant

No.1), Peersab (died 2 years prior to the death of Husssainsab).

Therefore, under Sharia law which is applciable to the parites, entire land held by Hussainsab fell to the sole surviving son- Mogulansab (father of defendant No.1). Though Hussain sab died at the time of the police action his name continued to be recorded in the revenue records as pattadar for more than 25 years, and thereafter the land was mutated in the name of his son and daughter-in-law i.e., Mosgulansab s/o Hussainsab, Ayeshabee w/o Mogulansab (who are the father and mother of defendant No.1). Ayesha bee sold an extent of Ac.1-25 guntas to the husband of defendant No.2 through registered sale deed

No.232/1986, dated 30.1.1986, and reamining land of Acs.6.00 guntas to defendant No.2 through registered sale deed dated 5.4.1987. After the purchase, the name of defendant 2 and her husband are recorded in revenue records as owners. On the demise of the hsuband of defendant No.2 the land on his name got transferred in the name of defendant No.3. Since then the defendnat No.2 and 3 have been in actual possession and enjoyment of the said land, having cultivated

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 9 of 30 the same personally till date. The extent fo Acs.7-25 guntas held by father of defendant No.1 was mutated in the name of defendant No.1.

The name of defendant No.1 has been recorded as pattadar and he has been in continuous possession over the said extent and has become exlusive owner by asserting the rights since then till date. The revenue authorities issued pattadar pass books and title deeds to defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiffs have no concern what-so-ever with the same.

Defendants 2 and 3 filed the suit in O.S.No.58 of 2013, sought injunction vide I.A.No.274 of 2013 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Kodangal against plaintiff No.2 and 3 herein and after hearing the same, injunction was made absolute. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 herein filed an appeal vide CMA No.1 of 2014 against the said order and the same is pending for enquiry. As an after-thought, plaintiffs 2 and 3 herein conspired with plaintiff No.1 herein and filed the present suit and petition against the defendants. In view of the order passed by the court of JCJ, Kodangal in O.S.N0.58 of 2013 vide I.A.No.274 of 2013, the present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiffs supressed the material facts and approached the court with unclean hands.

5.It is also mentioned in the written statement by defendants 1 to 3 that the 1st plaintiff by name Ayeshabee died 15 years back and she is not an insane woman as asserted by her representative. She

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 10 of 30 was given in marriage to a person by name Mahbub Sab of Annaram and as he died, Ayeshabee married another person by name Mahbub

Sab of Madpally village of Damargidda mandal. Ayesha bee had a sister by name Hussain bee who was given in marriage to Dugnur village of Sedam Taluq K.S. Both sisters marriages were performed by defendant No.1 herein only about 40 years back. Plaintiff No.2 and husband of plaintiff No.3 to be sons of late Ayesha bee. By taking advantage of similarity of names, the representative of Ayeshabee misrepresented the true facts before this court in order to get an order though Ayesha bee died 15 years back. Moreover under Muslim law the entire property of Hussainsab would devolve upon his surviving son Mogulansab (father of defendant No.1) and there is no representative succession in Muslim law as in case of Hindus. Legal heirs of a predeceased son of a Muslim would not get any share in the property of their grandfather. Hence, the daughters of Peersab would not get any share in the property of Hussasinsab as their father

Peersab died before his father. The order passed by RDO, Narayanpet in file No.A/1368/11 is an ex parte order for which defendant No.1 preferred Revision under Section 9 of A.P. R.O.R Act before the

Collector, Mahabubnagar vide file No.D1/37/2012 which is pending.

The suit in the present form is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed. The claim of the plaintiffs is barred under law. The

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 11 of 30 plaintiffs are out of possession of suit lands from more than 25 years.

The plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit lands. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. It is prayed to dismiss the suit.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are set for trial.

“1. Whether the suit is maintainable as filed in the name of dead person i.e., plaintiff No.1

2. Whether the plaintiffs are having right over the schedule property as per muslim law of succession.

3. Whether the registered document No.232 of 1896, 730 of 1987 of SRO Kodangal are binding on the plaintiffs.

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title as prayed for.

5. whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for.

6. To what relief.”

7.On behalf of the plaintiffs P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and

Exs.A.1 to A.11 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B.1 to B.11 are marked.

8.After posting the suit for arguments, amemo is filed that defendant No.1 died. Thereafter, petition under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC was filed and it was allowed. Defendants 4 to 6 were brought on record as the legal representatives of defendant No.1. The defendants have not filed written statement/additional written statement. Therefore, as no consequntial relief was prayed for against defendants 4 to 6, it was held that no additional issues are required to be framed.

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 12 of 30

9. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendants.

ISSUE NO.1 Whether the suit is maintainable as filed in the name of dead person i.e., plaintiff No.1

10. The defendants took a plea that the first plaintiff by name

Ayesha bee died 15 years back and that she is not an insane woman as asserted by her representative. D.W.1 and D.W.2 also deposes that the first plaintiff by name Asha Bee died 15 years earlier to filing of this suit and that during her lifetime, she is not insane woman as contended by the plaintiffs. It is to be mentioned that no any document is filed to prove the death of the plaintiff No.1. In the cross examination of P.W.1 it is elicited that his mother i.e., plaintiff No.1 is alive and her whereabouts are not known till date of his cross examination on 20.2.2020 and they were searching for her. P.W.1 voluntered that her mother barely come to their house and went away and after filing of this suit 10 times her mother came. It is elicited from the cross examination of P.W.1 that he knows that his mother is roaming in Hyderabad area. It is also elicited that in Damargidda police station they gave complaint to police about missing of his mother approximately 2 or 3 years back. He denied the suggestion that on the very next day of the complaint paper publication was given that his complaint is false and that his mother was not missing. However,

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 13 of 30 no such, paper publication is exhibited. Further no document was filed as to the death of plaintiff No.1. It is also to be mentioned that a suggestion was put to P.W.1 that his mother went away in the year 1985 and in the year 2012 police found her whereabouts are not known and filed report to that effect, but P.W.1 denied the said suggestion. In the cross examination of P.W.2 also it was suggested that Asha bee (plaintiff No.1) became insane about 20 or 25 years back and that police Damargidda made enquiry about insanity of Ayesha

Bee and reported that she left 20 or 25 years back from the village.

However, from the cross examination of P.W.1 it is evident that the plaintiff is visiting their village. P.W.1 in his chief examination deposes that since 6 years her mother is badly effected with mental imbalance and as such, she used to go away from the house without informing and she used to remain out of the house for months together and whenever he used to bring her back to the house she used to run away and as such, he and his father lost hope and left her to her faith to live as she liked, as they treated her in the hospital but she refused to have medicines and as such, she was not cured. It is also the evidence of

P.W.3 in the cross examination that Asha bee( plaintiff No.1) is alive but she is not in village, may be since 10 or 12 years. He added that she is in upset mind and mad. It is to be mentioned that according to

Section 107 of the Indian Evidence Act when the question is whether

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 14 of 30 the man is alive or dead, and it is shown that he was alive within 30 years, the burden of proving that he is dead is on the person who affirms dead. Therefore, when the defendants took a plea that plaintiff

No.1 died and when P.Ws.1 to 3 depose as to her being alive, the burden is on the defendants to prove that plaintiff No.1 died. It is also to be mentioned that as per Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, when the question whether a man is alive or dead and it is proved that he has not been heard for 7 years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who affirms that he is alive. It is to be mentioned that except deposing that the plaintiff No.1 died, no documentary evidence placed on record by the defendants.

Furthermore, in view of the evidence of P.W.1, who is son of plaintiff

No.1 that even after filing the suit, his mother came 10 times, it can be safely presumed that the defendants failed to prove that plaintiff No.1 died and the present suit is filed in the name of the dead person.

Accordingly, issue no.1 is answered.

ISSUE NO.2-Whether the plaintiffs are having right over the schedule property as per Muslim Law of Succession.

ISSUE NO.4: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title as prayed for.

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 15 of 30

11.It is to be mentioned that there is no dispute that originally the land in Survey No.451 to an extent of Acs.15-10 guntas situated at

Kankurthi village shivar of Damargidda Mandal belonged to late

Hussain Sab. P.W.1 also deposes to that effect. D.W.1 also deposes that originally the land in Survey No.451 to an extent of Acs.15-10 guntas situated in Kankurthy village of Damargidda mandal was held in the name of grand father of defendant No.1 by name Hussain Sab.

D.W.2 also deposes to that effect. There is no cross examination on this aspect to P.W.1, so also to D.W.2. Furthermore, in the cross examination of D.W.2 it is suggested and elicited that suit schedule survey land in 451 belonged to his grandfather i.e., Husssain sab. As per the translation copy of Ex.A.1, in Ex.A.1 it is reflected that the survey No.451 to an extent of Acs.15-10 guntas was in the name of

Hussain Sab. Therefore it is evident that the land in Survey No.451 to an extent of Acs.15-10 guntas is recorded in the name of Hussain sab.

12.As per the evidence of P.W.1 Hussain Sab died by leaving 2 sons by name Magulan sab and Peersab and the said two sons divided the said landed property in equal shares; the land in survey No.451, out of Acs.15-10 guntas, an extent of Acs.7-25 guntas was left to the share of father of his mother towards northern side and southern side to the father of defendant No.1. The evidence of P.W.1 and the pleading of the plaintiff is not clear as to who is the father of mother of P.W.1. If

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 16 of 30 it is considered that Acs.7-25 guntas of land left to the share of father of defendant No.1, from the cause title Mogulan Sab can be said to be the father of defendant No.1 and in such case, Peersab would be the father of plaintiff No.1. According to D.W.1, Hussain Sab had two sons i.e., Mogulan Sab and Peer Sab. P.W.1 also deposes that his grandfather (might be Peersab), is blessed with 2 daughters and one among is his mother i.e., plaintiff No.1. He also deposes that his father gifted the suit land to his mother-plaintiff No.1 during his lifetime and accordingly, the suit land was mutated in the name of his mother; that plaintiff No.1 is kept in the house and her marriage was performed by bringing the father of P.W.1 as adopted son-in-law. It is to be mentioned that in the cross examination of D.W.2 it is clarified as to the relationship of the parties. It is elicited from the cross examination of D.W.2 that the name of his grandfather is Hussain Sab, who is having 2 sons namely Mogulansab and Peersab, Peersab is having only 2 daughters Hasina Bee and Ayesha bee. Mogulansab who is his father, has 2 wives namely – Hussain Bee and Ayesha Bee and that he is the son of Mogulan sab though his second-wife Ayesha Bee. It is to be noted that this evidence in the cross examination of D.W.2 suggests that the name of daughter of Peersab is Ayesha Bee and the name of second wife of father of defendant No.1 is Asha Bee. In the cross examination of P.W.1 it is evident that the name of his mother is Asha

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 17 of 30

Bee and the name of mother of defendant No.1 is Asha Bee. There is some inconsistency as to the name of plaintiff No.1, whether Ayesha

Bee or Asha Bee and in regard to this it is required to be probed further, since it appears it is the core issue in the suit.

13.The further evidence of P.W.1 is that the mother of P.W.1 is kept in the house and her marriage was performed by bringing his father as adopted son-in-law and since then there are no talking terms in between their families and his father (father of defendant No.1) might be under impresson that in case his grandfather performed the marriage of his 2 daughters and they left the village, he would enjoy the entire property, but contrary to their expectation his grandfather married his daugther by bringing illatum son-in-law. As per the evidence of P.W.1 his father gifted the land in favour of his mother- plaintiff No.1. He also deposes that after death of his father, because of economic necessity, in the year 1976, the plaintiff obtianed loan by creating charge over the suit land through registered document

No.1130 of 1976 i.e.,Ex.A.3; that soon after in the year 1982, she mortgated their land through mortgage deed No.827/1982 for a period of 10 years, i.e., Ex.A.5. Thus plaintiffs claim that father of P.W.1 gifted suit property to plaintiff No.1 on the other hand, the evidence of

D.W.2 is that Hussain Sab had 2 sons namely Mogulan Sab and

Peersab and that the said peer sab died 2 years prior to the death of

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 18 of 30

Hussain sab and that as such, the land held by Hussain Sab fell to the sole surviving son-Mogulan sab, i.e., his father as per Muslim Law.

According to D.W.2 though Hussain Sab died at the time of police action, his name continued in the reveunue records as pattadar for more than 25 years and thereafter the land was mutated in the name of his son and daughter-in-law i.e., Mogulan sab s/o Hussian Sab,

Asha Bee w/o Mogulan sab, who are the his father and mother. He also deposes that the land to an extent of Acs.7-25 guntas was sold by his father in favour of D.2 and husband of D.2 and that remaining land Acs.7-25 gunas is concerned he has been in acutal possession and enjoyment of the same, for which the plaintiffs have no concern what-so-ever. D.W.2 also deposes that his name has been mutated in the revenue records, for which lands the plaintffs have no concern; that revenue authorities issued pattedar passbooks and title deed to him and defendants 2 and 3. It is to be mentioned that generally the heirs of pre-deceased son or daugther would not inherit in Muslim Law and the inheritance rights arise after death of ancestor. Therefore it is to be considered as to whether second son of Hussain sab i.e., Peersab predeceased him or not. No document is filed to show that Peersab pre-deceased his father-Hussain Sab. In the cross examination of

D.W.1 it is elicited that he does not know as to when his grandfather died, according to this witness, Peersab died in the year 1949 or 1950.

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 19 of 30

In the cross examiantion of D.W.1 it is elicited that he has not filed any document to show that Peersab died in police action. In the cross examination of P.W.1 nothing is suggested to him that Peersab pre- deceased Husssain Sab. When it is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that

Mogulan Sab and Peersab divided the said land in survey No.451 in equal shares, probably after the death of Hussain sab, the same is not challenged.

