G V Mahesh Nath

1 of 8

O.S.No.750 of 2009 Judgment dated 04.11.2019

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOTHAGUDEM

Monday, this the 4th day of November, 2019.

Present: Sri. G.V. Mahesh Nath Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

O.S.No.750 of 2009

Between:- Regula Saraiah, S/o. Late Komaraiah, Age: 49 years, Occu: Business, R/o. Budidagadda, Kothagudem Town and Mandal, Khammam District. . . . Plaintiff

and

Sd. Yaccob Pasha, S/o. Sd. Wali, Age: 38 years, Occu: General Mazdoor, EC

No.0295281, VK-7 Incline, SCCL, Kothagudem, R/o. H.No.3-3-173, Hanuman Basthi, Kothagudem Town and mandal, Khammam District. . . . Defendant

This case came before me for final hearing, and disposal on 29.10.2019 in the presence of Sri J. Gopi Krishna, Learned counsel for Plaintiff and of Sri G.V. Prasad, Learned counsel for Defendant and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff instituted present suit for recovery of money for

Rs.92,400/-1 (Rupees ninety two thousand four hundrend only) from the defendant. Defendant being acquainted with plaintiff is stated to have borrowed an amount of Rs.70,000/- (rupees seventy thousand only) on 8-8-2008 for his family need. A promissory note was executed by defendant agreeing to repay the principal amount at the rate of 24% per annum interest on order or demand of plaintiff. On 15-12-2009 plaintiff orally demanded the defendant for repayment of loan amount, but defendant failed to repay. Hence, the suit was instituted.

1Principal amount of Rs.70,000/- (rupees seventy thousand only) with interest amount of Rs.22,400/-( rupees twenty two thousand four hundrend only) at the rate of 24% per annum commencing from 8-8-2008 to 8-12-2009 2 of 8

O.S.No.750 of 2009 Judgment dated 04.11.2019

2.] The defendant entered his appearance and filed written statement. In the written statement, defendant denied that he borrowed

Rs.70,000/- (rupees seventy thousand only) from plaintiff on 8-8-2008 and executed promissory note evidencing such borrowing. It is pleaded that defendant stood as witness in the promissory note executed by one Ravi in favour of plaintiff. The said Ravi failed to repay the borrowed amount and filed insolvency petition vide IP.No.12/2009 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem showing plaintiff herein as one of the respondents. It is submitted that plaintiff demanded defendant to settle the loan amount of said Ravi, being witness to such transaction. Defendant refused the request. Hence, plaintiff is alleged to have fabricated promissory note dated 8-8-2009 with forged signature of defendant. It is also submitted that plaintiff is money lender with license.

Pleading these facts, defendant prayed for dismissal of plaintiff’s suit.

3.] Based on the disputed facts pleaded by both parties, the following issues were settled for trial on 22-3-2010,which are as follows:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

2) Whether the defendant executed suit document or not?

4.] Additional issue was settled on 7-7-2010 as follows:

Whether the plaintiff is money lender or not?

5.] The parties led their evidence both oral and documentary. Plaintiff examined Pw1 and Pw2 and Ex.A1 was marked, whereas defendant examined

Dw1 and no documentary evidence was adduced.

3 of 8

O.S.No.750 of 2009 Judgment dated 04.11.2019

6.] The suit was decreed with cost with Judgment dated 28-7-2010 passed by this court. Defendant preferred appeal vide A.S.No.7 of 2010 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. The Appellate court with

Judgment dated 15-4-2013 remanded the suit to this court with direction that defendant be given opportunity to prove his plea of forgery of promissory note/Ex.A1, by way of expert opinion evidence.

7.] In pursuance of the directions of Appeallate Court in A.S.NO.7 of 2010, defendant was given opportunity. The admitted and disputed signature of defendant was referred to the expert. The expert gave his opinion that admitted and disputed signatures are written by same person/defendant. The defendant did not dispute the expert opinion report as no steps were taken to summon expert and examine him.

8.] There is no additional evidence led by either party, after remand.

Heard both sides. Perused the record. The issues are answered as under:

9.] Additional Issue:

The defendant took the plea that plaintiff is money lender without license as such suit is not maintainable. The learned counsel for defendant at the time of advancing his argument drawn the attention of this court to the elicitation in the cross examination of Pw1 where he admitted of lending amount to other and also admitted of he being a money lender. Therefore, it is 4 of 8

O.S.No.750 of 2009 Judgment dated 04.11.2019

vehemently contended that suit of plaintiff is not maintainable under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 F (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act).

10.] The burden to prove the issue on hand is on defendant since it is plea of defendant that plaintiff is money lender without license. To answer the plea and contention of defendant, it is required to observe the defination of “Money lender” which is defined under Section 2 (7) of the Act, it reads as under.

Money lender means a person including a pawn broker, who, within the meaning of this Act, only advances loan in the ordinary course of his business or does so along with other business, and shall also include the legal representative of such person, and the person claiming to be his representative on the ground of succession or assignment or otherwise.

11.]The scope and ambit of the term “money lender” as defined under the Act was interpreted in Mrs. K.Sudersanam V. S.Venkata Rao 2 . A reading of the judgment would give an understanding that in order to fall within the definition of money lender, it is not enough merely to show that a man had on several occasions lent money at remunerative rates of interest. It must be shown that there is a certain degree of system and continuity about the transactions. The definition of money lender in the Act does not include those who advanced money casually.

12.] In case on hand, there is no material to show that there was a certain degree of system and continuity in doing money lending business by the 2AIR 1963 Andhra Pradesh 442 5 of 8

O.S.No.750 of 2009 Judgment dated 04.11.2019

plaintiff. The elicitation in the cross examination of Pw1 only show that he lent amount to others apart from defendant. The admission of a suggestion by Pw1 that he is doing money lending business itself would not make out the case of defendant in absence of any material being brought on record to show that money lending activity of plaintiff is in a certain degree of system and continuous in nature. The defendant failed to lead any independent evidence, except the self serving testimony of defendant as DW1. Hence, for the reasons assigned, the issue on hand is required to be answered against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff. Accordingly, it is answered.

13.] Issue no.2:

In decisions between 1) Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh 3 ,, 2)

Pentakota Satyanarayana and Ors. Vs.Pentakota Seetharatnam and Ors 4 .

3) Kurella Venkata Satyavathi Vs. Kanyamauini Devendar Yadav 5 , 4)

Veeramallayyagari V.Sitaram Vs.Payala Chandrasekhar, Minor, Guardian

Payala Siddaiah and Ors 6 ., 5) Ryali Kameshwara Rao Vs. Benadapudi

Suryaprakasarao and Ors. 7, it was observed that when plea of forgery is taken by a party burden of proof lies on such party to prove forgery.

14.] The burden to prove the present issue is on defendant since it is plea of defendant that plaintiff fabricated promissory note as in Ex.A1 by forgering the signature of the defendant on such document.

3 AIR 2006 SC 1971 4 AIR 2005 SC 4362 5 2014 (5) ALD 403 6 2001 (6) ALD 143 7 AIR 1962 AP 178 6 of 8

O.S.No.750 of 2009 Judgment dated 04.11.2019

15.] The plaintiff himself examined as Pw1 testifying the facts as pleaded in plaint. To corroborate evidence of Pw1, the attestor to Ex.A1 is examined as Pw2. In the cross examination of Pw1 and Pw2, no material fact could be elicited to show that defence of defendant was admitted by the plaintiff’s witnesses. Therefore, with oral evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 coupled with documentary evidence as in Ex.A1, plaintiff is able to discharge his initial burden of proof by proving the facts that defendant borrowed Rs.70,000/-(rupees seventy thousand only) on 8-8-2008 by executing promissory note under Ex.A1 and that defendant failed to repay the borrowed amount along with accrued interest on demand of plaintiff. The onus is shifted on the defendant to disprove the case of plaintiff and prove his pleadings.