14.P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he has no concern with the suit schedule property, and Asha bee in whose name the property stands is the mother of defendant No.1. It is to be mentioned that the plaintiffs mainly relied on the Ex.A.1 certified copy of faisal patti and

Ex.A.2 Certified copy of Namuna. It is contended by the learned counsel for plaintiffs that the property of Hussain Sab was shared between Mogulan Sab and Asha bee i.e., plaintiff No.1 and each of them got ½ share. It is also contended that in Ex.A.2 in the place of name of husband of plaintiff No.1, the name of father of defendant

No.1 is mentioned, in view of the similarity of the name of plaintiff No.1 and the wife of Mogulan sab. The contention of the learned counsel is not as per the pleadings in the plaint. As already mentioned above, the evidence of P.W.1 is that his father gifted suit land to his mother i.e., plaintiff No.1 and the land was mutated in the name of his mother i.e., plaintiff No.1. However, when the father of P.W.1 is not the person in

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 20 of 30 whose favour the property was given and is not either son or daughter of Hussain sab, he would have no right to gift the property. Therefore, when Mahabub sab, who is the husband of plaintiff No.1 has no right over the subject property, gifting of the property in favour of plaintiff

No.1 would not arise. It is not the pleading and evidence of P.W.1 that the property was gifted by the father of defendant No.1, in favour of defendant No.1 as well as Asha Bee i.e., plaintiff No.1. If the contention of the plaintiffs that Peersab is not predeceased Hussain sab is considered, the property would have been mutated in favor of father of defendant No.1 and Peersab. If the property is given to and mutated in favour of Peersab, as he is having two daughters, on the death of

Peersab, his two daughters would have taken the property equally. It is not explained as to why the second daughter of Peersab is excluded from having share in the property. Therefore, it appears that the case of defendants that Peersab is predeceased Hussain Sab and as such, the property devolved on Mogulansab, who is the father of defendant

No.1 is acceptable as Ex.A.2 reflects that the name of Mogulan Sab s/o

Hussain Sab for Acs.15-10 guntas of land. It is to be mentioned that the plaintiffs rely on Ex.A.2 and contend that by taking similarity of names of the plantiff No.1 and wife of Mogulan sab, the name of husband of plaintiff No.1 was rounded off and the name of Mogulan sab was mentioned in Ex.A.2. However, when Ex.A.2 records the name

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 21 of 30 of Mogulan Sab(father of D.1), how the name of daughter of Peer Sab i.e., plaintiff No.1 is appearing is not explained. If the rounded off name i.e., Mogulan Sab s/o Hussain Sab is considered, Asha Bee whose name is reflected for Acs.5-36 guntas in Ex.A.2 must be the wife of Mogulan Sab only and not plaintiff No.1. Therefore, the case of the plaintiffs is inconsistent and it is not probable that plaintiff No.1 would have got right over the property. It is to be mentioned that plaintiff

No.1 filed ROR appeal under Ex.A4 and that the same was allowed and the entry made in Ex.A.2 in ROR in respect of 451/A to an extent of

Acs.7-25 guntas in favour of respondent i.e., defendant No.1 herein, was set aside. By the order under Ex.A.4, the Tahsildar was directed to enter name of the appellant therein i.e., plaintiff No.1 herein in respect of the land in Survey No.451/A to an extent of Acs.7-25 guntas while deleting name of respondent No.1 therein i.e., defendant No.1 herein. It is to be mentioned that aggreived by the order under Ex.A.4 revision in case No.D1/37/2012 was filed before the Joint Collector,

Mahabubnagar and by the order under Ex.A.9, it was observed that the petitioner i.e., defendant No.1 herein is claiming title over the entire subject land in Survey No.451/A of Kanukurthy village and since the subject matter is pending before the civil court, that the court cannot give any finding till the disposal of the suit and as such, the revision petition was dismissed confirming lower court order of the

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 22 of 30

Revenue Divisional Officer i.e., Ex.A.4 order. Ex.A.11 is the proceedings of the Tahsildar; Damargidda Mandal and these proceedings emanate consequent on the order under Ex.A.4 order.

Ex.A.11 was challenged, but without giving any finding the revision petition was dismissed subject to the adjudication before the Civil

Court. Therefore, it cannot be accpeted that Ex.A.4 and A.11 became final. The plaintiffs are required to prove their right over the suit schedule property in this suit. As contended by the learned counsel for the defendants, even if Ex.A.11 and A.4 are considered, the subject matter of the property is the land in survey No.451/A, whereas the present suit is filed in respect of the survey No.451, without mentioning the by-number/sub-division number of the survey number. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that by mentioning the registered document No.1130 dated 5.7.1976 which is irrelevant document, the name of father of defendant No.1 was written by rounding off the name of husband of plaintiff No.1, as there is similarity in the name of mother of defendant

No.1 and plaintiff No.1. Ex.A.3 is certified copy of declaration creating charge, document No.1130/1976, which is referred in Ex.A.2.

However, Ex.A.2 does not reflect that because of Ex.A.2 the name of husband of plaintiff No.1 was changed and the name of father of defendant No.1 is inserted. Ex.A.2 refelcts an extent of Acs.7-25

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 23 of 30 guntas in the name of defendant No.1 and the extent of Ac.1-21 guntas in favour of Thammaiah s/o Saianna. Ex.A.6 reflects that Ashabee wife of Mogulansab executed the documents. The said document is not challenged by the plaintiffs. Ex.A.7 is the certified copy of document

No.730/1987, which shows that Ashabee w/o Mougulansab sold 6 acres of land in favour of defendant No.2. If Ac.1-29 guntas of land is sold by Asha bee, mother of defendant No.1, the extent of Acs.7-25 guntas of land would not have been reflected in the name of defendant

No.1 and Acs.1-29 gutas of land would not have been deducted from

Acs.7-25 guntas and Acs.5-36 guntas of land would not have been mentioned in favour of Ashabee w/o Mahabubsab, which is corrected as Maulan sab. All these documents and circumstances probablises the case of the defendants.

15.The plaintiffs relied on Ex.A.3 as well as Ex.A.5 and contend that plaintiff No.1 obtained loan by mortgaging the property.

Unless right of plaintiff No.1 is established over the suit schedule property, even if plaintiff No.1 mortgages that property, it would not confer title to her over that property mortgaged. Even if Exs.A.3 and

A.5 are considered, as seen from Ex.A.8 filed by P.W.1 herein in

O.S.No.58/2013, it was alleged that defendant No.1 herein illegally

sold Acs.7-25 guntas of land in survey No.451/AA. Even if as per the said written statement the land sold was survey No.451/AA, but in the

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 24 of 30 present suit, vaguly survey number of the land is mentioned as 451 without giving by-numbers or subdivision numbers of the suit survey number. It is also to be mentioned that as per the Muslim law, the parties are not having representative right over the property. The suit is filed by plaintiffs 1 to 3 for the stated property of plaintiff No.1 and that as such, declaration in respect of the suit schedule property cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 3, even if it is accepted for argument sake that plaintiff No.1 has title over the suit land. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs in

M.KALLAPPA SETTY v. M.V.LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO: LAWS (SC)

1972 5 15, JHARKAND STATE HOUSING BOARD v. Anirudh

Kumar Sahu: LAWS (SC) 2018 10 110, Government of Andhra

Pradesh v. Grace Sathyavathy Shashikant:LAWS (SC) 2019 2 476,

M/s. Varuna Hatchevies Pvt Ltd. v. Bitcha Reddy: LAWS (TLNG)

2021 21 are not relevant to the facts of the present case. In those decisions, the facts in those cases are discussed. It is held that the plaintiffs could not prove that they are having right over the suit schedule property and that as such, they are not entitled for declaration of title over the suit property. Accordingly, Issue Nos.2 and 4 are answered.

ISSUE NO.3- Whether the registered No.232/1986 and 730/1987 SRO

Kodangal is binding on the plaintiffs.

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 25 of 30

16.The evidence of P.W.1 is that out of the portion of the defendant No.1 mother of defendant No.1 sold Ac.1-29 guntas through registered sale deed document No.232/1986 to the hsuband of defendant No.2 and extent of 6 acres to defendant No.2 through registered document No.730/1987. When the pleading of the plaintiffs and evidence of P.W.1 is that the mother of defendant No.1 sold her land, the plaintiffs are no way concerned with the said registered sale deed documents and that as such, the said documents are binding the plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO.5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. It is to be mentioned that the plaintiffs marked Ex.A.11 and basing on it they claimed to be in possession of the suit schedule property. However, the said document is held to be giving no right to the plaintiffs over the suit property. In the cross examination of P.W.1 it is elicited that himself and plaintiff No.1 are residing separately since 12 years, onwards and doing their family matters separately. Therefore, joint possession of plaintiffs not probable. In the cross examination P.W.1 deposes that the suit land is in their possession to an extent of Acs.15-10 guntas and that they have not filed any document before the court showing that they are in possession of the suit land. The extent of suit land is Acs.7-25 guntas.

it is also elicited from the cross examination of P.W.1 that Ex.A.1 to

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 26 of 30

A.11 standing in the name of his mother, but not in his name. Even if it is considered that the plaintiff No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property, perpetual injucntion cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 3. It appears that P.Ws.2 and 3 are examined to prove possession of plaintiffs over the suit land. It is to be mentioned that P.W.2 deposes that his mother is insane and she used to go away from home without informing in house and she is totally mentally disturbed as such, her husband and himself used to look after the affairs of the family. In the cross examination of P.W.2 it is elicited that he got mentioned in chief examination affidavit that his mother is insane person and she used to go away from home without informing and she is totally mentally disturbed. It is not that P.W.2 is the son of plaintiff No.1. His evidence is that “mother of the owner of the land in survey No.451 to an extent of Acs.7-25 guntas” and he got his land in survey No.449 towards southern side to the suit land and the patta land stands in the name of his mother, which is located after passing the land of Savitramma and Anuradha and on the northern side of land of Savitramma and Anuradha the plaintiff is having land to an extent of Acs.7-25 guntas. It is to be mentioned that P.W.2 also deposes that land in Survey No.451 equal share devolved upon Ayasha

Bee and Magulansab and share portion of the land sold by him (may be Mogulan Sab) to Savitramma i.e., defendant No.2 and Anuradha-

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 27 of 30 defendant No.3 by mentioning wrong boundaries. However, the plaintiffs have not explained as to how 1/2 share of the land is devolved on plaintiff No.1 when her father is alive according to the case of the plaintiffs. P.W.3 also deposes that the land in Survey No.451 to an extent of Acs.7-25 guntas situated at Kanukurthy village and he got his land in survey No.460 towards western side to the suit land after passing two lands towards western side to the suit land, the land survey No.451 to an extent of Acs.15-10 guntas and the same is divided into two parts from North to south in the southern side portion in the land of Savitramma and Anuradha is located and the land of plaintiff is located at Northern portion to an extent of Acs.7-25 guntas.

However, in the cross examination of P.W.3 it is elicited that he does not know as to sub-division number of the suit schedule survey

No.451. As per him the boundaries of properties of D.2 and D.3 are south: Savitramma and Anuradha, North: Peersab and Babu miya, west: Ashanna and east: Mallikarjun. According to P.W.3 the boundaries of the property of Babu miya/plaintiff No.2 are east:

Ashanna, witness again says, on west Ashanna, north: Babumiya,

Peersab, south: Anuradha and Savitramma. P.W.2 deposes in the cross examination that the boundaries of the land of Savitramma and

Anuradha east-Mallikajun, west: Konkal Ashanna, north: Mallikarjun and south: himself and the boundaries to the remaining Acs.7-25

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 28 of 30 guntas of land are east: Mallikarjun, west: Konkal Ashanna, north

Mallikarjun and south: himself. Therefore, he is giving boudaries for both the properties, one and the same boundaries P.Ws.2 and 3 could not give sub-division Survey number of the suit property. Furthermore, it is the evidence of D.W.1 that herself and defendant No.3 filed suit for perpetual injunction against plaintiffs 2 and 3 and wife of plaintiff No.2 and one Pinjari Imam sab vide O.S.No.58/2013 on the file of the

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kodangal and it was decreed against them.

P.W.1 is also party to the said suit. The said suit is in respect of the land in survey No.451/AA to an extent of 6 acres, 451 to an extent of

Ac.1-25 guntas. Admittedly the said land is out of the total extent of the land held by Hussain Sab in Survey No.451. Therefore, even if the plaintiffs presumed to be in possession of Acs.7-25 guntas of land, unless the specific sub division number of the property is mentioned, the plaintiffs are not entitled for perpertual injunction, which is equitable relief. Furthermore, the boundareis of the suit schedule property varies, if the same are compared with the boundaries in

O.S.No.58/2013, the boundaries in the cross examination of P.Ws.1 to

3 and D.Ws.1 and 2. Having regard to the above circumstances, the plaintiffs are not entitled for perpetual injunction. Accordingly, issue

No.5 is answered.

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 29 of 30

ISSUE NO.6- Having regard to the findings of Issues 1 to 5, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the point is answered.

17.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

(Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the day of August, 2024. )

SENOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANAPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS FOR THE DEFENDANTS

P.W.1 Pinjari Bubumiya D.W.1 Kanake Savithramma

P.W.2 Chinna Narsappa D.W.2 Mohd.Khasim

P.W.3 Farathulla Khan

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: Ex. A.1 CC faisal patti along with translation copy Ex. A.2 CC of Namuna Ex. A.3 CC of from B declaration creating charge dated 11th May, 1976,

Ex. A.4 CC of proceedings issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 17.3.2012 Ex. A.5 Original mortgage deed (in Urdu language) alongwith translation copy Ex. A.6 CC of sale deed, dated 30.1.1986

Ex. A.7 CC of sale deed, dated 18.4.1987 Ex. A.8 CC of plaint in O.S.No.58/2013 alongwith written statement Ex. A.9 CC of Orders issued by Joint Collector, dated 27.5.2017 Ex. A.10 CC of Mortgage Release Deed, dated 5.3.1986 Ex. A.11 proceedings issued by the Thasildar, Damaragidda Mandal

dated 15.6.2012.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Ex.B.1 CC of judgment and decree in O.S.No.58/2013 on the file of J.C.J court, Kodangal Ex.B.2 Pahani for the year 1423, fasli issued by Meeseva

O.S.No.36 of 2014

Page 30 of 30

Ex.B.3 Pahani for the year 1424 Fasli issued by Meeseva Ex.B.4 Pahani for the year 1425 Fasli issued by Meeseva Ex.B.5 Pahani for the year 1423 Fasli issued by Meeseva Ex.B.6 Pahani for the year 1424 Fasli issued by Meeseva Ex.B.7 Pahani for the year 1422 Fasli issued by Meeseva Ex.B.8 Pahani for the year 1422 Fasli issued by Meeseva Ex.B.9 Pahani for the year 1421 Fasli issued by Meeseva Ex.B.10 Pahani for the year 1420 Fasli issued by Meeseva Ex.B.11 1-B Namuna ROR obtained from Meeseva.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANPET.

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 1 of 41

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

NARAYANPET.

Present: Sri.G.Srinivas

Assistant Sessions Judge,

NARAYANPET

Monday, this the 30th day of September, 2024

S.C.No. 67 of 2022

1.Name of the com-:: Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Utkoor plainant

2. Name of the accused::A.1 Budidi Kanakappa @ Budida Kanakappa s/o Kistappa, Age:38 years, Occ:Agriculture, r/o Peddajatrama(v), Utkoor(m).

A.2. Budidi Ramulu @ Budida Ramulu, S/o Kistappa, Age:42 years, Occ:Agri- culture, r/o Peddajatrama(v), Utkoor(m).

A.3 Budidi Gopal @ Budida Gopal s/o Kistappa, Age: 31 years, Occ:Agricul- ture, r/o Peddajatrama(v), Utkoor(m).

A.4 Batti Naresh, @ Patti Naresh s/o Hanmanthu, Age:30 years, Occ:Cook, r/o Eklaspur(v), Marikal Mandal.

3.Section of Law:: 307 IPC,

4.Cr.No. and P.S.::32/2022, P.S.Utkoor

5.PRC.No.::22/2022

6.Name of the Officer, ::Smt.Syed Zakiyyah Sulthana, Addi-

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 2 of 41 who committed the tional JFCM, Narayanpet. case

7.Prosecution con-::Sri A.Balappa, Public Prosecutor, in ducted bycharge Additional Public Prosecutor

8.Defence conducted by ::Sri Nandu Namaji, Advocate

9.Plea of the accused:: Not guilty

10.Finding of the court:: Not guilty

11.Sentence or Order :: In the result, A.1 to A.4 are acquitted under Section 235(1) CrPC for the of- fence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months. M.Os.1 to 4 and un- marked property are directed to be destroyed after appeal period is over.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 27.9.2024 in the presence of Sri A.Balappa, Public Prosecu- tor, who is in charge Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State and Sri Nandu Namaji, Advocate for A.1 to A.4 and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 3 of 41

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.A.1 to A.4 are tried for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. This is a case of attempt to commit murder of the injured.