16.] As seen from record, defendant in appeal took the plea that he was not given opportunity to adduce expert opinion evidence to prove his plea of

Ex.A1 being a fabricated document with his forged signature. The matter was remanded to this court with direction to provide such opportunity to the defendant. This court provided the opportunity. The admitted and disputed signatures of defendant were sent to expert. The expert gave his opinion that admitted and disputed signatures were written by defendant. The expert opinion is not brought on record by examining the expert. Hence, the only plea of defendant alleging Ex.A1 to be forged document could not be proved by the defendant with his self serving evidence as Dw1 which is on record.

7 of 8

O.S.No.750 of 2009 Judgment dated 04.11.2019

17.] With the discussion in the preceding paras, it is required to be held that plaintiff proved the plaint pleading on the test of preponderance of probability principle, whereas defendant failed to prove that Ex.A1 is forged document and that no consideration was passed to the defendant with such documents. Accordingly, issue no.2 is answered against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.

19.] Issue No.1:

With the finding in issue no.2 favouring plaintiff and additional issue going against the defendant, this court comes to same conclusion as it arrived at while passing its earlier judgment on 28-7-2010 by holding that plaintiff is entitled for suit claim amount against defendant. Accordingly, issue no.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff.

20.] Result:

In the result suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.92,400/- (Rupee ninety two thousand four hundred only) with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit, till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree, till the date of realization on principal amount.

Prepared and pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 4 th day of November, 2019.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem.

8 of 8

O.S.No.750 of 2009 Judgment dated 04.11.2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Pw.1: R. Saraiah Dw.1: Sd. Yakoob Pasha. Pw.2: R. Raj Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: pronote dated 8.8.2008.

For defendant: -NIL-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem. ***

M.C No.41 of 2018Dt: 31-12-2018

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

CLASS AT KOTHAGUDEM

(Monday, the 31st day of December, Two Thousand and Eighteen)

PRESENT: SMT.N.RADHIKA, I Addl.Judl .Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, FAC­II Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem. 

M.C.No. 41 of 2018.

Between:

1. Gudibandla Rajani, W/o: Vijay Bhaskar, age: 35 years, Occ: House­hold,

2. Gudibandla Koushik, S/o: Vijay Bhaskar, age: 17 years, Occ: Student,

3. Gudibandla Karthik, S/o: Vijay Bhaskar, age: 13 years, Occ: Student, (Petitioner No.2 and 3 are being minors and rep., by their mother and natural guardian i.e., Petitioner No.1)

All are R/o: H.No.28­1­11, Karakavagu Near, Govt., School, Palvoncha Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

…Petitioners AND Gudibandla Vijay Bhaskar, S/o: Late Rangaiah, age: 37 years, Occ: Trade Worker in Granite Company, R/o: H.No.8­3­50, Balaji Nagar, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban, Khammam District. 

... Respondent 

This case is coming before me for hearing on 26­12­2018 in the presence of Sri J. Shivaram Prasad and Sri D. Ravi Kumar, learned Advocates for the Petitioners and the Respondent remained exparte; upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the counsel for petitioner and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following.

O R D E R 

1.This is a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, by Petitioner for grant of maintenance to a tune of Rs.10,000/­ to Petitioner No.1 and

Pg No. 1 of 5

M.C No.41 of 2018Dt: 31-12-2018

Rs.5,000/­ each of the Petitioner No.2 and 3 per month from the

Respondent towards maintenance, in the interest of justice.

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

a)The Petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the

Respondent and their marriage was performed on 16­04­2001 at Balaji

Nagar, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam as per Hindu caste customs and practices. At the time of marriage, parents of the Petitioner No.1 gave

Rs.2,00,000/­ cash towards dowry, 4 tulas of gold ornaments along with household articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/­ to the Respondent. Out of their wedlock, the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent are blessed with

Petitioner No.2 and 3, and they lead happy material life for Ten years.

Thereafter, the Respondent started harassing the petitioner No.1 physically and mentally by suspecting the character of the petitioner and used to beat the petitioner indiscriminately to bring additional dowry from her parents and also the Respondent developed disinterest against the petitioner. The Respondent having extra marital life with one lady and on her instigation the Respondent increased his harassment against Petitioner No.1. The Petitioner No.1 informed to her parents about the acts of the Respondent. The parents of Petitioner

No.1 conducted Several panchayath, but in vain.

b)It is further submitted that the in the Month of March, 2016

Dwarka Loan of Rs.1,30,000/­ was granted to Petitioner No.1, the

Respondent forcibly taken away the entire loan amount from the

Petitioner No.1 and beat the Petitioner No.1 indiscriminately and necked out the Petitioner No.1 from his shared house along with children. The

Petitioner No.1 and her children are livng with her parents on their mercy. The Respondent is working as Trader Worker in Granite

Company and earning an amount of Rs.30,000/­ per month and also having RCC building and receiving an amount of Rs.20,000/­ towards rents. Inspite of having sufficient means, the Respondent is intentionally

Pg No. 2 of 5

M.C No.41 of 2018Dt: 31-12-2018

refusing to pay maintenance to the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to grant an amount of Rs.10,000/­ to Petitioner No.1 and Rs. 5,000/­ each of the

Petitioner No.2 and 3 per month from the Respondent towards maintenance and educational expenses. 

3.On receipt of notice, the Respondent did not appear before the

Court and hence, Respondent was set exparte on 23­11­2018.

4.During the course of enquiry, the Petitioner No.1 herself examined as PW.1 and no documents were marked. 

5.Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is:­

"Whether the Petitioners No.1 to 3 are entitled for

maintenance as prayed for"?

7. POINT:­

i)It is the evidence of PW.1 that Respondent having extra marital life with another lady, harassed her and neglected Petitioner No.1 to 3 without providing any maintenance to them. It is the further evidence of

P.W.1 that the Respondent beat Petitioner No.1 indiscriminately and necked out in the month of March, 2016 and hence, she went to her parents house. It is the further evidence of PW.1 that, Respondent is not providing any maintenance to the Petitioners since March, 2016, the

Respondent is working as Trader Worker in Granite Company and earning an amount of Rs.30,000/­ per month and also having RCC building and receiving an amount of Rs.20,000/­ towards rents. Inspite of having sufficient means, he neglected to provide maintenance to the petitioners.

ii)In order to grant maintenance to the Petitioners, the petitioners have to establish that the Respondent willfully neglected the Petitioners, refused to maintain them, the Petitioners are unable to maintain

Pg No. 3 of 5

M.C No.41 of 2018Dt: 31-12-2018

themselves and the Respondent has sufficient means to maintain the

Petitioners.

iii)The learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that, from the testimony of PW.1, it is clear that, the Respondent harassed PW.1 and necked out her along with Petitioner No.2 and 3 from the matrimonial home. The learned counsel for Petitioner would also contend that

Respondent is able bodied person and he has sufficient means to provide maintenance to the Petitioners.

iv)Sec.125 of Cr.P.C is enacted for social justice and specifically to protect the women and children as also old and infirm poor parents within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the constitution of India. The provision gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long they are unable to maintain themselves. 

v)The evidence of PW.1 is remained unchallenged. But the Petitioner did not file any documentary evidence to show that, Respondent is earning Rs.30,000/­ per month. The Petitioner also did not choose to file any document to show that the Respondent is having RCC building.