2.The Sub -Inspector of Police, P.S.Utkoor filed

Charge Sheet alleging that on 21.2.2022 at 11 a.m, the defacto complainant-Boya Laxmi presented a report and basing on it the investigating officier-A.S.I of police,

P.S.Utkoor/L.W.13 registered a case in Crime No.32/2022 under Sections 341, 324, 504 r/w 34 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of the investigation, the investigating officer examined and recorded the statements of the defacto complainant, Boya Kanakappa/L.W.2/P.W.2. On 22.2.2022 the Sub-Inspector of police/L.W.23 assumed the investigation, rushed to the District Government Hospital,

Narayanpet,whereheexaminedBoya

Kashimappa/L.W.3/P.W.3; secured the presence of

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 4 of 41

Md.Mahmood/L.W.14 and Edigi Chinna Sailu Goud/L.W.15 and conducted seizure panchanama of the blood stained shirt of the injured for the purpose of investigation. The investigating officer visited the scene of offence at Pedda

Jatram village, which is located in front of the house of Sonta

Narsappa, Konkangeri street, on CC Road which leads from

Gajalamma temple to Hanuman temple at Pedda Jatram village,Utkoormandal.Inthepresenceof

P.Venkataiah/L.W.16 (P.W.11) and V.Govindu/L.W.17, the investigating officer drew rough sketch of the scene of offence and Crime Details Form by describing its surroundings and caused search for weapons of offence i.e., stick and stone, which are used by the accused to cause injury to the injured, but the same were not found. The investigating officer examinedK.Balappa/L.W.4,K.Sreenu/L.W.5

L.Ws.4/K.Balappa, L.W.5/Konkali Sreenu, L.W.6/Konkali

Venkatramulu,L.W.7/KonkaliChinnaVenkatappa,

L.W.8/IsrampallySabanna,L.W.9/MangaBalappa,

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 5 of 41

L.W.10/VakitiVenkatesh,L.W.11/SontaNarsappa,

L.W.12/Mamididoddi Gangadhar Reddy, L.W.13/Molla

Usman and recorded their statements. On 4.3.2022, he collected medical certificate from Dr.T.Ramesh, Civil

Assistant Surgeon/L.W.23, who treated the injured and it was mentioned in the injury certificate of L.W.3/Boya

Kashimappa, that the injuries received are grievous in nature. Basing on the statement of Boya.Kashimappa/L.W.3 and eye witnesses and basing on the medical certificate, the investigating officer altered the Section of law from Sections 341, 324, 504 r/w 34 IPC to 341, 507, 504 r/w 34 IPC and issued Section alteration memo and submitted before the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet. On 12.3.2022

on receipt of credible information, the investigating officer along with his staff rushed to Pedda Jatram village gate, apprehended A.1 to A.4 at 7 p.m, while they were absconding from the village, on interrogation, as the accused were in the mood of giving confession, secured presence of

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 6 of 41

M.Krishnaiah/L.W.18 and M.Chinna Shankarappa/L.W.9 and recorded confession panchanama of the accused individually. Leading to confession panchanama of A.1 to

A.4, the investigating officer and the same panchas visited thorny bushes in front of Godess Yellamma temple in Pedda

Jatram village, where A.1 went in thorny bushes, brought and produced a stick which was used to cause injury to the injured, later A.2 produced blood stained granite stone, A.3 and A.4 produced sticks individually before the investigating officer in the presence of the panchas. The investigating officer conducted seizure panchanama separately of A.1 to

A.4 in the presence of the said panchas and seized the above said objects. Later in leading to the confession statement and seizure panchanama, the investigating officer visited the house of A.1 along with the same mediators, conducted seizure panchanama and seized passion plus bike bearing

No.AP09BS8292, which was used by A.3 to obsruct the injured. A.1 to A.4 were brought to the police station, arrest

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 7 of 41 memo was issued and that after explaining A.1 to A.4 the grounds of their arrest, service of notice under Section 50

Cr.P.C and 50-A Cr.P.C to their relative, they were produced

before the court. The blood stained shirt of the injured and

the blood stained granite stone which was used to cause injury to the injured were sent to T.S Forensic Science

Laboratory by the investigating officer, along with the letter of advise. The expert/L.W.21 who examined the material objects furnished the reports opining that items 1 and 2 are examined, human blood was detected on item No.1 and 2, but their blood group cannot be determined. The investigating officer obtained the blood stained shirt of the injured and blood stained granite stone from the Forensic

Laboratory. The investigating officer deposited the case property seized into the court. The investigation established that the injured is having land to an extent of Acs.2-20 guntas in Survey No.75 in the out-skirts of Pedda Jatram village on his name and the same is being cultivated by his

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 8 of 41 agnates i.e., A.1 to A.3; previously the accused asked to mutate the land on their names, several times and warned the injured, if he does not do mutation, they will see his end.

In connection with this grudge, on 20.2.2022 at about 10:00 p.m., when the injured was returning to his house on his bike, after completing negotiation with one Gangadhar Reddy about tenant land, meantime A.1 to A.4, who already hatched a plan to attack the injured, stood and waited for the arrival of the injured. That on noticing the accused, the injured escaped from them by diverting his route on his bike. When

L.W.3/Boya Kashimappa escaped on his bike, A.2 and A.3 came on their bike across the bike of the injured and started abusing stating that “Ekkadiki Potahavu raa Lanjakoduka” and started quarreling and they stated that they will see his end. When the injured/L.W.3 was trying to escape from them, A.1 and A.4 came from his backside and attacked on him by stating to him “Champandi ra Lanjakodukuni”, beat him with stick on his head, for which he received bleeding

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 9 of 41 injuries over his head and his shirt soaked with his blood.

Thereafter, A.1 and A.4 beat on both of legs of the injured with sticks indiscriminately, for which the injured/L.W.3 received fracture injuries on both of his legs. Thereafter, the accused grouped the injured and started beating the injured indiscriminately. That A.3 beat on the left hand of the injured, for which the injured received fracture injury on his left hand. During the quarrel, A.2 took a stone and started beating on the right hand fingers indiscriminately, due to which the injured got fractured right hand fingers. After the attack, A.1 to A.4 turned the injured who fell on the ground and beat him on his back, due to which entire back of the injured sustained bleeding injuries. While the injured wasin semi-conscious, the accused stated that he was still alive and that A.1 took a big boulder and tried to throw on the injured.

That meanwhile L.Ws.5 to L.W.10 rushed there and stopped him, but the accused did not stop their attack and one by one beat the injured till the injured went in unconscious

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 10 of 41 state, with many bleeding injuries. A.1 to A.4 stopped beating the injured, when he went into unconscious state by believing that he died and left from that place. On witnessing the same, LW.10/Vakati Venkatesh informed the matter to

Boya Kankappa/L.W.2, who is the younger brother of the injured, over the phone. On knowing about the incident, the defactocomplainant-BoyaVijayaLaxmi,Boya

Kanakappa/L.W.2 rushed there and shifted the injured to

Government Hospital, Narayanpet in the auto of

L.W.13/Molla Usman @ Chotu and from there, after getting treatment, he was shifted to Sunanda Hospital, Narayanpet for better treatment, where he undewent treatment for many days. Thus, A.1 to A.4 committed offences under Sections 341, 307, 504 r/w 34 IPC.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Narayanpet took cognizance of the offences punishable under

Sections 341, 307, 504 r/w 34 IPC against A.1 to A.4 and registered it as P.R.C No.22/2022. On the appearance of the

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 11 of 41 accused before the committal court, copies of the case documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 CrPC. As the record prima facie showed that A.1 to A.4 committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 504 r/w 34 IPC, which are exclusively triable by the court of

Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanept committed the case under Section 209 (a) CrPC to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Narayanpet by the orders,

dated 19.9.2022, in P.R.C No.22/2022.

4.The Hon’ble Court of Sessions took the case on file for the offences under Sections 341, 307, 504 r/w 34 IPC and registered the case as Sessions Case No.67/2022 and made over it to this court for trial and disposal according to law.

5.After securing presence of the accused before this court and after hearing the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused.

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 12 of 41

They denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and marked

Exs.P.1 to P.20 and M.Os.1 to 4.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, A.1 to A.4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned in charge Additional Public

Prosecutor (Sri Akula Balappa, Public Prosecutor) and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of A.1 to

A.4 for the offence for which they stood charged.

POINT:

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 13 of 41

10.P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of the P.W.1. P.W.3 is the husband of P.W.1 and he is examined as injured witness. P.Ws.4 to 7 are examined as eye witnesses to the incident. P.W.8 is examined as circumstantial witness and P.W.9 is examined as witness who shifted the injured to hospital in his auto.

11.The evidence of P.W.1 is that about 1 year back at about 10 p.m, A.1 to A.4 beat her husband i.e., P.W.3 near

Gajalamma temple, Pedda Jatram village; A.1 beat P.W.3 on his head and A.2 broke left hand of P.W.3, A.3 broke middle finger of left hand of P.W.3 and A.4 beat P.W.3 on his back.

She deposes that the accused beat P.W.3 in respect of the land disputes. She deposes that she presented Ex.P.1-report.

However, in the cross examination of P.W.1 it is elicited that she stated in her statement that she came to know about the incident on being informed by somebody. Therefore, P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the incident. P.W.1 deposes that they shifted P.W.3 to Government Hospital Narayanpet. Therefore,

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 14 of 41 it appears that P.W.1 reached the scene of offence after the conclusion of the stated incident.

12.P.W.2 deposes that on 20.2.2022 at about 8:30 p.m, his brother i.e., P.W.3 went to the house of Gangadhar

Reddy-P.W.8 in Pedda Jatram village, had talks in regard to land, that while P.W.3 was returning at about 10 or 10:30 p.m, near Gajalamma Temple, Konkangeri, A.1 to A.4 stopped him and attacked him and that as such, P.W.3 sustained head injuries and fell down and fell into unconsciousness. He also deposes that P.W.7 informed him that the accused were beating his brother-P.W.3 and thereon himself, P.W.1 went to the place of offence. He further deposes that accused were beating P.W.3 and that they shouted loudly. That the neighbors gathered there, A.1 and

A.3 hurled stones, with an intention to kill P.W.3; thereafter

A.2 beat P.W.3 and the left hand middle finger of P.W.3 was broken and his right hand was broken; that one of the leg of

P.W.3 was broken and one of the leg was fractured. He also

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 15 of 41 deposes that after P.W.3 losing consciousness, the accused beat him on the back; and that thereafter they informed police over the phone and also made phone call to ambulance, but as it did not come they shifted P.W.3 to the

Narayanpet Hospital, through auto of P.W.9. It is to be mentioned that P.W.9 though deposes that about 1 year somebody called for auto in Pedda Jatram village and about 6 or 7 members boarded in his auto and he dropped them at

Narayanpet, in the cross examination he deposes that he has not shown documents of his auto and that passengers who boarded his auto did sustain any injuries and that he does not know any case facts. The evidence of P.W.9, is not supporting the evidence of P.W.2 as to shifting the injured-

P.W.3 to the hospital in the auto of P.W.9, more particularly shifting of the person with injuries. It is not that the evidence of P.W.9 is that he did not observe the passengers or any one of them are with injuries. It is to be mentioned that in the cross examination of P.W.2 it is elicited that he has not

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 16 of 41 witnessed the stated incident and he came to know on being informed by P.W.7. Therefore, P.W.2 is also not an eye witness and his evidence is hearsay. However, the evidence of P.W.2 that on being informed by P.W.7 as to the incident himself and P.W.1 went to the place of evidence, the accused were beating P.W.3, neighbors gathering there and that A.1 and

A.3 hurled stone with an intention to kill the P.W.3; thereafter A.2 beat P.W.3 and the left hand middle finger of

P.W.3 was broken and right hand was broken and one of the leg of P.W.3 was broken and one of his leg was fractured and that after losing consciousness the accused beat P.W.3 on his back is considered, it appears that it was after P.W.2 reaching the place of offence. The evidence of P.W.2 is to be probed into as to the stated offence that took place after P.W.2 reaching the place of offence.

13.Before taking up the evidence of P.W.7 who stated to have witnessed the incident and informed P.W.2, the evidence of the injured-P.W.3 is to be appreciated. P.W.3

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 17 of 41 deposes that on 20.2.2022 in the night at about 8 p.m, he went to the house of M.Gangadhar Reddy-P.W.8, situated at

Pedda Jatram village, in order to ask for giving his land on lease basis; at about 10 p.m, he was returning on bike and when he reached Gajalamma Temple in Konkal area, A.2 and

A.3 kept their bike across and abused him in filthy language, when he intended to get down from the bike and run away,

A.1 and A.4 came and they beat him with sticks; that when he fell down, A.1 to A.4 beat him, A.3 beat him with a stone on his left hand; A.2 beat him with stone and as such the middle finger of the right hand was broken; A.1 to A.4 hit him with stones on his back and also on his head and beat with sticks; his both legs were fractured and he fell unconscious. Thus, according to the evidence of P.W.3 the incident happened when he was returning from the house of

P.W.8. In the cross examination of P.W.8, he deposes that he has not witnessed the stated incident of accused beating

P.W.3. P.W.8 is not an eye witness and is only circumstancial

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 18 of 41 witness. He deposes that about 2 years back in the 2nd month of the year, P.W.3 came to his house at Pedda Jatram village for having talks in regard to lease of his land to P.W.3, at about 8 p.m. He also deposes that P.W.3 was there for about 1 and ½ or 2 hours in regard to the lease of agricultural land, P.W.3 went away to his house; that he came to know that P.W.3 was stopped while going on motor cycle and he was beaten by the accused. Though it is elicited from the cross examination of P.W.8 that he has not stated to police as through whom he came to know as to the incident,

P.W.8 is examined only in regard to P.W.3 visiting his house on the date of the incident. It is suggested and elicited from the cross examination of P.W.8 that he has not gone out from his house after having talks with P.W.3. Therefore, it is evident that P.W.8 had talks with P.W.3, for about 1 and ½ or 2 hours from 8 p.m. Though it is elicited from the cross examination of P.W.8 that he has not stated to police in his statement as to the survey number of the land and its extent,

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 19 of 41 that there is no written document as to the stated lease of his land to P.W.3, there is no panchayat as to the cultivation of the land by P.W.2, since the stated talks were in regard to negotiations for having lease of the land of P.W.8, it is not expected to have any document in that regard. P.W.8 denied the suggestion that P.W.3 did not come to his house for talking in regard to lease of land. However, it is to be mentioned that P.W.8 did not depose that P.W.3 came to his house on motor cycle, he deposes that he came to know that while going on motor cycle P.W.3 was beaten by the accused.

Whether P.W.3 was returning on motor bike or not, at the time of stated offence is to be appreciated.

14.P.W.6 deposes that about 2 years back at 10 or 10:30 p.m, himself, P.Ws.4 and 5, L.Ws.7 to 9 were in front of the house of Gajalappa, in Pedda Jatram village, at that time

P.W.3 was proceeding on motor cycle, and A.1 and A.3 came, stopped P.W.3 and quarrel ensued. However, his evidence is that as the health of his wife is not well, he had taken his

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 20 of 41 wife to hospital. Thus, P.W.6 deposes as to the injured/P.W.3 proceeding and A.1 and A.3 stopping him and ensuing of quarrel. P.W.6 denied the suggestion that he stated to police as in Ex.P.3 that A.2 and A.3 came and stopped the bike of

P.W.3 and they abused P.W.3. Whether it is A.1 and A.3 or

A.2 and A.3 who stopped the bike of P.W.3 is not clear.