However, being husband of Petitioner No.1 and father of Petitioner No.2 and 3, it is the bounden duty, moral and legal obligation of the

Respondent to provide maintenance to the petitioners. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled for maintenance. Hence, by considering the present cost of living, the unchallenged testimony of PW.1, this Court is inclined to grant

Rs.3,000/­ per month to the Petitioner No.1 and Rs.3,000/­ per month to Petitioner No.2 and 3 till attaining their majoity i.e., totaling

Rs.9,000/­ per month (Rs.Nine thousand only) towards their maintenance from the date of this order. The point is answered accordingly.

Pg No. 4 of 5

M.C No.41 of 2018Dt: 31-12-2018

8.In the result, petition is allowed. The Respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/­ per month to the Petitioner No.1 and

Rs.3,000/­ per month to Petitioner No.2 and 3 till attaining their majoity i.e., totaling Rs.9,000/­ (Rs.Nine thousand only) per month towards their maintenance, from the date of this order.

9.The Respondent shall regularly pay monthly maintenance amount on or before 10th day of every calendar month to the Petitioners.

10.The Respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/­ towards costs of this petition.

11.The Petitioners are directed to open an Account in any Nationalized

Bank or Post Office and furnish the Account number to the Respondent to deposit the maintenance amount.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno­Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31st day of December,

2018.

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

Kothagudem, FAC­ II Addl. Judl, Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined:

For Petitioner For Respondent

PW.1: Gudibandla Rajini ­­None­­

Exhibits marked

For Petitioner For Respondent

­NIL­­NIL­

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

Kothagudem, FAC­ II Addl. Judl, Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem.

Pg No. 5 of 5

1 of 5

CC.No.644 of 2019 judgment dated 05.11.2019

THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KOTHAGUDEM

Tuesday, this the 5th day of November, 2019.

PRESENT: Sri G.V. Mahesh Nath, Prl. Judl .Magistrate of First Class Kothagudem

CALENDER CASE No.644 of 2019

BETWEEN: The state through the Proh. & Excise Inspector, Palvancha … Complainant

and

Bhukya Shusheela, W/o. Badru, Age: 42 years, Occu: Coolie, R/o. Palkoya thanda, Palvancha Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on 30-10-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri U. Sunil Kumar, Learned counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides, considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E NT

The accused is indicted for an offence U/Sec.7(A) R/w.8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995 by Sub-Inspector, Prohibition and Excise, Palvancha in

COR No.258/2018 with following allegations.

2. On 19.12.2018 at about 08.15 AM., L.W.3/Ch. Nageswar Rao,

S.I. Proh & Excise, along with other staff proceeded to Nava Bharat Center,

Palvancha Mandal, by securing two mediators L.W.1-Guguloth Ramesh and

L.W.2-Boda Sukya and conducted raids wherein the accused was found in possession (03) Liter of I.D. liquor in polythene covers. Thus the LW-3 drawn the samples and seized the remaining contraband under cover of a panchanama in the presence of mediators. Later, the Lw3-brought the Accused along with panchanama and seized property to the Excise Station, Palvancha and registered a case in COR No.258/2018 U/Sec.7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition 2 of 5

CC.No.644 of 2019 judgment dated 05.11.2019

Act. The samples were deposited and filed charge sheet on receipt of analysis report.

3. The offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) R/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995 is taken cognizance against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished to her U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C and she was examined

U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. A charge for an offence U/Sec.7(A) R/w.8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995 was read over and explained to the accused and she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.3. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating material, she denied prosecution evidence as being false and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.

6. Perused the record. Now, the point arises for determination is:

1. Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for an offence U/Sec.7(A) R/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 ?

2. To what relief?

7. POINT NO.1 : To make out its case for an offence U/Sec.7(A)

R/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 prosecution examined P.W.1 to 3. P.W.1 and 2 who are the mediators for confession-cum- seizure panchanama, turned hostile stating that about two years ago, the Excise officials obtained thumb impression of Pw.1 and signature of Pw.2 as in Ex.P.1 on some papers, but did 3 of 5

CC.No.644 of 2019 judgment dated 05.11.2019

not record any panchanama in their presence, Though, P.W.1 and 2 were cross examined at length by learned A.P.P, no useful material could be elicited to throw light on the prosecution case.

8. According to the evidence of P.W.3-Ch. Nageswar Rao, the then

S.I of Police, Proh & Excise, Palvancha, on 19.12.2018 at 08.15 AM., on reliable information regarding illegal possession, manufacture and sale of I.D liquor at

Navabharath Center, Paloncha, he along with Lw.1 and 2 and his staff proceeded to that place, he found one person under suspicious circumstances, on interrogation the said persons revealed her details as that of accused. On search of accused, he found (3) polythene covers containing (3) liters of ID liquor. The accused confessed that she purchased the contraband for sale on profit. The contraband was seized by duly drawing samples under cover of confession-cum-recovery panchanama in the presence of Lw.1 and 2. Later, the seized property and accused was brought to P & E, Paloncha. Based on panchanama, he registered the case in COR.No.258/2018 and send the samples for chemical analysis. After receipt of report, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Ex.P.2 is panchana and Ex.P.3 is COR. In the cross examination of Pw.3, he denied suggestion that he did not conduct any confession-cum-recovery panchanama and seized contraband from the possession of accused and that accused did not confess of possessing ID liquor. He denied suggestion that for statistical purpose accused is falsely implicated in this case.

4 of 5

CC.No.644 of 2019 judgment dated 05.11.2019

9. As it could be seen from the above evidence, it is clear that no search memo was issued by PW.3, while conducting raid. Due to the hostile evidence of Pw.1 and 2, the recording of panchanama dated 19.12.2018 is not proved. When the independent witnesses did not support the case, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the version of P.W.3, who is the excise official interested in the out come of prosecution of the Accused.

10. In the light of above, as P.W.1 and 2 are turned hostile and in view of the above legal aspects as stated supra, this court is of considered opinion that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under

Section 7(A) R/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond reasonable doubt and thus the accused is entitled for acquittal.

POINT N.2:

11. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.7(A) R/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, she is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of November, 2019.

Prl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class Kothagudem.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

for complainant: For Defence:

Pw.1: B. Sukya. -none- Pw.2: G. Ramesh. Pw.3: Ch. Nageswar Rao.

5 of 5

CC.No.644 of 2019 judgment dated 05.11.2019

EXHIBITS MARKED

for complainant:

Ex.P.1: Signature of Pw.2 on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P.2: Confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Ex.P.3: COR.

For Defence: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Prl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class Kothagudem. ***

1 of 3

O.S.No.87 of 2019 judgment dated 4.11.2019

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT KOTHAGUDEM

Monday, this the 4th day of November, 2019.

Present: Sri. G.V.Mahesh Nath Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

O.S.No.87 of 2019.

Between:- Bodikala Philip, S/o. Devadas, Age: 64 years, Occu: Rtd Employee, R/o.H.no.9- 3-103/A, Madhura Basthi, Kothagudem Town, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. . . . Plaintiff

and

1. Jatpat Pedda Narasaiah, S/o. Late Guruvaiah, Age: 60 years, Occu: Nil, R/o.H.No.5-5-19, Gandhinagar, Nava Bharath, Paloncha Town, Bhadradri- Kothagudem District.

2. Muddangula Srinivas, S/o. Late Venkat, Age: 60 years, Occu: NIL, R/o.H.No.5-4-199, Gandhinagar, Nava Bharath, Paloncha town, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. . . . Defendants

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal on 25.10.2019 in the presence of Sri G. Rama Murthy, Learned counsel for plaintiff and defendants remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

[1.] The plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking for decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants, based on cause of action which is stated to be aroused on 05.06.2019.

[2.] On receipt of summons, the defendants did not care to enter their appearance, as such the proceedings against the defendants went in exparte, in view of order dated 9.8.2019.