According to the evidence of P.W.3, A.2 and A.3 kept their bike across. While it is the evidence of P.W.6 that himself,

P.Ws.4 and 5, L.Ws7 to 9 ( Konkali Chinna Venkatappa,

Isrampally Sabanna, Manga Balappa) were sitting in front of house of Gajalappa P.W.3 was proceeding on bike, whereas the evidence of P.W.4 is that about 2 years back he was in his house near Gajalamma temple, near Pedda Jatram village and at about 10 p.m, there was a quarrel infront of their house. If the quarrel ensued and the accused beat P.W.3 in front of house of Gajalappa, P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 would have witnessed the incident, so also L.Ws.7 to 9. It is also to be mentioned that the prosecution gave up the evidence of

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 21 of 41

L.Ws.7 to 9 (Konkali Chinna Venkatappa, Isrampally

Sabanna, Manga Balappa). P.W.4 deposes that at about 10 p.m, there was a quarrel in front of their house and that A.2,

A.3 and A.4 beat P.W.3 and that they separated them.

However, in the cross examination of P.W.4 it is elicited that he has not stated to the police as to the quarrel and as to what happened. It is elicited from the cross examination of

P.W.4 that he came out from the house on hearing some noise, to see as to what happened and he has not witnessed the incident of beating. Therefore, P.W.4 is not an eye witness and his evidence as to A.2,3,4 beating P.W.3 and they separating the accused and P.W.3 is not reliable. Further, in the cross examination of P.W.4 it is elicited that he and P.W.3 came together to the court on the date of his evidence.

Therefore, it appears that P.W.4 is interested witness.

Therefore, his evidence shall be discarded.

15.P.W.5 is also examined as eye witness. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that about 2 years back at about 10 p.m,

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 22 of 41 himself, P.W.4 who is his elder brother, L.W.7/Konkali

Chinna Venkatappa, Venkatappa, L.W.9/Mangal Balappa,

L.W.8/Isrampally Sabanna were sitting near their houses, which are existing near Gajalamma temple in Pedda Jatram village and were talking with each other; that P.W.3 came to them and he was talking to them and at that time A.1 came and beat P.W.3 and they separated A.1 and that P.W.3 sustained head injury, that the family members of P.W.3 took

P.W.3 to hospital in an auto. Even if this evidence of P.W.5 is considered, he excludes the presence of A.2 to A.4 at the place of offence. According to him A.1 alone beat P.W.3. P.W.5 is declared as hostile and in the cross examination by the learned Additional Public prosecutor, P.W.5 denied the suggestion that he stated to police as in

Ex.P.2 that when P.W.3 proceeding on motor cycle in front of house of P.W.11, A.2 and A.3 came on motor cycle and kept it across the motor cycle of P.W.3, abused and when P.W.3 tried to flew away, A.1 and A.4 came running with sticks beat

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 23 of 41

P.W.3 from backside and that when P.W.3 fell down A.1 and

A.4 beat on his both legs with sticks; that A.3 beat with sticks on his left hand indiscriminately; that A.2 beat P.W.3 on his right hand fingers with stone; that A.1 to A.4 beat

P.W.3 on his back and he sustained blood injuries. Thus

P.W.5 denies in regard to A.1 to A.4 beating P.W.3. In the cross examination of P.W.5 it is elicited that he has not witnessed as to who beat P.W.3, that with what weapons and on what part of the body of the P.W.3. The evidence of P.W.5 is as to A.1 alone beating P.W.3 is inconsistent with the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 and also injured witness i.e., P.W.3.

Furthermore P.W.4 did not deposes as to presence of A.1 at the place of offence and he deposes as to A.2 to A.4 beating

P.W.3. It is not the evidence of P.W.5 that he came after occurrence of part of the incident or he left in the middle of occurrence of the incident. When P.W.4, 5, 6 and others were sitting near their houses and talking with each other, those persons must observe the incident and it is expected to

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 24 of 41 depose as to the occurrence and presence of A.1 to A.4 and it is not reliable to the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6 as to observance of presence of some of the accused by some witnesses and other accused by other witnesses. The very evidence of P.W.3 is that while he was returning from the house of P.W.8, A.2 and A.3 kept their bike across his bike, but P.W.5 deposes that P.W.3 came to them and he was talking with them and at that time A.1 came and beat P.W.3.

While it was the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 that themselves,

P.W.7 and others were sitting in front of their house, the evidence of P.W.7 is that about 2 years back at about 10 p.m.

or 10:30 p.m, after having dinner, he was on the walk in front of his house in Vakiti Geri area and at that time he heard huge shoutings and there on public raising voice in

Konkangeri area. Therefore, P.W.7 also sitting with P.W.6 and others in front of house of Gajalappa is not consistent. In the chief examination P.W.7 only deposes that he observed A.1 to

A.4 running away by holding sticks. On declaring him as

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 25 of 41 hostile and putting questions in the nature of cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he replies positively to the questions. In the cross examination of

P.W.7 it is elicited that the distance from his house to the place of offence is about 150 meters and that there are 10 houses in between and there are 20 to 22 houses around the place of offence and about 30 persons gathered at the time of offence. As per the cross examination of P.W.7 they have not attempted to catch the accused and handover them to police.

If there are number of persons at the place of offence, the witnesses would have tried to catch the accused. While it is elicited by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor after declaring the witness hostile as to the specific overt acts being stated by the witness, in the cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused it is elicited that he has not stated to the police as to overt acts of the accused.

16. In so far as the evidence of the injured witness i.e.,

P.W.3 is concerned though he deposes as to specific overt

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 26 of 41 acts of the accused, as discussed in proceeding paragraph, in his cross examination it is elicited that unless there are lights, no person can be identified in the darkness at the time of 10 p.m, however P.W.3 volunteered that there are lights at that time. When the accused are agnates of P.W.3 and are of same village, identification of the accused by the witnesses cannot be given much importance more particularly when the incident is stated to happened in front of the houses of P.Ws.5 to 7, when they were sitting and talking with each other. Generally the evidence of injured witness is to be given much weight and unless there are compelling circumstances, his evidence shall not be discarded. It is to be mentioned that the evidence of P.W.3 is inconsistent with the evidence of other prosecution witnesses discussed above. Furthermore, in the cross examination of

P.W.1 it is elicited that there is civil suit in O.S.No.229/2021 against the accused by her husband Boya Srinivasulu, Boya

Kausalya, P.W.3, for recovery of possession of the land. It is

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 27 of 41 also elicited from the cross examination of P.W.1 that the mother of A.1 i.e., Budidi Parwathamma filed suit in

O.S.No.240/2021 seeking perpetual injunction against the

said four persons including her husband. It is also elicited that the said suits are pending. In the cross examination of

P.W.2 also it is elicited that A.1 to A.4 might be in possession of the land in survey No.75 since about 20 years, himself

P.W.3 and two others filed O.S.No.229 of 2021 before the

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narayanpet for perpetual injunction against the accused and the accused also filed

O.S.,No.240/2021 before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court

Narayanpet, for perpetual injunction. In the cross examination of P.W.3 also it is elicited that Parwathamma and her family members are cultivating the subject land since about 7 or 8 years, that the said Parwathamma filed the injunction suit against Srinivasulu, Boya Kausalya, himself ( P.W.3) and P.W.2 vide O.S.No.240/2021 on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narayanpet,

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 28 of 41 claiming that the land in survey No.75/A to an extent of

Acs.2-20 guntas is their land. It is also elicited from the cross examination of P.W.3 that himself, P.W.2, Srinivasulu, Boya

Kausalya filed suit against A.1 to A.3 in respect of the suit land for injunction vide O.S.No.229/2021 on the file of the

Principal Civil Judge’s court, Narayanpet, and that said suits

are pending. In the chief examination P.W.3 deposes that the accused beat in regard to the said land for getting mutation in their favour. Thus, it is evident that there are land disputes between the injured family and the accused. In the cross examination of P.W.1 it is elicited that for getting back the disputed land in the possession of the accused, they filed the present case. From the cross cross examination of P.W.2 also it is elicited that the present case is filed for land. In the cross examination of P.W.3 it is evident that they filed the present case stating that the land in survey No.75 to an extent of Acs.2-20 guntas is their land. Therefore, it appears that the present crime was got registered for settling the civil

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 29 of 41 disputes. In the backdrop of Civil disputes between accused and family of P.W.3, in view of the inconsistent evidence of the alleged eye witnesses i.e., P.Ws.4 to 7, the evidence of

P.W.3 is to be seen with suspicion.

17.Furthermore, it is to be mentioned that as per the evidence of P.W.1 she presented report to the police i.e.,

Ex.P.1. According to the evidence of P.W.14 on 21.2.2022 at 11 a.m, P.W.1 presented Ex.P.1-report and basing on it he registered a case in Crime No.32/2022 under Sections 341, 324, 504 r/w 34 IPC and issued Ex.P.12-FIR. It is elicited from the cross examination of P.W.14 that the distance from

Pedda Jatram to police station is 18 kms and autos are available from Pedda Jatram to Police Station of Utkoor village and that one can reach Utkoor village to Pedda Jatram village within ½ an hour. When such is the evidence of

P.W.14, there is no explanation as to why Ex.P.1 report was presented with delay. In the cross examination of P.W.15 it is elicited that as per Ex.P.1 report the date of occurrence is

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 30 of 41 20.2.2022 at 10:30 p.m, and that Ex.P.1 was presented at 11 a.m, on 21.2.2022. At this stage, the evidence of P.W.13 is be considered. According to the evidence of P.W.13 on 21.2.2022 he received requisition from Station House Officer P.S.Utkoor, to examine P.W.3 and on the same day at 12:30 a.m, he examined P.W.3 and found the following injuries:

“ 1.Abrasions over the below the back of both right and left shoulder, of 3 cm X 2 cm and 4 cm X 2 cm respectively.

2.Lacertations over the posterior side of head region, 5 cm x 2 cm, 5 cm x 2 cm, 5 cm x 1 cm, 3.Fracture of shaft of the Ulna,

4. Fracture of 3rd right Metacarpal base, 5.Undisplaced proxminal tibial fracture both left and right.”

It is to be mentioned that Ex.P.1 report was 18.

statedly presented on 11 a.m, on 21.2.2022 whereas at 12:30 a.m, itself the injured was examined on the requisition of the police. It is also evident from Ex.P.11 that the age of injuries is mentioned as 1 hour. Thus it is evident that the police had information even prior to Ex.P.1 about the stated incident. If Ex.P.11 is considered, Ex.P.1 is hit by Section 161

CrPC as it is not the first information to the police.

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 31 of 41

19.It is also to be mentioned that in the cross examination of P.W.15 it is elicited that in Ex.P.12 FIR in column No.12 the mode of sending FIR to the court is not mentioned. Though P.W.15 volunteered that column No.15 is in respect of date and time of dispatch of the FIR to the court only, it is his evidence that he sent Ex.P.12 to the court through police constable P.C.No.3500. It is elicited that as per the endorsement on Ex.P.12, Ex.P.12 is received in the court on 22.2.2022 at 12:30 p.m. It is admitted by P.W.15 that as per the endorsement on Ex.P.12, Ex.P.12 is received

in the court on 22.2.2022 at 12:30 p.m, and that there is

about 24 hours delay in sending Ex.P.12 to the court. P.W.15 deposes that he cannot say as to the reason for delay in sending FIR to the court. The unexplained delay in presenting report to the police and also the delay in sending the FIR to the court is also fatal to the case of prosecution, more particularly in the circumstances of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses discussed above.

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 32 of 41

20.It is also to be mentioned that the prosecution examined P.W.10 as to seizure of blood stained clothes of

P.W.3, but he did not support the prosecution evidence. His evidence is that about 5 or 6 months back at the request of the police constable he put his signature on white paper and that he does not know anything as to the present case.

21.P.W.12 is examined in respect of confession of the accused and recovery panchanama. The evidence of P.W.12 is that in the year 2022 at about 12:30 p.m, police called him near to B.T road, Gajalamma temple, Pedda Jatram village, that police enquired him as to the incident that happened on the previous night and noted it down. He also deposes that the accused brought sticks and stones and handed over to the police, and that the accused confessed to have committed the offence. He also deposes that the police seized three sticks and one granite stone. Ex.P.7 to P.10 are recovery panchanamas and they bear his signature. P.W.12 deposes that the sticks and stones shown to him are the sticks

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 33 of 41 recovered at the instance of the accused and the M.Os.1 to 3 are the sticks and M.O.4 is stone. However, in the cross examination of P.W.12 it is elicited that police have not seized sticks in his presence and that when he was with the police, the accused were not there. It is also elicited from the cross examination that the accused have not handed over the sticks and stone to the police. It is also elicited that the police have not read over the contents of the panchanama and that his signatures were obtained on blank paper. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.12 in regard to confession leading to recovery of M.Os.1 to 4 from the possession of the accused is not acceptable as to recovery material objects. It is strenously contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the evidence of P.W.1 and other prosecution witnesses reflects that the weapons of offence used in the commission of offence are 3 stones and one stick, but the stated recovered weapons are 3 sticks and one stone and there is every inconsistency in regard to the number of sticks and stones

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 34 of 41 used in the stated commission of offence. This contention is substantiated by the evidence of P.W.7. Further, in the cross examination of P.W.15 it was elicited that M.Os 1 to 4 are available in the open market. It is elicited that M.Os.1 to 4 do not contain blood-stained marks. It is not clear as to how many sticks and stones are used by accused in the alleged incident. It is elicited in the cross examination of P.W.3 that he has not stated to the police as to the size of the sticks with which the accused beat him and that he has not stated as to the length and thickness of the sticks. Though P.W.3 deposes that they are stout and long, the seizure of the material objects is not proved. Furthermore, in the cross examination of P.W.7 also it is elicited that he has not stated to police as to the description of sticks alleged used in the commission such as length, colour and thickness, so also as to the particulars of the stones. It is also to be mentioned that though in Ex.P.11 report injuries 3 to 5 are referred to as grievous injuries, as elicited from the cross examination of

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 35 of 41

P.W.13, along with Ex.P.11 x-ray reports are not enclosed and unless x-ray is seen it is not possible that particular injury is grievous or not. Though injuries 3 and 4 are recorded as fracture in Ex.P.11 and so also injury No.5 is a fracture, no supporting evidence such as radiologist report or x-ray are filed. Thus, there is lack of evidence as to the nature of injuries sustained by P.W.3 and as to the weapons used in the alleged offence.

22.Having regard to the evidence of the prosecution witness discussed above, it is evident that the prosecution could not prove the offence alleged against the accused.

Furthermore, none of the witnesses depose that the accused intended to kill P.W.3 and with such an intention they caused injury. Therefore, ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not attracted. Furthermore, in categorical terms P.W.1 deposed in the cross examination that in order to get back the disputed land in the possession of the accused, they filed the present case, so also P.W.2 deposes in the cross

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 36 of 41 examination that the present case is filed for the land. The injured witness i.e., P.W.3 also deposes in the cross examination that they filed the present case stating that the land in Survey No.75 to an extent of Acs.2-20 guntas is their land. It is also evident from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that there are suits against the family of the accused and the family of P.W.3. In the above circumstances, in the background of admitted differences between family members regarding the property, discrepancies pointed out in their evidence so also inconsistencies gain importance and false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out in the background of the differences regarding property. In similar circumstances the Hon’ble High Court in M.Somaiah and

another vs. State of Telangana: 2023 (2) ALD (Crl.) 1046

(TS) observed that in the back ground of differences in the property and writ petition being filed by P.W.2 against the brother of P.W.1, implication of the accused cannot be ruled out in that case.

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 37 of 41

23.It is further to be mentioned that learned counsel

for the accused strenuously contended that the scene of

offence itself is not proved. The evidence of P.W.3 is that when he reached in front of Gajalamma temple, the accused beat him. Whereas as per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2,

P.W.3 was stopped near Gajalamma Temple. According to the evidence of P.W.4 the incident happened in front of his house. According to P.W.5 they were sitting near the houses existing near Gajalamma temple, Pedda Jatram village. It is the evidence of P.W.6 that they were sitting in front of the house of Gajalappa. It is to be mentioned that as per the evidence of P.W.11 the Crime Details Form was prepared near

Gajalamma Temple on CC road at the place of quarrel.

However, in the cross examination of P.W.11 it is elicited that police have not drafted map in their presence. Witness added that police wrote something. However, in the cross further cross examination P.W.11 deposes that he put his signature on Ex.P.6 at the request to the police, volunteered that after

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 38 of 41 conducting panchanama, reading over the same he put his signature. Therefore, it appears that Ex.P.6 crime details form was prepared in the presence of P.W.11, but the map drafted was not in his presence. A perusal of Ex.P.6 Crime Details form makes it evident that the scene of offence is shown as the road in front of house Shonta Narsappa and Konkali

Gajalappa. Gajalamma temple is after two houses; in between the house of Sonta Narsappa and Gajalamma temple there are 2 houses. Therefore, as per the scene of offence the scene of offence is not in front of Gajalamma temple, but it is in front of house of Sontha Narsappa or Konkan Gajalappa. But

P.W.3 depsoes that the incident happened in front of

Gajalamma Temple. Furthermore, in the cross examination of P.W.1 it is elicited that there are houses of Konkali

Gajalappa, Konkali Karre Balappa, Konkali Sreenu,

Mogampuru Gajalappa, Sailu Goud, Sonta Savitramma,

Sonta Narsappa, Nandigonda Timmappa, Vakiti Gopal and

Esrampally Sabanna. It is to be mentioned that the said

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 39 of 41 witnesses are not examined by the prosecution. Having regard to the above circumstances, the evidence of the injured witness cannot be given much credence. When P.W.1 and 2 accompanied together, P.W.1 would have also deposes as to witnesses the accused beating P.W.3, as deposed by

P.W.2, When P.W.2 stated to be hearsay witness, when P.W.1 did not depose as to her witnessing the occurrance, P.W.2 witnessing the accused beating P.W.3, that too after losing consciousness, on his back, is not reliable and the evidence of prosecution witnesses in regard to the stated incident to be discarded. It is the cardinal principle of Criminal justice system that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt. The evidence on record raises any amount of doubt as to prosecution case. Having regard to the above circumstances, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

23.In the result, A.1 to A.4 are acquitted under

Section 235(1) CrPC for the offence punishable under Section

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 40 of 41 307 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months. M.Os.1 to 4 and unmarked property are directed to be destroyed after appeal period is over.

(Typed by my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30 th day of September, 2024).

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

NARAYANPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:- P.W.1: Boya Vijaya Laxmi P.W.2 : Boya Kanakappa P.W.3 : Boya Kashimappa P.W.4 : Karre Balappa P.W.5: K.Sreenu P.W.6 : K.Venkat P.W.7: Vakiti Venkatesh P.W.8: M.Gangadhar Reddy P.W.9: Md.Usman Chotu P.W.10: Md.Mahamood P.W.11: P.Venkataih P.W.12:Neeradi Chinna Shankarappa P.W.13: Dr.T.Ramesh P.W.14: AB.Surendar Babu P.W.15: A.Parvatalu

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

S.C.No.67 of 2022 Page 41 of 41

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on report Ex.P.2: Relevant portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.3: Relevant portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.4: Relevant portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7 Ex.P.5: Signature of P.W.10 on seizure panchanama Ex.P.6: Crime Details Form Ex.P.7: Recovery panchanama Ex.P.8 Recovery panchanama Ex.P.9 Recovery panchanama Ex.P.10 Recovery panchanama Ex.P.11 Injury certificate Ex.P.12 FIR Ex.P.13 Section Alteration Memo Ex.P.14 Photograph of Motor cycle Ex.P.15 FSL report Ex.P.16 Seizure panchanama Ex.P.17 Relevant portion of confession panchanama of A.1 Ex.P.18 Relevant portion of confession panchanama of A.2 Ex.P.19 Relevant portion of confession panchanama of A.3 Ex.P.20 Relevant portion of confession panchanama of A.4 FOR DEFENCE: -nil- M.O.s Marked: M.Os.1 to 3 are sticks M.O.4 is stone

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

NARAYANPET.

Page 1 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ,

NARAYANPET

PRESENT : Sri G.Srinivas,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANPET .

Monday, this the 30th day of September, 2024.

O.S. NO. 10 of 2021

Between:-

Smt.Kammari Sujatha W/o Sri V.Mahendarachary, Age: about 46

years, occu:housewife, R/o H.No.18-321/102, Road No.2, APHB

Colony, Jadcherla village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

…Plaintiff

VS

1.Smt.Kammari Laxmi Devi @ Laxmi Devamma W/o Late

Kammari Balram, age about 73 years, Occ:household, R/o

H.No.5-93, Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District.

2.Sri Kammari Venugopal Chary S/o Late Kammari Balram,

Age about 53 years, Occu:agriculture, R/o H.No.3-1,

Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District.

3.Smt.Kammari Anusha W/o Late Kammari Rama Chary, Age

about 44 years, Occu:Housewife R/oH.No.3-2, Marikal

village and Mandal, Narayanpet District.

4.Kammari Saketh S/o Late Kammari Rama Chary, age: 23

years, Occu:student, R/o H.no.3-1, Marikal village and

Mandal, Narayanpet District.

5.Kammari Varshini D/o Late Kammari Rama Chary, age: 23

years, Occu:student, Represented by her own mother,

Smt.Kammari Anusha, R/o H.No.3-1, Marikal village and

Mandal, Narayanpet District.

Page 2 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

6.Sri Kammari Satyanarayan Chary S/o Balram Chary, age

about 49 years, Occu:agriculture, R/o H.No.3-3, Marikal

village and Mandal, Narayanpet District.

7.Sri Pentameedi Narsimhulu S/o Chinna Nagappa, age about

60 years, Occu:Govt.employee, R/o Marikal village and

Mandal, Narayanpet District.

8.Sri R.K.Venkat Reddy S/o Laxma Reddy, age about 63 years

Occu:agriculture, R/o Ramakistayapally village, Marikal

Mandal, Narayanpet District.

9.Sri Rajalaxmi Narsimha Chary S/o Rudramuni, age: 60

years, Occu:Business, R/o Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

10.Sri Adigoni Srinivasulu S/o Adigoni Ramulu, age about 44

years, Occu:Business, R/o H.No.7-75, Manikeswari Matha

temple, Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District.

11.Sri Satyanarayana Goud S/o Laxmaiah Goud, age about 59

years, Occu:Business, R/o Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

12.Sri Tupuda Venkat Reddy S/o Kista Reddy, age about 49

years, Occu:Agriculture, R/o Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

13.Smt. Jajapuram Anjali Devi W/o Jajapuram Ranga Reddy,

age about 48 years, Occu:agriculture, R/o Kistapur village,

Marikal Mandal, Narayanpet District.

14.Smt.Kesireddy Jyothi W/o K.Chenna Reddy, age about 43

years, Occu:agriculture, R/o Appampally village, Marikal

Mandal, Narayanpet District.

15.Smt.Laxmamma W/o Govinda Reddy, age about 70 years,

Occu:agriculture, R/o Ramakistayapally village, Marikal

Mandal, Narayanpet District.

Page 3 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

16.Smt.Kavitha W/o Thirupathi Reddy, age about 43 years,

Occu:housewife, R/o Appampally village, Marikal

Mandal,Narayanpet District.

17.Smt.Kalpana W/o Konda Reddy, age about 45 years,

Occu:Housewife, R/o Ramakishtayapally villae, Marikal

Mandal, Narayanpet District.

18.Sri Ravinder Naik S/o Mangya Naik, age about 44 years,

Occu:Government employee, R/o Mandipally patha thanda

village, Marikal Mandal, Narayanpet District.

19.Smt.Peddavenkamolla Laxmamma W/o Pedda Usennappa,

age about 48 years, Occu:Housewife, R/o H.No.2-39,

Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District.

20.Sri Golla Krushnaiah S/o Kondanna, age about 49 years,

Occu:agriculture, R/o H.No.3-184, Marikal village and

Mandal, Narayanpet District.

21.Smt.Uggidi Rajini W/o Uggidi Srinivas, age about 38 years,

Occu:Housewife, R/o H.No.1-160, Marikal village and

Mandal, Narayanpet District.

22.Karli Krishnaiah S/o Balappa, age about 58 years,

Occu:business, R/o H.No.5-4, Marikal village and

Mandal,Narayanpet District.

23.Smt.B.Latha W/o B.Krishna Reddy, age about 41 years,

Occu:Housewife, R/o Nandigama village, Maddur Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

24.Sri S.Balaraj Goud S/o B.Balappa, Age about 57 years,

occu:Agriculture, R/o Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet Diustrict.

25.Sri Lambadi Ramula S/o Vaddeppa, age about 65 years,

Occu:agriculture, R/o Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

26.Sri Lambadi Chinna Ramula S/o Chinnappa, age about 57

years, Occu:agriculture, R/o Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

Page 4 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

27.Smt. Lambadi Pedda Laxmamma W/o Nadipi Narsappa, age

about 57 years, Occu:housewife, R/o Marikal village and

Mandal, Narayanpet District.

28.Sri Kanuganti Narayana S/o Chandrappa, age about 49

years, Occu:agriculture, R/o Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

29.Smt Rizwana Begam W/o Abdul Rasheed, age about 37

yeas, Occu:Housewife, R/o Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

30.Sri Kotha Venkatesh S/o Balram, age about 44 years,

Occu:agriculture,R/oMarikalvillageand

Mandal,Narayanpet District.

31.Sri S.Damodar Reddy S/o Anantha Reddy, age about 44

years, Occu:agriculture, R/o Ramakistayapally village,

Marikal Mandal, Narayanpet District.

32.Sri T.Venkat Reddy S/o Kista Reddy, age about 49 years,

occu:agriculture, r/o Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

33.Sri D.Laxma Reddy S/o D.Gal Reddy, age about 46 years,

Occu:agriculture, R/o Appampally village, Marikal mandal,

Narayanpet District.

34.Sri M.Sevya S/o Sakru, age about 46 years,

occu:agriculture, R/o Lattupally village, Bijinepally

mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

35.Sri V.Balaswamy S/o V.Nagappa, age about 61 years,

Occu:Govt.Employee R/o Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

36.Smt Manemma W/o Ram Reddy, age about 61 years,

Occu:agriculture, R/o H.No.1-43/A1, Appampally village,

Marikal Mandal, Narayanpet District.

37.Sri M.Mallikarjun S/o Basavaraj, age about 42 years,

Occu:Private employee R/o Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

Page 5 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

38.Sri K.Srinivasachary S/o Krishnaiah, age about 48 years,

Occu:agriculture, R/o Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

39.Smt.Harijan Pentamma W/o Harijan Seema Manemaiah,

age about 69 years, Occu:agriculture, Marikal village and

Mandal, Narayanpet District.

40.Smt.K.Lalithamma W/o K.Bheemulukalal, age about 55

years, Occu:housewife, R/o Shapur village, Yadgir District,

Karnataka State.

41.Madhavilatha W/o Rajkumar, age about 39 years,

occu:Housewife, R/o H.No.1-16, Chinnakar village, Yadgir

District, Karnataka State,

... Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 9.9.2024 for final hearing

in the presence of Sri K.Shankara Chary, Advocate for plaintiff,

and defendants ex parte; and having stood over for consideration,

and after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the

following:-

::JUD GMENT::

1.This is a suit filed for preliminary decree for partition

of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds with good

and bad soil/portions and to allot 1/5th share in the suit

schedule properties to the plaintiff and to allot 4/5th share to

defendants 1 to 6 and plaintiff be put in possession of her share

in the suit schedule property. It is also prayed to declare that the

documents mentioned in Column.No.6 of the table shown in sub

para No.(viii) of para No.11 of the plaint are null and void and not

binding on the plaintiff.

Page 6 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

2.In Sub para No.(viii) of para No.11 list of the

documents referred are as under:

Sl. Name of the vendor Name of the Buyer Area in Date of Registered

No. Sq.yards/ Execution of Sale Deed

Gts., Document No.

1.Kammari BalramPentameedi51024.4.2004521/2004 Narsimulu

2.K.VenugopalacharyR.K.Venkat Reddy243.3316.2.2006277/2006

3.K.VenugopalacharyR.K.Narsimhachary 58.6617.11.20062943/2006

4.K.VenugopalacharyAdigoni Srinivasulu 166.6623.9.201511417/201 5

5.K.RamacharySayanarayanaGoud 36 gts.,4.9.20061827/2006

6.K.RamacharyT.Venkat Reddy22710.7.20061488/2006

7.K.RamacharyJ.Anjali Devi15010.7.20061489/2006

8.K.RamacharyKesireddy Jyothi22310.7.20061490/2006

9.K.RamacharyLaxmamma3504.9.20061814/2006

10. K.RamacharyKavitha18211.11.20094487/2009

11. K.RamacharyKalpana21211.11.20094488/2009

12. K.RamacharyRavinder Naik225.311.11.20094489/2009

13. K.RamacharyP.V.Laxmamma2009.2.2011379/2011

14. K.RamacharyGolla Krushnaiah2009.2.2011380/2011

15. K.RamacharyUggidiRajini2009.2.2011381/2011

16. K.RamacharyKarli Krushnaiah3039.2.2011382/2011

17. K.RamacharyB.Latha55411.2.2009572/2009

18. K.Satyanarayanachary S.Balraj Goud30010.3.2006500/2006

19. K.SatyanarayanaLambadi Ramulu50.6614.3.2007792/2007 Chary

20. K.Satyanarayanachary LambadiChinna42.6614.3.2007793/2007 Ramulu

Page 7 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

21. K.SatyanarayanaLambadiPedda95.5514.3.2007794/2007 CharyLaxmamma 22K.SatyanarayanaKanuganti Narayana 41/2 gts. 21.6.20081263/2008 Chary 23K.SatyanarayanaRizwana Begum21817.11.20082808/2008 Chary 24K.SatyanarayanaKotha Venkatesh143.3328.7.20081582/2008 Chary 25K.SatyanarayanaS.Damodar Reddy20028.7.20081583/2008 Chary 26K.SatyanarayanaT.Venkat Reddy46.628.7.20081584/2008 Chary 27K.SatyanarayanaD.Laxma Reddy293.3328.7.20081585/2008 Chary 28K.SatyanarayanaK.Venugopalachary 333.3330.7.20081624/2008 Chary 29K.SatyanarayanaM.Sevya275.9119.11.20082868/2008 Chary 30K.SatyanarayanaV.Balaswamy2502.12.20082940/2008 Chary 31K.SatyanarayanaManemma2282.7.20102665/2010 Chary 32K.SatyanarayanaM.Mallikarjun188.7221.4.20101670/2010 Chary 33K.SatyanarayanaK.Srinivasachary68.449.3.20121119/2012 Chary 34K.SatyanarayanaHarijan Pentamma116.3330.11.20124585/2012 Chary 35K.SatyanarayanaK.Lalithamma34713.11.20142942/2014 Chary 36K.SatyanarayanaMadhavi Latha9411.6.20196739/2019 Chary

3.The suit schedule property described in plaint as under:

Page 8 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

(i)The shop, bearing H.No.3-5, admeasuring 57.77 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Shop bearing H.No.3-6 of late K.Ramachary, West: Open Plot of others, North: Open plot of owners, South: Narayanpet to Hyderabad road.

(ii)The shop, bearing H.No.3-6, admeasuring 57.77. sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East:shop, bearing H.No.3-7 of K.Sathyanarayana Chary, West: Shop, bearing H.No.3-7 of K.Venugopala Chary, North; Open plot of owner and south: narayanpet to Hyderabad Road.

(iii)The shop, bearing H.No.3-7, admeasuring 57.77. sq.yards, in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Madaram village road, West: Shop, bearing H.No.3-6 late K.Ramachary, North: Open plot of owner, South: Narayanpet to Hyderabad Road. “B” Schedule properties:

The Function Hall open land, bearing H.No.2-147, admeasuirng 3611.11 sq.yards, in Sy.No.14, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Chithanur Balram building and Function hall, West: Narayana(pet to Hyderabad road, North: colony road, South: Chithanur Balram building. “C” schedule properties:

(i) The residential house, bearing H.No.3-1, admeasuring 200 Sq.yards in SyNo.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Madharam village road, West: Colony Road, North: House of Late K.Ramachary, South: Open place of owners.

(ii)The residential house, bearing H.No.3-2, admeasuring 200 sq.yards, in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and

Page 9 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Madharam village road, West: Colony road, North: House of others, South:House of K.Venugopala Chary.

(iii)The residential house, bearing H.No.3-3, admeasuring 300 sq.yards, in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Madharam village Road, West: ColonyRoad, North: Open plots ofothes, South: House ofothers. “D” scheduel properties:

(i)Land, bearing Sy.No.374/1 extent (16) guntas, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet district, bounded by East: Land of others, West: Land of others, North: Land of others, South: land of others.

(ii)Land, bearing Sy.No.14/a1/1, extent Acs.1.29 guntas, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District, bounded by East: Land of others, West: Land of others, North: Land of others, South: Land of others.

(iii)Land, bearing Sy.No.15/10 extent 4 guntas, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District, bounded by East:Land of others, West: land of others, North: Land of others, South: Land of others.

(iv)Land, bearing Sy.No.14/Aae/1, extent 21 guntas, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet district, bounded by East: Land ofothes, West: Land of others, North: Land ofothes, South: Land of others.

(v)Land, bearing Sy.No.14/a2/1/1, extent of Ac.1.03 guntas, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District, bounded by East: Madharam village road, West: Land of others, North: Land of others, South: Land of others.

Page 10 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

(vi)Land, bearing Sy.No.15/11, extent Acs.1.24 guntas, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet Districted bounded by East: Land of others, West: Land of others, North: Land of others, South: Land of others.

(vii)Land, bearing Sy.No.15/13, extent Acs.2.20 guntas, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District, bounded by East: Land of others, West: Land of others, North: Land of others, South: Land of others. “E” schedule propereties

(i)The house site/plot, admeasuring 510 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: 15 feet road, West: Open land of Srisailam, North: Open land of Kammari Balram, South: Road leading to Narayanpet from Mahabubnagar.

(ii)The house site/plot admeasuring 243.33 sq.yards in Sy.No.14 situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Plot of Anjaneyulu, West: Plot of Mallappa, North: Road, South: plot of Veenkateshu and Cinna Ramulu.

(iii)The house site/plot, admeasuring 58.66 sq.yards in Sy.No.14 situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: House of Kurva Lodda Narsappa, West: Marikal to Narayanpet Road, North: House of Urmila, South: Courtyard of Lambadi Ramula.

(iv)The house site/plot, admeasuring 166.66 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal,Narayanpet District and bounded by East: 18 feet wide road, West: plot of othes, North: 12 feet road, South: House of K.Venugopala Chary.

Page 11 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

(v)The open land, admeasuring 00.36 guntas, in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Road, West: land of Shivaraj, North: Land of Khathalsab, South: Road.

(vi)The house site/plot, admeasuring 227.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East:18 feet road, West: Land of vendor, North: 12 feet road, South: plot of K.Jyothi.

(vii)The house site/plot, admeasuring 150.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.15 situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet district and bounded by East: 18 feet road, West: Land of vendor, North: Plot of K.Jyothi and South: land of Vendor.

(viii)The house site/plot, admeasuring 223.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: 18 feet road, West: Land of vendor North: Plot of B.Venkat Reddy, South: Plot of Anjali Devi.

(ix).The house site/plot admeasuring 350 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: 12 feet road, West: plots ofothers, North: Land of vendor, South: Land of vendor.

(x).The house site, bearing plot No.2, admeasuring 182.00 sq.yards, in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet Distict and bounded by East: 12 feet road, West: 12 feet road, North: House of Laxma Reddy and South: Plot No.4.

(xi).The house site, bearing Sy.No.4, admeasuring 212.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal,

Page 12 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

Narayanpet District and bounded by East: 12 feet road, West: 12 feet road, North: plot No.2, South: plot No.6.

(xii).The house site, bearing plot No.6, admeasuring 225.03 sq.yards, in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: 12 feet road West: 12 feet road, North: plot No.4, South:Plot No.8.

(xiii).The house site/plot, admeasuring 200.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East:Open land, West: Open land, North: 12 feet road, South: houseof Lambadi Narsappa.

(xiv)The house site/plot, admeasuring 200.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.15 situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Open land, West: 15 feet road, North: 12 feet road, South: Open land of others.

(xv).The house site/plot, admeasuring 200 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Manal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Open land, West: Open land, North: 12 feet road, South: Open land.

(xvi)The house site/plot, admeasuring 303.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Plot of Venu gopal, West: 5 feet open land of Vendor and plot of Laxmamma, North: 12 feet road, South: open land of vendor, 3 feet seri and House of Venu Gopal.

(xvii). The house site, bearing plot Nos.8 and 10, admeasuring 554.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: 12 feet road, West: 12 feet road, North: Plot No.6, South: 12 feet road.

Page 13 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

(xviii). The house site/plot, admeasuring 300.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Road, West: Open land of Narsan Goud, North: Remaining part of the plot of vendor, South: Plot of Pentamidi Narsimhulu.

(xix)The house site/plot, admeasuring 50.66 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Plot of Kammari Balram,West: Plot of Lambadi Chinna Narsimhulu, North: plot of vendor, South: Plot of vendee.

(xx).The house site/plot, admeasuring 42.66 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bou nded by East:Plot of Lambadi Ramulu, West: Plot of Lambadi Pedda laxmamma, North: Plot of vendor, South: Plot of vendee.

(xxi)The house site/plot, admeasuring 95.55 sq.yards in Sy.No.15 situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: plot of Lambadi Chinna Narsimhulu, West: Plot of Seema Mannemappa, North: Plot of Vendor, South: plot of vendee,

(xxii). The open land extent of Ac.00.04 12/ guntas in Sy.No.15 situated Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Road, West: lands of Kurva Govardhan and K.Krishnaiah, North: Land of Bambay Narayana Goud, South: Land of R.K. Pallilaxmamma.

(xxiii). The house site, bearing plot No.3, admeasuring 218.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: 12 feet road, West: 15 feet road, North: Plot No.1, South: Plot No.5.

Page 14 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

(xxiv). The house site/plot, admeasuring 143.33 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Plot of vendor, West: 12 feet road, North: 12 feet road, South: Land of vendor.

(xxv).The house site/plot, admeasuring 200.0 sq.yards in Sy.No.15 situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet Districted and bounded by East: Plot of vendor, West: Plot of vendor, North: 12 feet road, South: Land of vendor.

(xxvi). The house site/plot, admeasuring 46.6 sq.yards in Sy.No.15 situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: 18 feet road, West: Plot of vendor, North: 12 feet wide road, South: land of vendor.

(xxvii). The house site/plot, admeasuring 293.33. sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: plot of vendor, West: Plot of vendor, North: 12 feet wide road, South: Land of vendor.

(xxviii).the house site/plot, admeasuring 333.33 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet Disrict and bounded by East: 18 feet road, West: plot of vendor, North: 12 feet road, South: House of Balram,

(xxix). The house site, bearing plot No.9, admeasuring 275.91 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: 12 feet road, West: 15 feet road, North: plot NO.7 and south: 12 feet road.

(xxx). The house site, bearing plot No.7, admeasuring 250.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: 12 feet road, West: 15 feet road, North: Plot No.5, South: Plot No.9.

Page 15 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

(xxxi). The house site/plot, admeasuring 228.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet district and bounded by East: 12 feet road, West: 15 feet road, North: Plot of Rasheed, South: House of Balaswamy.

(xxxii). The house site, bearing plot No.1, admeasuring 188.72 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: 12 feet road, West: 15 feet road, North: plot of Venkatesh, South: Plot of Rasheed.

(xxxiii). The house site/plot, admeasuring 68.44 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Land of Vendor, West: Plot of Kaniganti Venkatesh, North: Land of Vendor, South: 100 feet R & B road.

(xxxiv). The house site/plot admeasuring 116.33 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East; Plots of Kurva Lambadi Laxmaiah and Plots of vendee, West: 15 feet wide road, North: Plots of V.Rajani and K.Srinivas, South: Plot of vendee and 100 feet R&B road.

(xxxv). The house site/plot, admeasuring 347.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: 12 feet road, West: House of Chakali Balraj, North: Plot of Anantha Reddy, South: House of Balaraj Goud.

(xxxvi). The house site/plot, admeasuring 94.00 sq.yards in Sy.No.15 situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District and bounded by East: Plot of vendor, West: Houseof A.Srinivasulu, North: Houseof Venugopala chary, South: Narayanpet to Marikal 100 feet R&B road.

Page 16 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

4.The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff,

defendant No.2, Late Kammari Ramachary and defendant No.6 are

children of Kammari Balram and defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 is

wife of Late Kammari Ramachary and defendants 4 and 5 are their

children. Defendants 7 to 44 are strangers and are not related to the

family of Kammari Balram. The pedigree is given and it is as under:

Kammari Kitappa (died)

Kammari Balram (died)

K.Laxmidevamma K.Venugopalachary K.Rama chary K.Satyanarayana chary K.Sujatha (D.1) (D2) (died) (D6) (plaintiff)

K.Anusha (D.3) K.Saketh (D.6) K.Varshini (D.5)

5.It is also mentioned that Kammari Kistappa was paternal

grandfather of plaintiff and defendant No.2, Late Kammari Ramachary

and defendant No.6 and that he acquired agricultual lands bearing

Sy.Nos.14 (Dry), 15 (Dry) and 374 (wet) and 374 (wet), extent Ac.5.33

guntas, Ac.5.09 guntas and Ac.1.10 guntas respectively, total extent

Ac.12.12 guntas, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet

District. The said Kammari Kistappa and his wife died intestate

leaving behind their only one issue Kammari Balram as their legal

Page 17 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

heir. After death of his parents Kammari Balram got implemented his

name in revenue record as owner, pattadar and possessor of the said

agricultural lands and they are ancestral properties and undivided

Hindu joint family properties. Kammari Balram was kartha of the

joint family property consisting himself and his children i.e.,

defendant No.2, late Kammari Ramachary and defendant NO.6. That

he used to get cultivation of the said lands during his life time with the

help of labourers. That out of the agricultural income, he constructed

Cinema Theater in the name and style of Parameshwari Talkies on the

land in Sy.No.14 and three residential houses and a shopping complex

on the land of Sy.No.15. That subsequently, the cinema threater was

closed and it was converted into a school and theareafter it was

modified as a function hall and it is running in the name and style of

KBR function hall. Kammari Balram died intestate in the year 2014

leaving behind his wife, defendant No.1, his three sons i.e., defendant

No.2 Late K.Ramachary, defendant No.6 and plaintiff herein as his

legal heirs. In the year 2019, second son of Kammari Balram, namely

Kammari Ramachary died intestate, leaving behind defendants 3 to 5

as his legal heirs; Defendant No.3 is his wife and defendants 4 and 5

are his son and daughter respectively. That, being one of the co-

parcener of the joint family, plaintiff got equal share in the aforesaid

coparcenary properties. That on account of her marriage, the plaintiff

Page 18 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

has been residing along with her husband and children at Jadcherla

without partition of aforesaid coparcenary properties. Defendants 1

and 2, K.Rama chary and defendant No.6 used to share income

derived out of the said joint family property to the plaintiff till 2019.

After death of K.Ramachary, defendants 1, 2 and 6 stopped giving her

share in the income accrued from the above joint family properties, to

gain illegally. Defendant No.4 is under influence of his mother i.e.,

defendant No.3. To avoid share of the paintiff in the joint family

properties defendants 1 to 6 conspired together and started neglecting

the plaintiff and her famiy members. Defendants stopped giving

information about important family occassions and events and they

are avoiding the plaintiff intentionally and neglecting her welfare and

trying to usurp her legitimate share in the aforesaid joint family

properties. In the above circumstances, the paliantiff has been

demanding defendants 1 to 6 to affect partition of aforesaid properties

with metes and bounds and to deliver her share, since October, 2020,

but the defendants are not coming forward for the same and delivery

of properties on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff got details of

joint family properties and learnt the following:

(i)That during the life time of Sri K.Balram, he executed a registered document (registerd in the office of

S.R.O, Narayanpet) in favour of defendant No.7 that a house site/plot, admeasuring 510 sq.yards,out of

Page 19 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

Sy.No.15 had been alienated to defendant No.7 vide registered document.

(ii)That after death of Kammari Balram, defendants 1 and 2 K.Ramachary and defendant No.6 got recorded their names in the revenue records in collussion with officials of revenue department showing them as the pattadars and possessors of some extent of land in

Sy.No.14 and 15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

(iii)That the name of late Kammari Balram has been shown as the owner and pattadar of the lands, bearing Sy.No.374/1, 14/a1/1 & 15/10, extents 16 guntas, Ac.1.29 guntas, & 4 guntas, respectively, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet

District. The revenue situated at Marikal village and mandal, Narayanpet District. The revenue authorities mentioned surname of Late Kammari Balram as Kammari instead of Kammari pertaining to the land in Sy.No.15/10 in fact no such person is found in Marikal village so far having the above names in ‘Kummari’ community. The mistake is typographical.

(iv)That an extent of 21 guntas land in

Sy.No.14/ae/1, situated at Marikal village and mandal,

Narayanpet District has been implemented on the name

Page 20 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021 of the defendant No.1 shoiwng her name as “Kummari” instead of “Kammari”. In fact, no such person is found in

Marikal village so far having the above names in “Kummari” community. The mistake is typographical.

(v)That the name of defendant No.1 has been implemented as the owner and pattedar of teh agricultural land bearing SyNo.14/A2/1/1, extent

Ac.1.03 guntas, situated at Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet Disrict.

(vi)That the name of Kammari Ramachary has been implemented as the owner and pattedar of the open land, bearing Sy.No.15/11 extent of Ac.1.24 guntas, situated at

Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District.

(vii)That the name of defendant No.6 has been implemented as the owner and pattadar of the open land, bearing SyNo.15/13, extent of Ac.2.20 guntas situated at

Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District.

(viii)That taking advantage the extents in revenue records on their names, the defendant No.2, late

K.Ramachary and defendant No.6 created registered documents on the names of defendant No.2 and defendant No.8 to 41 showing that they have alienated certain portions of the lands in Sy.Nos 14 and 15 as house sites/plots.

Page 21 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

The particulars of said alleged alienations have been mentioned in the following table.

Sl. Name of the vendor Name of the Buyer Area in Date of Registered

No. Sq.yards/ Execution of Sale Deed

Gts., Document No.

1.Kammari BalramPentameedi51024.4.2004521/2004 Narsimulu

2.K.VenugopalacharyR.K.Venkat Reddy243.3316.2.2006277-2006

3.K.VenugopalacharyR.K.Narsimhachary 58.6617.11.20062943/2006

4.K.VenugopalacharyAdigoni Srinivasulu 166.6623.9.201511417/201 5

5.K.RamccharySayanarayanaGoud 36 gts.,4.9.20061827/2006

6.K.RamacharyT.Venkat Reddy22710.7.20061488/2006

7.K.RamacharyJ.Anjali Devi15010.7.20061489/2006

8.K.RamacharyKesireddy Jyothi22310.7.20061490/2006

9.K.RamacharyLaxmamma3504.9.20061814/2006

10. K.RamacharyKavitha18211.11.20094487/2009

11. K.RamacharyKalpana21211.11.20094488/2009

12. K.RamacharyRavinder Naik225.311.11.20094489/2009

13. K.RamacharyP.V.Laxmamma2009.2.2011379/2011

14. K.RamacharyGolla Krushnaiah2009.2.2011380/2011

15. K.RamacharyUggidiRajini2009.2.2011381/2011

16. K.RamacharyKarli Krushnaiah3039.2.2011382/2011

17. K.RamacharyB.Latha55411.2.2009572/2009

18. K.Satyanarayanachary S.Balraj Goud30010.3.2006500/2006

19. K.SatyanarayanaLambadi Ramulu50.6614.3.2007792/2007 Chary

20. K.Satyanarayanachary LambadiChinna42.6614.3.2007793/2007 Ramulu

21. K.SatyanarayanaLambadiPedda95.5514.3.2007794/2007

Page 22 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

CharyLaxmamma 22K.SatyanarayanaKanuganti Narayana 41/221.6.20081263/2008 Charygts., 23K.SatyanarayanaRizwana Begum21817.11.20082808/2008 Chary 24K.SatyanarayanaKotha Venkatesh143.3328.7.20081582/2008 Chary 25K.SatyanarayanaS.Damodar Reddy20028.7.20081583/2008 Chary 26K.SatyanarayanaT.Venkat Reddy46.628.7.20081584/2008 Chary 27K.SatyanarayanaD.Laxma Reddy293.3328.7.20081585/2008 Chary 28K.SatyanarayanaK.Venugopalachary 333.3330.7.20081624/2008 Chary 29K.SatyanarayanaM.Sevya275.9119.11.20082868/2008 Chary 30K.SatyanarayanaV.Balaswamy2502.12.20082940/2008 Chary 31K.SatyanarayanaManemma2282.7.20102665/2010 Chary 32K.SatyanarayanaM.Mallikarjun188.7221.4.20101670/2010 Chary 33K.SatyanarayanaK.Srinivasachary68.449.3.20121119/2012 Chary 34K.SatyanarayanaHarijan Pentamma116.3330.11.20124585/2012 Chary 35K.SatyanarayanaK.Lalithamma34713.11.20142942/2014 Chary 36K.SatyanarayanaMadhavi Latha9411.6.20196739/2019 Chary

(ix)That the name of the defendant No.2 has been shown as the owner of the shop, bearing H.No.3-5,

Page 23 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021 admeasuring 57.77 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at

Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District.

(x)That the name of late Kammari Ramachary has been shown as the owner of the shop, bearing

H.No.3-6, admeasuring 57.77 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and mandal, Narayanpet

Distrct.

(xi)That the name of the defendant No.6, has been shown as the owner of the shop, bearing H.No.3-7, admeasuring 57.77 sq.yards in Sy.No.15, situated at

Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District.

(xii)That the name of the defendant No.2, has been shown as the owner of the residential house, beraring H.No.3-1, admeasuring 200 sq.yards in

Sy.No.15 situated at Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

(xiii)That the name of late Kammari Ramachary has been shown as the owner of the residential house, bearing H.NO.3-2, admeasuring 200 sq.yards in

SyNo.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

(xiv)That the name of the defendant No.6 has been shown as the owner of the residential house, bearing H.No.3-3, admeasuring 300 sq.yards in

Page 24 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

Sy.No.15, situated at Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

(xv)That the name of the defendant No.1 has been shown as the owner of the K.B.R function hall which adjoining with open land total admeasuuring 3611.11 sq.yards, bearing H.No.2-147, in Sy.No.14, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet

District.

(xvi)That the name of the defendant No.2 has been shown as the owner and pattadar of the agricultural land, bearing Sy.No.14/a2/1/1, extent

Ac.1.03 guntas, situated at Marikal village and Mandal,

Narayanpet District.

(xvii)That the name of Kammari Ramachary has been showing as the owner and pattadar of the open land, bearing Sy.No.15/11, extent Ac.1.24 guntas, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet district.

(xviii)That the name of defendant No.6 has been shown as the owner and pattadar of the open land, bearing Sy.No.15/13, extent of Ac.2.20 guntas, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District.

(xix)That the name of late Kammari Balram has been shown as the owner and pattadar of the open land,

Page 25 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021 bearing Sy.No.374/1, extent (16) guntas, situated at

Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet district and further as the owner and pattadar of the open land, bearing Sy.No.14/a1/1 extent Ac.1.29 guntas, situated at Marikal village and Mandal, Narayanpet District.

(xx)That the defendant No.2 created registered documents registered in the office of SRO, Narayanpet) bearing document No.277/2006, dated 16.2.2006, 2943/2006 dated 17.112006 and 1141/2015 dated 23.9.2015 respectively on the names of defendants 8 and 10 respectively showing that he alienated certain lands in Sy.Nos.14 and 15 as house sites/plots.

(xxi)That Late Kammari Ramachary created registered documents (registered in the office of S.R.O, Narayanpet) bearing document Nos 1827/2006, dated 4.9.2006, 1488/2006, dated 10.7.2006, 1489/2006, dated 10.7.2006, 1490/2006, dated 10.7.2006, 1814/2006

dated 4.9.2006, 4487/2009, dated 11.11.2009,

4488/2009, dated 11.11.2009, 4489/2009 dated 11.11.2009, 379/2011 dated 9.2.2011, 380/2011 dated 9.2.2011, 381/2022, dated 9.2.2011, 380/2011 dated 9.2.2011, 381/2011 dated 9.2.2011, 382/2011 and 372/2009 dated 11.2.2009 respectively on the names of

Page 26 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021 defendants Nos 11 to 23 respectively showing that he alienated certain lands in Sy.No.15 as house sites/plots.

(xxii) That the defendant No.6 created registered documents (registered in the office of S.R.O Narayanpet) bearing document Nos.500/2006, dated 10.3.2006, 792/2007, dated 14.3.2007, 793/2007 dated 14.3.2007, 794/2007, dated 14.3.2007, 1263/2008, dated 21.6.2008, 2808/2008, dated 17.11.2008, 1582/2008,

dated 28.7.2008, 1583/2008, dated 28.7.2008,

1584/2008 dated 28.7.2008 and 1585/2008, dated 28.7.2008, 1624/2008, dated 30.7.2008, 2868/2008,

dated 19.11.2008, 2940/2008, dated 2.12.2008,

2665/2010, dated 2.7.2010, 1670/2010, dated 21.4.2010, 1119/2012 dated 9.3.2012, 4585/2012 dated 30.11.2012, 2942/2014 dated 13.11.2014 and 6739/2019 dated 11.6.2019 respectively on the names of defendants Nos 24 to 41 respectively showing that he alienated certain lands in Sy.No.15 as house sites/plots.

6.The properties shown under sub-para numbers (ix) to (xi)

of para No.11 herein after will be referred as “A” schedule properties.

The properties shown under sub-para numbers (xii) to (xiv) of para

No.11 will be referred to as “B” schedule properties. The property

shown under sub-para number (xvi) of para No.11 will be referred as

“C” schedule properties. The properties shown under sub-para

Page 27 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

numbers(xvi) to (xix) of para No.11 of will be referred as to “B”

schedule properties. The properties mentioned in sub-para numbers

(x) and (xxi) of para No.11 will be referred as “E” schedule properties.

The properties referred above under A,B,C,D and E schedules will be

referred as suit schedule properties. On 1.6.2021 the plaintiff

demanded defendants 1 to 3 and 6 to affect partition of suit schedule

properties and to deliver her share, but they failed to give proper reply,

stated that the plaintiff has no right to demand for partition. Hence,

the suit.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

8.The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the

plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree, as prayed for.

POINT:

9.It is the evidence of P.W.1 that herself, defendant No.2,

Kammari Ramachari and defendant No.6 are the children of late

Kammari Balram and defendant No.1; that defendant No.3 is the wife

of late Kammari Ramachari and defendants 4 and 5 are their children;

that defendants 7 to 44 are strangers and not related to family of

Kammari Balram. She also deposes that Kammari Kistappa was her

paternal grandfather and he acquired agricultural lands bearing

Survey No.14, 15 and 374, extents of Acs.5-33 guntas, Acs.5-09

guntas, Ac.1-10 guntas respectively, total Acs.12-12 guntas, situated

Page 28 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

at Marikal village and mandal and that he died leaving his only son

Kammari Balram, i.e., the father of the plaintiff. She also deposes that

after the death of his parents, Kammari Balram got mutated his name

in revenue records as the owner, pattadar and possessor of the

aforesaid agricultural lands. The specific evidence of P.W.1 is that the

said lands are ancestral and undivided Hindu joint family properties

and Kammari Balram was elder of the joint family consisting himself,

his children and he used to get cultivation of the said lands during his

life time with the help of the labour. She also deposes that out of the

agricultural income, he constructed cinema theater in the name and

style of Parameshwari Talkies on the land in Survey No.14 and 3

residential houses and shopping complex on the land of Survey No.15;

that subsequently cinema theater was removed and converted into a

school and thereafter it was modified as function hall and it is running

in the name and style of KBR function hall. He also deposes that

Kammari Balram died in the year 2014 leaving his wife-defendant

No.1, 3 sons i.e., defendant No.2, Late Ramachari and defendant No.6

and plaintiff as his legal heirs. It is to be mentioned that as per the

evidence of P.W.1 she being the daughter of the Kammari Balram, she

is entitled for share in the joint family property along with the

defendant No.1, defendant No.2, K.Ramachari and D-6-

K.Satyanarayana Chari. It is also to be mentioned that she deposes as

Page 29 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

to sale deeds executed by Kammari Balram, K.Venugopal chari,

K.Ramachari, K.Satyanarayana Chari, her evidence is that the

defendant No.2, Kammari Ramachari, defendant No.6 created the

respective sale deeds. Ex.A.11 to A.46 registered sale deeds are as

under:

Sl. Name of the vendor Name of the Buyer Area in Date of Registered

No. Sq.yards/ Execution of Sale Deed

Gts., Document No.

1.Kammari BalramPentameedi51024.4.2004521/2004 Narsimulu

2.K.VenugopalacharyR.K.Venkat Reddy243.3316.2.2006277-2006

3.K.VenugopalacharyR.K.Narsimhachary 58.6617.11.20062943/2006

4.K.VenugopalacharyAdigoni Srinivasulu 166.6623.9.201511417/201 5

5.K.RamccharySayanarayanaGoud 36 gts.,4.9.20061827/2006

6.K.RamacharyT.Venkat Reddy22710.7.20061488/2006

7.K.RamacharyJ.Anjali Devi15010.7.20061489/2006

8.K.RamacharyKesireddy Jyothi22310.7.20061490/2006

9.K.RamacharyLaxmamma3504.9.20061814/2006

10. K.RamacharyKavitha18211.11.20094487/2009

11. K.RamacharyKalpana21211.11.20094488/2009

12. K.RamacharyRavinder Naik225.311.11.20094489/2009

13. K.RamacharyP.V.Laxmamma2009.2.2011379/2011

14. K.RamacharyGolla Krushnaiah2009.2.2011380/2011

15. K.RamacharyUggidiRajini2009.2.2011381/2011

16. K.RamacharyKarli Krushnaiah3039.2.2011382/2011

17. K.RamacharyB.Latha55411.2.2009572/2009

18. K.Satyanarayanachary S.Balraj Goud30010.3.2006500/2006

Page 30 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

19. K.SatyanarayanaLambadi Ramulu50.6614.3.2007792/2007 Chary

20. K.Satyanarayanachary LambadiChinna42.6614.3.2007793/2007 Ramulu

21. K.SatyanarayanaLambadiPedda95.5514.3.2007794/2007 CharyLaxmamma 22K.SatyanarayanaKanuganti Narayana 41/221.6.20081263/2008 Charygts., 23K.SatyanarayanaRizwana Begum21817.11.20082808/2008 Chary 24K.SatyanarayanaKotha Venkatesh143.3328.7.20081582/2008 Chary 25K.SatyanarayanaS.Damodar Reddy20028.7.20081583/2008 Chary 26K.SatyanarayanaT.Venkat Reddy46.628.7.20081584/2008 Chary 27K.SatyanarayanaD.Laxma Reddy293.3328.7.20081585/2008 Chary 28K.SatyanarayanaK.Venugopalachary 333.3330.7.20081624/2008 Chary 29K.SatyanarayanaM.Sevya275.9119.11.20082868/2008 Chary 30K.SatyanarayanaV.Balaswamy2502.12.20082940/2008 Chary 31K.SatyanarayanaManemma2282.7.20102665/2010 Chary 32K.SatyanarayanaM.Mallikarjun188.7221.4.20101670/2010 Chary 33K.SatyanarayanaK.Srinivasachary68.449.3.20121119/2012 Chary 34K.SatyanarayanaHarijan Pentamma116.3330.11.20124585/2012 Chary 35K.SatyanarayanaK.Lalithamma34713.11.20142942/2014

Page 31 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

Chary 36K.SatyanarayanaMadhavi Latha9411.6.20196739/2019 Chary

10. It is to be mentioned that P.W.1 also deposes that she

demanded defendants 1 to 6 to affect partition of suit schedule

properties in the last week of October 2020, but they asked the

plaintiff to wait till Ugadi Festival and assured to settle the issue of

partition of suit schedule properties; that she waited till the end of

April 2021, but they did not give any information. She also deposes

that on 1.6.2021 she went to defendants 1 to 6 and firmly demanded

to effect partition and deliver share without taking further time, but

they failed to give proper reply. The specific evidence of P.W.1 is that

the defendants used to give share in the benefits deriving out of this

property till 2019, but after the death of K.Ramachari, defendants 1, 2

and 6 stopped giving her share in the income accrued from the joint

family properties, to gain illegally. The specific evidence of P.W.1 is

that the above sale deeds are without her knowledge and consent. It is

also to be mentioned that in spite of summons, none of the defendants

came forward and appeared before this court and contested the suit.

Since the plaintiff is also having equal right in the property of joint

family, along with defendants 1, 2, K.Ramachari, K.Satyanarayana

Chari, she is entitled for 1/5th share in the suit schedule property as

Page 32 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

prayed for, as the sale deeds under Exs.A.11 to A.46 are statedly

executed without knowledge and consent of P.W.1 with respect to the

joint family property, are not binding to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the

point is answered.

11.In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed for partition

of the suit schedule property into 5 shares and allotting 1/5th share

to the plaintiff and also declaring that the registered documents

enlisted in para No.11 sub para No.viii of the plaint as not binding on

the plaint. No costs.

(Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 30 th day of September, 2024)

SENOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANAPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE DEFENDANTS

P.W.1:K.Sujatha -Ex parte -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the plaintiff:

Ex.A.1:CC of Khasara pahani

Ex.A.2: CC of old ROR

Ex.A.3: CC of new ROR

Ex.A.4: CC for the year 1972-73

Ex.A.5 CC for the year 1975-76

Ex.A.6 CC for the year 1985-86

Ex.A.7 CC for the year 1990-91

Ex.A.8 CC for the year 2004-05

Ex.A.9 CC for the year2006-07

Page 33 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

Ex.A.10 CC for the year 2009-10

Ex.A.11 CC of registered sale deed DocNo.521/204, dated

24.4.2004,

Ex.A.12 CC of registered sale deed DocNo.277/2206, dated

16.2.2006

Ex.A.13 CC of registered sale deed DocNo.2943/2006 dated

17.11.2006

Ex.A.14 CC of registered sale deed DocNo.11417/2015, dated

23.9.2015

Ex.A.15 CC of registered sale deed DocNo.1827/2006, dated

4.9.2015

Ex.A.16 CC of registered sale deed DocNo.1488/2006, dated

10.7.2006

Ex.A.17 CC of registered sale deed DocNo.1489/2006, dated

10.7.2006

Ex.A.18 CC of registered sale deed DocNo.1490/2006, dated

10.7.2006,

Ex.A.19 CC of registered sale deed DocNo.1814/2006, 4.9.2006

Ex.A.20 CC of registered sale deed DocNo.4487/2009,

11.11.2009

Ex.A.21 CC of registered sale deed DocNo4488/2009. Dated

11.11.2009

Ex.A.22 CC of registered sale deed DocNo.4489/2009, dated

11.11.2009

Ex.A.23 CC of registered sale deed DocNo379/2011, dated

9.2.2011

Ex.A.24 CC of registered sale deed DocNo.380/2011, dated

9.2.2011

Ex.A.25 CC of registered sale deed DocNo.381/2011, dated

9.2.2011

Ex.A.26 CC of registered sale deed DocNo.382/2011, dated

9.2.2011

Ex.A.27 CC of registered sale deed DocNo.572/2009, dated

Ex.A.28: Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.500/2006, dated:10-03-2006.

Ex.A.29: Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.7992/2007, dated: 14-03-2007.

Ex.A.30:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Page 34 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

Doc.No.793/2007, dated: 14-03-2007.

Ex.A.31: Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.794/2007, dated: 14-03-2007.

Ex.A.32: Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.1263/2008, dated: 21-06-2008.

Ex.A.33:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.2808/2008, dated:17-11-2008.

Ex.A.34:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.1582/2008, dated:28-07-2008.

Ex.A.35:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.1583/2008, dated:28-07-2008.

Ex.A.36:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.1584/2008, dated:28-07-2008.

Ex.A.37: Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.1585/2008, dated: 28-07-2008.

Ex.A.38:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.1624/2008, dated:30-07-2008.

Ex.A.39:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.2868/2008, dated:19-11-2008.

Ex.A.40:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.2940/2008, dated:02-12-2008.

Ex.A.41:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.2665/2010, dated:02-07-2010.

Ex.A.42:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.1670/2010, dated:21-04-2010.

Ex.A.43:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Page 35 of 35O.S.No.10 of 2021

Doc.No.1119/2012, dated:09-03-2012.

Ex.A.44:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.4585/2012, dated:30-11-2012.

Ex.A.45:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.5942/2014, dated:13-11-2014.

Ex.A.46: Certified copy of Registered Sale deed,

Doc.No.6739/2019, dated:11-06-2019.

For the defendants:

- Nil -

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANPET.

Page 1 of 12 HMOP No.38 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

NARAYANPET

Friday, this the 4th day of October, 2024

Present: Sri G.Srinivas

Senior Civil Judge,

Narayanpet.

H.M.O.P. No. 38 of 20 23

Between:-

Anjappa S/o Konda Rajappa, age: 25 years, Occu:agriculture, R/o H.No.2-41/2, Golla Geri, Dorepalli village of Maddur Mandal, Narayanpet District.

… Petitioner

AND

G.Akhila W/o Anjappa D/o Venkatramulu, age: 23 years, Occu:housewife, R/o H.No.1-19, Bokkalonipalle, Dharmapur, Mahabubnagar.

...Respondent

This petition is coming before me on 30.9.2024 in the presence of Sri Mallikarjun, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Kurmanna Goud, Advocate for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration, this Court made the following:

::O R D E R::

1.This petition is filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act with a prayer to decree the petition by dissolving the marriage tie in between the petitioner and the respondent.

Page 2 of 12 HMOP No.38 of 2023

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the respondent is wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 11.2.2022, as per the customs prevailing in their community. Then the parents of the petitioner gifted the respondent with 5 tulas of gold as per the demand of her parents and they bore wedding expenses worth Rs.5,00,000/-. After the marriage, the respondent joined the company of the petitioner at

Dorepalli village. Prior to the marriage alliance, a person by name Manohar called the petitioner and informed him that the respondent loves him and they were going to marry after a few days and warned the petitioner not to marry the respondent. The petitioner informed his parents the same and they enquired with the respondent and her parents about the said person. That in order cover up the affair of the respondent, the respondent and her family members lied that the said Manohar’s family has previous enmity with the family of the respondent and as such, the person is blaming the respondent. The petitioner initially believed the version of the respondent

Page 3 of 12 HMOP No.38 of 2023 and her family members and agreed to marry her. Prior to the marriage, the petitioner informed the respondent that his parents are old aged and are dependent upon him, and that the respondent have to stay with the petitioner at his house at Dorepally, for which she agreed and after the marriage, she changed her behaviour and she never respected the parents of the petitioner and quarreled with them for silly reason and demanded for residing separately from the parents of the petitioner. The petitioner tolerated her ill behavior with a hope that she would change her attitude towards his parents. After the marriage the respondent never respected the petitioner and his words and she refused to provide service to her in-laws. That the respondent quarreled with parents and family members of the petitioner for silly reasons and she never heed to the advise of her in-laws. The petitioner observed that the respondent used to spend much of her time on phone calls, talking to some one and when the petitioner questioned her, the respondent used to say that she was talking to her family members. That on one

Page 4 of 12 HMOP No.38 of 2023 day when the petitioner woke up at 2.00 AM, he observed that the respondent was chatting with some one and that he grabbed the mobile phone from the respondent and read the chats and came to know that the respondent was chatting with one person closely at that late night.

When the petitioner seriously asked the respondent as to with whom she was chatting, the respondent told that prior to marriage she was in love with her villager by name Manohar and that her marriage was performed against her will and as per wish of her parents and that she was still in love with the said person and frequently calls him and chats with him. The petitioner asked the respondent to forget her past affairs and lead happy marital life. That the respondent promised that she would not repeat the same and would not talk with the said Manohar. That the respondent went to

Mahabubnagar several times in the name of Degree examination though she did not pay examination fee and in that regard in the month of December, 2022 panchayath was conducted. The respondent was

Page 5 of 12 HMOP No.38 of 2023 admonished by her parents. The respondent did not change attitude and continued her illegal affair with the said Manohar and spoke to him at late nights. When the mother of the petitioner observed the same, the respondent abused her in filthy language. When the petitioner questioned the respondent in that regard, the respondent abused him in filthy language and insulted in the name of low earning. The petitioner is working as private teacher in Hyderabad, with a hope that the respondent would change her behaviour if place of residence is changed. During one month stay at

Hyderabad, the respondent called her paramour-

Manohar to Hyderabad when the petitioner went to his job. The petitioner and his parents conducted panchayath on 15.2.2023 in the presence of village elders, but the family members of the respondent abused the petitioner and his parents and picked up quarrel with the petitioner. The respondent held collar of the petitioner and slapped him in the presence of village elders and the sisters of the respondent attacked on the

Page 6 of 12 HMOP No.38 of 2023 mother of the petitioner and beat her with hands. The respondent demanded the petitioner to give divorce stating that she was not at all interested to lead marital life with the petitioner. The respondent filed false complaint before Women Police, Mahabubnagar. The respondent refused to come back to conjugal society of the petitioner and harassed him several times and reiterated that she was in love with Manohar and wanted to live with him. Hence, the petition.

3.Notice was issued to the respondent and the notice issued through registered post with acknowledgment due was returned as refused. The respondent was called absent and as such, she was set ex parte.

4.After taking up ex parte evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court passed ex parte decree on 15.11.2023. It is to be mentioned that the respondent filed I.A.No.81 of 2024 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC with a prayer to set aside the

Page 7 of 12 HMOP No.38 of 2023 decree dated 15.11.2023 and this court allowed the said

I.A setting aside the said ex parte decree on 10.7.2024.

Thus, the H.M.O.P is restored setting aside ex parte decree.

5.The respondent filed counter admitting her relationship with the petitioner and that the marriage was performed with the petitioner, but she denied all the allegations against the respondent in the petition. It is mentioned that the petitioner suspected the fidelity of the respondent and blaming her and the petitioner harassed the respondent with the instigation of his parents and his friend Abhilash. The petitioner also frequently without information to the respondent went out somewhere and come back after 10 p.m, in drunken condition without providing any necessities. Whenever the respondent phone called he used filthy language to her. The petitioner also demanded additional dowry for his job purpose and she expressed her inability of her parents and then he insulted the respondent that she is not

Page 8 of 12 HMOP No.38 of 2023 beautiful. The petitioner has not behaved properly with the respondent, and having bad habits with others and when the petitioner is suggested to drop the illegal acts, the petitioner and his parents did not look her properly and even they do not provide food sometimes. That the petitioner also suggested the respondent that respondent has to fulfill the lust of his friend. The petitioner was also recording all phones of the respondent on suspect and when the respondent resisted his acts, he beat her and threw out from the house many times. The respondent and her parents many times conducted panchayat and send back with the petitioner, but again after sometime, he started repeating the same; lastly on 25.3.2023 the petitioner and his parents forcibly took all the ornaments of the respondents and obtained the signatures of the respondent on blank papers, and bond papers beat her and necked out from their house and then filed the present case by creating false grounds. The respondent is very much interested on the petitioner and ready to join with the petitioner if he changed his illegal and criminal

Page 9 of 12 HMOP No.38 of 2023 acts and he gives assurance to look after without any conditions; at the same time it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to take back the respondent for better conjugal life. There is very possibility to live together with each other and the respondent is ready to join with the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to get divorce from the respondent. It is prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.Reconciliation efforts made by this court are not fruitful.

7.The petitioner himself is examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. The petitioner also examined

P.W.2.

8.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

9.The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the petition can be allowed granting decree of divorce, as prayed for.

Page 10 of 12 HMOP No.38 of 2023

POINT

10.The evidence of P.W.1 is that the respondent is his wife and their marriage was performed on 11.2.2022, as per the customs prevailing in their community. Ex.P.1 is wedding card and Ex.P.2 is marriage photographs. The evidence of P.W.1 is also corroborated by P.W.2. Since the present petition is filed after more than one year of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent and as the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.P.1 and P.2 establish that the marriage of the petitioner was performed with the respondent, the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act can be invoked to consider the present petition.

11.The evidence of P.W.1 which is supported by the evidence of P.W.2 shows that the respondent was in love with one Manohar, used to chat with him and that when the petitioner and his family members questioned, the respondent abused them and picked up quarrel with them. The evidence of PW.1 and P.W.2 also shows that

Page 11 of 12 HMOP No.38 of 2023 there was a panchayath on 15.2.2023 as the respondent called the said Manohar to Hyderabad, during their stay at Hyderabad for one month. P.Ws.1 and 2 further depose that the respondent held the collar of the petitioner and slapped him in the presence of village elders and the sisters of the respondent attacked the mother of the petitioner and beat her with hands. It is also the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the respondent continued to be in love with Manohar and she expressed that she wanted to live with that person and that she expressed that her marriage was performed against her will. The above said evidence clearly establishes that the respondent subjected the petitioner to cruelty. It is to be mentioned that after passing ex parte decree, the respondent filed the petition and thereon the ex parte decree was set aside. That the respondent filed counter.

However, for the reasons best known to the respondent, the respondent did not choose to cross examine the witnesses or let in any evidence on her behalf. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 establishes that the respondent

Page 12 of 12 HMOP No.38 of 2023 subjected the petitioner to cruelty. Therefore, the petition can be allowed granting decree of divorce. Accordingly, the point is answered.

12.In the result, the petition is allowed granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent held on 11.2.2022.

(typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 4 th day of October, 2024.)

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARAYANPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined)

FOR PETITIONER

P.W.1: Anjappa

P.W.2: K.Rajappa

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER

Ex.P.1: Wedding Card

Ex.P.2: Photographs (2 numbers)

Ex.P.3: certified copy of P.W.1

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARAYANPET.

Page.No. 2 of 2 OS.No. 88 of 2017

Page 1 of 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT: NARAYANPET.

Present:- Sri G. Srinivas,

Senior Civil Judge,

Narayanapet. Tuesday, on this the 1st day of October, 2024.

O.S. No.88 of 2017

Between:

1. Mohd. Abdul Ali (Died) per Lrs. Plaintiff No.2 to 4.

2. Mohd. Khalid S/o Late Mohd. Abdul Ali, Age: 38 years.

3. Umera Begum D/o Late Mohd. Abdul Ali, Age: 35 years.

4. Nushrat Begum D/o Late Mohd. Abdul Ali, Age: 30 years. All resident of Hyderabad. (Amended as per the orders in IA.No. 247/2021, Dated: 28.01.2022.)

…..Plaintiffs

AND

1. Gul Mohammed S/o Burhan Sab, Aged about 65 years, R/o

Manthangode Village of Makthal Mandal (Died per Lrs. Defendant

No.6 to 12)

2. Ramanjaneyulu S/o Suvanna, Aged about 35 years.

3. Nagappa S/o Gopanna, Aged about 62 years.

4. Kurumurthy S/o Late Kurmanna, Aged about 30 years.

5. Keshavulu S/o Late Kurumurthy, Aged about 26 years, D2 to D5 all resident of Samanpally Village of Makthal Mandal.

6. Hameeda Begum W/o Late Gul Mohammed, Age: 60 years.

7. Safiya Begum D/o Late Gul Mohammed, Age: 38 years.

8. Khaja Altaf Javeed S/o Late Gul Mohammed, Age: 36 years.

9. Mohd. Haneef Dahed S/o Late Gul Mohammed, Age: 34 years.

10. Salman Qatoon D/o Late Gul Mohammed, Age: 32 years.

11. Mohd. Ashwaq S/o Late Gul Mohammed, Age: 30 years.

12. Mohd. Waseem Akram S/o Late Gul Mohammed, Age: 28 years.

All resident of Makthal proper and Mandal, Narayanpet District.

(Amended as per the orders in the IA.No. 232/2023, Dated: 01.11.2023.)

…..Defendants

Page.No. 2 of 2 OS.No. 88 of 2017

Page 1 of 1

This suit is coming on 01-10-2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Chenna Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri P.

Narsimulu, Advocate for the D.1, D.6 to D.12 and Sri S. Narayana,

Advocate for the D.2 and Sri Mallikarjun, Advocate for the D.3 to D.5 and having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court passed the following:

:: ORDER ::

Suit is coming for evidence of Plaintiffs on costs. Plaintiffs are called absent. No representation. Costs not paid. Hence, the suit dismissed.

Orders pronounced by me in open court this the 1 st day of October, 2024.

Senior Civil Judge,

Narayanpet.