2 of 3

O.S.No.87 of 2019 judgment dated 4.11.2019

[3.] At trial, the plaintiff is examined Pw.1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A.2 documents. After evidence of plaintiff was reported closed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the learned counsel for the plaintiff heard.

[4.] Perused the record.

[5.] Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants?

2. To what relief?

[6.] POINT NO.1:- The plaintiff claim to be owner of the suit schedule property based on document filed by him marked as Ex.A.1 and Ex.A2. On perusal of Ex.A.1 and 2, it is observed that the documents belongs to the suit scheduled property. The oral evidence of plaintiff as Pw.1 speaks of the cause of action that arose on 05.06.2019 wherein the defendants without any manner of right tried to interfere with possession of plaintiff over suit schedule property.

[7.] Therefore, the oral evidence of plaintiff coupled with documentary evidence as under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 prove the plaint pleadings.

The evidence on record could not be rebutted as defendants did not care to enter their appearance and contest claim of plaintiff. In view of the evidence on record, the plaintiff is able to establish his legal right over the suit schedule property and its breach by defendants, as such plaintiff is entitled for decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

3 of 3

O.S.No.87 of 2019 judgment dated 4.11.2019

Point NO.2:

[8.] In the result, the suit is decreed by granting perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendants or their men in any interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Gr.II stenographer, transcribed by him and corrected pronounced by me in the

open court, today, this the 4 th day of November, 2019.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiff: For defendants:

Pw.1: B. PhilipRemained Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: CC of Registered Sale deed, dt.11.04.1997 in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A.2: Encumbrance certificate, dt.10.06.2019 issued by S.R.O., Kothagudem.

For defendants: -NIL-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem.

***

TSKH070007012019

Presented on : 25-03-2019 Registered on : 26-03-2019 Decided on : 14-09-2019 Duration : 0 years, 5 months, 20 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Addl Junior Civil Judge

AT KOTHAGUDEM ,KHAMMAM

(Presided Over by G V MAHESH NATH)

CC/397/2019

Exhibit No. Complainant(PROSECUTION):

PS KOTHAGUDEM TRAFFIC

Through Police Station Officer Kothagudem-Traffic 70 , PS KOTHAGUDEM TRAFFIC

KOTHAGUDEM KHAMMAM

PS KOTHAGUDEM TRAFFIC

VERSUS Accused:

MOGARAM MURALI

Age: 0 Occupation : AGE 58, OCC RETIRED TEACHER, MARUTI ALTO CAR DRIVER, B,NO TS 04EB 1321, R/O VENU GOPALASWAMY STREET , RAMAVARAM, KGM.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State Complainant}: APP, Advocate for appearing for MOGARAM MURALI Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under :

279 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 14-09-2019)

ORDER

Accused is present. Case is sumoto advanced to today ie 14.09.2019 in view of National Lok Adalath and they are examined U/sec. 251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation for the offence U/sec. 279 is read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu, for which, Accused pleaded guilty. This court warned about the imprisonment, even then, the Accused pleaded guilty. Hence this court feels, the guilt of the Accused is voluntary. Hence Accused is convicted U/s. 252 of Cr.P.C, for the offence U/sec. 279 of IPC. Satisfied the plea of the guilt tendered by Accused is voluntary. Heard. When questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, convicted submitted that, he has wife, children and old aged parents and further stated that it is the first offence and he undertakes that he will not commit any offence in future. By considering the submissions of the Accused, this court deems it fit to impose fine instead of sentence of imprisonment at once . The Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence U/s.279 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, the Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days. Total fine amount is Rs. 1000/- Office is directed to issue receipt for payment of fine, if paid, so also to remit the fine amount to the State forthwith.

Date : 14-09-2019 (G V MAHESH NATH)

I Addl Junior Civil Judge

KOTHAGUDEM

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(G V MAHESH NATH)

I Addl Junior Civil Judge

KOTHAGUDEM

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS