Sri G. Venu

OS.No.359/2007 Page No. 1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT: MEDCHAL

PRESENT:- Sri Gajawada Venu., Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal

Original Suit No.359 of 2007

Wednesday this the 21 st day of June 2017

Between:-

1. Kummari Dandu Shankaraiah (Died) as per LRs

2. Kummari Dandu Durgamma, W/o. Late. Shankaraiah Aged about 47 years, Occ: Household

3. Dandu Ganesh, S/o. Late. Shanaraiah Age about 30 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee

4. Dandu Prabhakar, S/o. Late. Shankaraiah, Aged about 27 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee

All are R/o. H. No 6-87/1, Dundigal Village, Qutubullahpur Mandal, R.R. District. ….Plaintiffs

and

Toketa Padmavathi, W/o. T. Laxman, Aged about 41 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 1-10-189, Kamsari Bazar,

Bowenpally, Secunderabad–11. ...Defendant

(Plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are brought on record as legal heirs of plaintiff No.1

as per orders passed in I.A.No. 1092/2010 dt. 30.1.2012)

This suit came before me on 19-6-2017 and on this day for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. Ch. Dasharatha, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and of Sri. M.Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivers the following:

-:JUDGMENT:-

1. This is the suit of perpetual injunction filed by sole deceased plaintiff No.1 against the defendant to restrain her from interfering with his peaceful

Date: 21.06.2017 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.359/2007 Page No. 2

possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

2. The case of sole deceased plaintiff is that he acquired the suit schedule open house site admeasuring 354.66 Sq.yards in Sy.No.715 & 716 situated at Dundigal village from his ancestors. Accordingly, in order to construct a house in it, he applied for the permission in the concerned

Gram Panchayat of Dundigal, hence, after the due physical verification and his possession, the said authorities issued Ex.A-2/Permission proceedings by approving the proposed construction plan on 15.02.2007.

While the things thus being stood so, on 03.05.2007, when he is carrying out the construction work in the suit schedule house plot, defendant having no right or interest in it, tried to disturb the said his construction work, but the same could be resisted by him with the help of villagers.

Later, on 15-5-2007, defendant again tried to interfere with his possession in the suit schedule property by demolishing the wall constructed by him, hence, he approached the concerned Dundigal police, but as the said police advised him to approach the competent civil court, he was constrained to file the present suit.

3. On the other hand, defendant by filing her Written statement apart from denying the whole allegation of the plaintiff, would contend that she only is in the possession of suit schedule property, hence, the question of

Date: 21.06.2017 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.359/2007 Page No. 3

demolishing the wall constructed by the plaintiff does not arise and thereby, as the alleged cause of action is fictitious one, suit filed by the plaintiff shall be dismissed. She would also contend that she filed a suit vide O.S No. 339/2007 on the file of Hon'ble IInd Additional Senior Civil

Judge's Court, R.R. District for the relief of Perpetual Injunction against

the plaintiff herein for the property purchased by her from the plaintiff wherein the suit schedule property is the part and parcel of it and accordingly, an Interim Injunction is also granted vide I.A. No. 318/2007,

dated 14.02.2007 by restraining the plaintiff herein and his family

members from interfere with her possession over the suit schedule property and the same is in subsistence, hence, by suppressing the said material fact, as the plaintiff filed the present suit, he is not entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for. She would contend that originally, plaintiff along with his five brothers were the joint owners of land admeasuring Ac.6.33 guntas in Sy.No.716 and the land admeasuring

Ac.1-03 guntas in Sy.No.715 of Dundigal village. They orally divided the same in to the six equal shares among them. Out of the said six brothers, three brothers including the plaintiff No.1 herein i.e., D. Balraj, D. Raju and D. Shankaraiah i.e., plaintiff No.1 herein have already alienated their respective shares to her by joining all the brothers as the vendors under the separate registered Sale deeds bearing Documents No.7173/1994, 462/1995, 463/1995, 2603/2004 and 2604/2004 in the Office of Sub-

Date: 21.06.2017 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.359/2007 Page No. 4

Registrar, Medchal. Thus, plaintiff No.1 is left with no land in the suit

Survey numbers i.e. Sy.No.715 & 716, as such, as the plaintiff by suppressing the same, came to the court with unclean hands and filed the present suit to harass her, he is not entitled for the discretionary relief of injunction as prayed for, hence, dismiss the present suit.

4. In order to pass the suit relief as prayed for and consequently, to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff, the deceased plaintiff's wife and elder son i.e., plaintiff No.2 & 3 herein were got examined as PW-1 & 2 respectively and got marked the Ex.A-1 to A-9. On the other hand, defendant got examination of her husband as DW-1 and got marked the

Ex.B-1 to B-9, whereas she herself was got examined as DW-2 and also got marked the Ex.B-10 to B-12.

5. On the strength of above rival pleadings, following issues were framed to determine the suit.

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

Issue No.1 & 2:-

6. As stated supra, in order to establish the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property, the deceased plaintiff No.1's wife and elder son i.e., plaintiff No.2 & 3 herein were got examined as PW-1 & 2 respectively and got marked the Ex.A-1 to A-9. The perusal of Ex.A-4/

Date: 21.06.2017 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.359/2007 Page No. 5

Pahani for the year 1971-72 goes to show that one Mir Hassan Ali is shown as the pattadar for the land admeasuring Ac.1.03 guntas in

Sy.No.715, whereas Kummari Rajaiah is shown as the possessor of the same in it. It also goes to show that one Lalitha Bai, W/o.Shankaraiah is shown as the pattadar for the land admeasuring Ac.6.33 guntas in Sy.No.

716, whereas Kummari Rajaiah is shown as the possessor of the same.

Likewise, perusal of Ex.A-5/pahani for the year 1980-81 goes to show that it reflects the names of the above same pattadar and possessor for the land admeasuring Ac.1.03 guntas in Sy.No.715 in it, whereas reflects the names of one P.Surya Kumari, A.Saroja and Kallam Jhansi Laxmi

Nath as possessors for the land admeasuring Ac.6.33 guntas in

Sy.No.716 though the Lalitha Bai is shown as pattadar of the same. The perusal of Ex.A-6 & Ex.A-7/pahanies for the years 1985-86 and 1990-91 respectively goes to show that the names of above possessors in

Sy.No.716 are shown as the pattadars also in it. Thus, the name of the plaintiff No.1 is nowhere reflected as the exclusive owner i.e., Pattadar and possessor for any piece of land in Sy.No.715 & 716. On the other hand, the perusal of Ex.A-8 & 9/Pattadar Passbook & Title Deed respectively goes to show that plaintiff No.1 is shown as the owner of land admeasuring Ac.1-06 guntas in Sy.No.716, but the same nowhere discloses that under what proceedings, his name was recorded as the

Pattadar for the said extent of land in Sy.No.716 in it when he pleaded

Date: 21.06.2017 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.359/2007 Page No. 6

that he got the land in Sy.No.715 & 716 including the suit schedule property admeasuring 354-66 Sq.yards from his ancestors. More over, no other documents are produced by the plaintiffs to say that the said agricultural land is converted into the house plots to ascertain that they are in the possession of the suit schedule property. The perusal of Ex.A- 1/Miscellaneous receipt and Ex.A-2/permission proceedings along with the sketch plan of the proposed construction of the house goes to show that it were issued by the Sarpanch of Dundigal village to construct the proposed house by the plaintiff No.1 in the alleged suit schedule property.

Ex.A-3 is the photographs showing the raising of compound wall around the alleged suit schedule property by the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, we have to see that how far the Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3 establishes the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the permission proceedings to carry out the house in the alleged suit schedule property issued by the Sarpanch of the village has no relevance in the eye of Law as he is not competent to issue the same under the Law. Moreover, such mere issue of the permission proceedings to carry out the house ipso facto does not confer any title to the plaintiffs over the alleged suit schedule property in order to ascertain their possession over it as on the date of filing of this suit. In these circumstances, it is just and necessary to see that whether the oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 would establish their possession over the

Date: 21.06.2017 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.359/2007 Page No. 7

alleged suit schedule property as on the date of filing of this suit.

7. The perusal of oral evidence of PW-1 goes to show that she deposed that defendant filed a suit vide OS No.339/2007 on the file of Hon’ble IInd

Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy District and also

obtained ad-interim injunction vide IA No.318/2007 in it for the suit schedule property and thus, admitted that subject matter of the property involved in the present suit as well as in the above suit of OS

No.339/2007 is one and the same. She also deposed that her deceased husband i.e. plaintiff No.1 is having five brothers namely Balraju,

Yadaiah, Rajalingam, Sahadev and Raju. She further deposed that her husband i.e. plaintiff No.1 is having the land admeasuring Ac.1.22 guntas in Sy.No.715 and 716. The perusal of oral evidence of PW-2 also goes to show that he deposed that total extent of the land acquired by his father i.e. plaintiff No.1 and five brothers of his father is Ac.1.03 guntas in

Sy.No.715 and Ac.6.33 guntas in Sy.No.716. Out of the said land, his father got Ac.0.07 guntas in Sy.No.715 towards his share in the partition among his brothers. Though a suggestion was given to him that Ac.1.05 ½ guntas in Sy.No.716 was also come towards the share of his father i.e.

plaintiff No.1, he deposed that his father got Ac.1.06 guntas in

Sy.No.716 towards his such share. In these circumstances, it is just and necessary to see that whether the defendant could adduce any oral or

Date: 21.06.2017 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.359/2007 Page No. 8

documentary evidence to establish her pleadings that plaintiff No.1 got only Ac.0.07 guntas of land in Sy.No.715 and Ac.1.05 ½ guntas of land in Sy.No.716 towards his share in the partition and sold out the said his entire share to her under the registered sale deed and thereby, plaintiff is not in possession of any piece of land in Sy.Nos. 715 & 716 much less the suit schedule property admeasuring 354.66 guntas.

8. The perusal of oral evidence of DW-1 coupled with the Ex.B-1 goes to show that plaintiff No.1 along with his five brothers together have alienated the land admeasuring Ac.1-05 ½ guntas out of Ac.6-33 guntas in Sy.No.716 and the land admeasuring Ac.0-07 guntas out of Ac.1-03 guntas in Sy.No.715 which came towards his share in the oral partition among them to the defendant under the registered Sale Deed. Moreover, as the evidence of DW-1 & DW-2 and also the evidence of PW-1 as well as pleadings of the defendant goes to show that , plaintiff No.1 along with his five brothers jointly sold away four shares of their land out of six shares in Sy.No.715 & 716 acquired by them to the defendant, it must also be seen that whether the documents relied upon by the defendant establishes the same or not?

9. The perusal of Ex.B-3/Pahani for the year 1990-91 relied upon by the defendant corresponding to the Ex.A-7 relied upon by the plaintiffs goes to show that Kummari Rajaiah is the possessor of the land admeasuring

Date: 21.06.2017 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.359/2007 Page No. 9

Ac.1.03 guntas in Sy.No.715. As per the pleadings of the defendant as well as plaintiff, said Kummari Rajaiah is the father of the plaintiff No.1, hence, it can be said that plaintiff No.1 along with his five brothers acquired the said extent of the land in Sy.No.715 from their father. The perusal of Ex.B-4/Pahani for the year 1992-93 goes to show that plaintiff

No.1 along with his five brothers namely Dandu Balaraju, Yadaiah,

Rajalingam, Sahadeva and Raju acquired the land admeasuring Ac.6.33 guntas in Sy.No.716, hence, their names are shown as the pattadars and possessors for the said land in it. The perusal of Ex.B-5/pahani for the year 1994-95 goes to show that the name of defendant is shown as the possessor for the land admeasuring Ac.1.05 guntas against the name of

Dandu Balaraju, whereas shown as the possessor for the land admeasuring Ac.1.06 guntas and Ac.1.05 guntas against the names of

Plaintiff No.1 and Dandu Raju respectively in Sy.No.716 as per the proceedings in File No.A/7173/94 dated 24-10-1994. The perusal of

Ex.B-6/pahani for the year 1996-97 goes to show that out of the Ac.1.03 guntas in Sy.No.715, name of the defendant is shown as pattadar and possessor for the land admeasuring Ac.0.21 guntas as per the above proceedings. As per the pleadings of the defendant in the written statement, she purchased the three shares out of the six shares of the land acquired by the plaintiff No.1 and his five brothers in Sy.No.715 & 716 under the five seperate registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.

Date: 21.06.2017 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.359/2007 Page No. 10

7173/1994 dated 24-10-1994, 462/1995 dated 20-01-1995, 463/1995

dated 20-01-1995, 2603/2004 dated 06-02-2004 and 2604/04 dated

06-02-2004. Accordingly, Ex.B-1 is the said one of the registered sale deeds to purchase the share of the land admeasuring Ac.1.05 ½ in

Sy.No.716 and Ac.0.07 guntas in Sy.No.715 belonging to the plaintiff

No.1. Thus, these documents are in consonance with the pleadings and the evidence of the defendant, hence, the oral evidence of PW-1 that plaintiff No.1 alienated Ac.1.05 guntas only in sy.No.715 & 716 though he acquired the Ac.1.22 guntas of land cannot be believed. Moreover, as the PW-2 admitted that his father i.e. plaintiff No.1 got Ac.0.07 guntas in Sy.No.715 towards his share, I have no hesitation to hold that above documentary evidence vide Ex.B-2 to Ex.B-6 and Ex.B-7 & Ex.B-8 clinchingly establishes that plaintiff No.1 alienated his entire property came towards his share in the oral partition among his brothers to the defendant. Moreover, Ex.B-2/mutation proceedings issued by the then

Mandal Revenue Officer of Quthbullapur clearly shows that in pursuance of the purchase of the three shares of the plaintiff No.1 and his two brothers under the registered sale deeds, name of the defendant is mutated in the revenue records for the land admeasuring Ac.3.16 ½ guntas in Sy.No.716 and land admeasuring Ac.0.21 guntas in Sy.No.715.

10.As the defendant also deposed that she purchased four shares and

Date: 21.06.2017 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.359/2007 Page No. 11

the PW-1 admitted the same, it is just and necessary to see that whether the defendant filed any document to that effect or not? Accordingly, perusal of Ex.B-11/pahani for the year 2005-06 goes to show that her name is shown as the pattadar and possessor for the land admeasuring

Ac.1.06 guntas against the name of the Dandu Yadaiah, hence, it fortifies the above oral evidence. Moreover, the perusal of Ex.B-10 goes to show that defendant obtained ad-interim injunction for the land admeasuring

Ac.0.07 guntas in Sy.No.715 against the plaintiff No.1 and his sons i.e.

plaintiff No.3 herein and one Dandu Prabhakar vide IA No.318/2007 in

OS No.339/07 on the file of Hon’ble IInd Additional Senior Civil Judge’s

Court, Ranga Reddy District. In these circumstances, as the plaintiffs are not denying the subsistence of the said order, though the DW-2 deposed in her evidence that present suit is filed by her neighbouring land owners namely Shankaraiah i.e. plaintiff No.1 and his wife and further, though the DW-1 deposed that the construction was carried out in the land other than the land alienated by the plaintiff No.1 to the defendant, it would not helpful to the plaintiffs to believe their contention that alleged suit schedule property is situated in suit Sy.No.715 & 716 only. Moreover, even assuming that as per the oral evidence of PW-2 coupled with the

Ex.A-8 & Ex.A-9, plaintiff No.1 is the pattadar and possessor for the land admeasuring Ac.1.06 guntas of land in Sy.No.716 and accordingly, as the plaintiff No.1 sold out the Ac.1.05 ½ guntas of land only in

Date: 21.06.2017 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.359/2007 Page No. 12

Sy.No.716 under the Ex.B-1, it would not helpful to the plaintiffs to claim their possession over the suit schedule land admeasuring 354.66 guntas in Sy.No.715 & 716 as only half gunta land in Sy.No.716 would be available to them to claim it. Apart from that, as per the Ex.A-8 & Ex.A- 9, as the plaintiffs are also having the land admeasuring Ac.0.10 guntas in Sy.No.711, the deposing of DW-2 that present suit filed by her adjacent land owners i.e. plaintiff No.1 and his wife would not give rise to draw any inference that defendant admitted the possession of the plaintiffs over the alleged suit schedule property. In these circumstances, as the Ex.A-3/Photographs does not establish that the already raised construction falls in Sy.No.715 & 716 only and there is probability and possibility to infer that said photographs pertaining to the land in

Sy.No.711 of the plaintiffs, I am of the view that plaintiffs failed to prove that the construction raised by them falls in Sy.No.715 & 716 only. Thus, as the plaintiffs by suppressing the fact of filing of the suit by the defendant vide OS No.339/2007 on the file of Hon’ble IInd Additional

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, R.R.District against them for the land

admeasuring Ac.0.07 guntas in Sy.No.715, came to the court with unclean hands, I have no hesitation to hold that plaintiff failed to establish their possession over the alleged suit schedule property admeasuring 354.66 guntas in Sy.No.715 & 716, hence, they are not entitled for the discretionary relief of injunction as prayed for. Thus,

Date: 21.06.2017 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No.359/2007 Page No. 13

this issue is decided against the plaintiffs.

In the result: the suit is dismissed with costs

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21stday of June, 2017.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Plaintiff Defendants

PW.1: K.Dandu Durgamma /Plaintiff No.2 DW.1:T.Laxman PW.2:Dandu Ganesh /Plaintiff No.3 DW.2:T.Padmavathi /defendant

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A-1: Original sanction permission issued by Gram Panchayat, Dundigal dated 15-02-2007 Ex.A-2: Original receipt dated 15-02-2007 Ex.A-3: Photographs with negatives Ex.A-4: Pahani for the year 1971-72 Ex.A-5: Pahani for the year 1980-81 Ex.A-6: Pahani for the year 1985-86 Ex.A-7: Pahani for the year 1990-91 Ex.A-8: Original pattadar pass book Ex.A-9: Original title deed

For Defendants:

Ex.B-1 CC of sale deed vide doc. No.462/95 dated 20-01-1995 Ex.B-2 CC of mutation order in favour of defendant vide Proceedings No.A/1990/97 dated 27-05-1997 Ex.B-3 C.C. of Pahanies dt. 1990-91 Ex.B-4 C.C. of Pahanies dt. 1992-93 Ex.B-5 C.C. of Pahanies dt. 1994-95 Ex.B-6 C.C. of Pahanies dt. 1996-97 Ex.B-7 C.C. of Pahanies dt. 1998-99 Ex.B-8 C.C. of Pahanies dt. 1999-00 Ex.B-9 Copy of Police complaint dated 03-02-2007 Ex.B-10 CC of order in IA N.318/07 dt.14-02-2007 in OS No.339/07 on the file of the Hon'ble II Sr.Civil Judge, R.R.District Ex.B-11 C.C. of Pahanies dt. 2005-06 Ex.B-12 G.P.A dated 18-03-2009

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal

Date: 21.06.2017 Prl.JCJ, Medchal

O.S.No.152/2012 Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT:

MEDCHAL

PRESENT:- Sri. G.Venu., B.A., LL.M., PGDCL & IPR, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal

Original Suit No.152 of 2012

Tuesday this the 20 th day of June, 2017

Between:- 1.J.Karunakar Reddy, S/o.J.Vema Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.H.No.11-108, Prakash Rao Camp, Birkur Post & Mandal, Nizamabad District

2. Smt.Kairamkonda Hemlatha, W/o.K.Bhojeshwar Rao, Aged about 40 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No.2-85, devar Yamzal Village,

Shameerpet Mandal, R.R.District...Plaintiffs

and

1. Dussari Mahesh, S/o.D.Sathaiah, Aged about 28 years, Occ:Pvt. Employee, R/o.Devar Yamzal village, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R.District

2. Ganapuram Raju, S/o.Ramulu, Aged about 34 years, Occ:Business, R/o.3-64, Devar Yamzal, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R.District

3. D.Balakrishna @ Raju, S/o.D.Eashwaraiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Devar Yamzal Village, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R.District (Suit against defendant No.1 is dismissed on 04-01-2003) …Defendants

This suit is coming before me on this 19-06-2017 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. C.Sham Rao, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, and Sri A. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the defendants 2 & 3 and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivers the following:

-:JUDGMENT:-

1. This is the suit of perpetual injunction filed by plaintiffs against the defendants to restrain them from interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over their respective suit schedule 'A' & 'B' plots.

Dt.20-06-2017 PJCJ, Medchal

O.S.No.152/2012 Page No.2

2. The case of plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule-'A' property i.e., Plot No.5 & 10 admeasuring 137 Sq.yards and 140 Sq.yards respectively (total 277 Sq.yards) in

Sy.No.115 of Devarayamjal village of Shameerpet Mandal. plaintiff No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule-'B' property i.e., Plot

No.6 & 9 admeasuring 132 Sq.yards and 140 Sq.yards respectively (total 272 Sq.yards) in the same Sy.No.115 of Devarayamjal village of

Shameerpet Mandal. Originally, vendor of the plaintiffs is the sole absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas in Sy.No.115 by virtue of an Award dated 11-07-2001 passed in the

Lok-Adalat in a partition suit bearing O.S. No.862/2000 on the file of

Hon'ble Ist Additional Senior Civil Judge's court, Ranga Reddy District in

view of compromise among herself and her brothers. Later, she obtained the Pattadar passbook bearing No.958 and Title deed bearing No.498551 in pursuance of the Proceedings issued by Tahasildar of Shameerpet vide

File No.B/420/2007 dated 05-06-2007. While so, she executed Ex.A- 3/Agreement of Sale-cum-General power of Attorney alienating the said land in favour of one K.Bojeshwar Rao and another on 31-08-2001, hence, the above said Agreement of Sale-cum-G.P.A holders converted the same into the residential house plots and sold out the same including the suit schedule-'A' & 'B' plots to various prospective purchasers including the plaintiffs respectively. Thus, ever since the purchase of the same, plaintiffs have been in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any interference from anyone. While the things thus being stood so, on 13-08-2012, defendants having no right or interest over the suit schedule plots, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and

Dt.20-06-2017 PJCJ, Medchal

O.S.No.152/2012 Page No.3

enjoyment of the plaintiffs over it by removing the boundary stones erected around it for the identification of the same, with a mala-fide intention to change the nature of the said physical features of it and also to grab the same from them, but they could resist the same with the help of their well wishers. Again, on 20-08-2012, defendants did the similar attempt and thereby, tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from it, but the said attempt also could be averted by the plaintiffs with the help of their well wishers and locality people. Though the plaintiffs approached the local police to take action against the defendants, as the said police refused to take any action against the defendants in view of said dispute in civil nature, having the apprehension that defendants may dispossess them from the suit schedule properties, they were constrained to file the present suit.

3. As the plaintiffs failed to deposit the process fee to issue the summons against the defendant No.1 though directed by this court, and moreover, on 04-01-2013, as they reported that they have no grievance against the

Defendant No.1, suit against him was dismissed. On the other hand, having received the summonses, defendant No. 2 & 3 by filing their

Written statement admitted certain pleadings of the plaintiffs, but would contend that they never tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule plots, hence, as no cause of action arose against them for the plaintiffs, the suit shall be dismissed against them. They would also contend that originally one

Danagari Mallaiah was the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.6-18 guntas in Sy.No. 114, 115, 116 and 134/B of

Dt.20-06-2017 PJCJ, Medchal

O.S.No.152/2012 Page No.4

Devarayamjal village. During his lifetime, he along with his sons namely

Eeshwaraiah, Swamy, Ramchander and one Sanjeeva, S/o. Eeshwaraiah sold out the land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gunta in Sy.No. 115 out of the above total land to one Mummareddy Lalitha, W/o. Ranga Rao under the registered Sale deed bearing document No.865/1989 and thus, retained the remaining land of Ac.5-18 guntas with them. Later, on 31-03-1991, he died leaving behind him his above three sons and one daughter namely

D. Lalithamba as his legal heirs and successors to the above remained land of Ac.5-18 guntas. Later, his one of the sons i.e., Swamy and daughter i.e. D.Lalithamba filed a suit for partition of the above said land admeasuring Ac.5-18 guntas before the Hon'ble Ist Addl. Sr. Civil Judge's

Court Ranga Reddy District vide O.S.No. 862/2000 and the same was compromised among them and their brothers with the intervention of the community elders and well wishers, hence, the Lok-Adalath Bench passed an Award dated 07-07-2001. Thus, in pursuance of the said Award, parties to it were in the respective shares of the above property. After the sold out of Ac.1-00 gunta of land in Sy.No. 115 to the Mummareddy Lalitha, as the remaining land in Sy.No.115 fell towards the exclusive share of the D.

Lalithamma, she executed the Ex.A.3/Agreement of Sale-cum-General

Power of Attorney for the said her share of land in favour of one

Kairamkonda Bojeshwar Rao and another. Thus, no land is remained with the legal heirs of Danagari Mallaiah in Sy.No. 115. They would also contend that defendant No.2 purchased a land admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas in Sy.No. 114 from Danagari Eeshwaraiah which came towards his share under the above Award passed in the above partition suit. Thus, except the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Sy.No.114, though the

Dt.20-06-2017 PJCJ, Medchal

O.S.No.152/2012 Page No.5

said Eeshwaraiah has not got any piece of land in any other survey numbers much less in Sy.No. 115, taking the advantage of reflecting of his name for a portion of the land in Sy.No.115 in the revenue records and more over, by suppressing the fact of passing of Award in the above partition suit, he in collusion with the defendant No.1 brought into the existence of one registered Sale deed bearing document No.2325/2011 in the name of the defendant No.1 and thus, tried to grab the land of defendant No.1 in Sy.No. 114 as well as the suit schedule property of the plaintiffs, hence, as they never interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property, the present suit filed by the plaintiffs shall be dismissed against them.

4. To establish the suit claim, plaintiff No.2 alone herself was got examined as PW-1 and got marked the Ex.A-1 to A-9. On the other hand, defendant

No.2 alone was got examined as DW-1. No documents are being marked on behalf of the defendants.

5. Now, the point for determination is:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in the lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule plots as on the date of filing of the suit ?

2. Whether the defendants interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property on 13-08-2012 and 20-08-2012?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

4. To what relief ?

Issue No.1:-

6. As stated supra, in order to pass the suit relief, Plaintiff No.2 herself was got examined as PW-1 and got marked the Ex.A-1 to A-9. The perusal of her evidence goes to show that her husband namely Bojeshwar Rao

Dt.20-06-2017 PJCJ, Medchal

O.S.No.152/2012 Page No.6

purchased the land in Sy.No.115 under the Ex.A-3 and thereafter, he converted the said land into the house plots. She also deposed that the house plots belonging to the defendant No.2 in Sy.No. 114 is situated adjacent to the land in Sy.No. 115. She further deposed that the land purchased by above her husband in Sy.No.115 was converted into the house plots without being obtained any approved Layout from the competent authorities. Now, the perusal of Ex.A-6 to Ex.A-9/Pahanies for the years 2010 & 2012 goes to show that out of Ac.0-38 guntas in Sy.No.

115/A, names of Danagari Eeshwaraiah and Lalitha being the children of

Mallaiah and one Danagari Sanjeeva being the son of Eeshwaraiah are shown as Pattadar and Possessors for the land admeasuring Ac.0-11 guntas, Ac.0-08 guntas and Ac.0-19 guntas respectively. It also goes to show that out of Ac.0-38 guntas in Sy.No.115/C, names of Danagari

Ramchander and Lalitha being the children of Mallaiah are shown as the

Pattadars and Possessors for the land admeasuring Ac.0-06 guntas and

Ac.0-32 guntas respectively. In these circumstances, the Award passed in the Lok-Adlat for the land admeasuring Ac.5-18 guntas in Sy.No. 114, 115, 116 & 134/B plays vital role to ascertain what extent of property in the above Survey numbers came towards the share of each party to the suit vide OS.No.862/2000 and that said each share falls in which exclusive survey number. Admittedly, authenticated copy of said Award is not produced by the plaintiff and accordingly, they could not get mark of the same to consider it in the evidence, else it will have the bearing effect to adjudicate the present issue. In these circumstances, as the defendants

No.2 & 3 admitted the passing of above Lok-Adalat Award in their pleadings, it must be seen that how far the oral evidence of DW-1 would

Dt.20-06-2017 PJCJ, Medchal

O.S.No.152/2012 Page No.7

helpful to the plaintiffs to decide this issue in their favour.

7. As per the arguments of the plaintiffs, in pursuance of the Award passed in the Lok-Adalat, out of the Ac.5-18 guntas of land in Sy.No. 114, 115, 116 & 134 of Devarayamjal village, land admeasuring Ac.1-20 guntas came towards the share of D.Lalithamba, whereas land admeasuring

Ac.0-20 guntas came towards the share of Eeshwaraiah and land admeasuring Ac.0-24 guntas came towards the share of Sanjeeva, S/o.

Eeshwaraiah. As stated supra, as per the pleadings of the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 & 3, after the sold out of Ac.1-00 guntas of land in

Sy.No.115, remaining land in the said Sy.No.115 came towards the share of D. Lalithamba as per the Award passed in the Lok-Adalat. Later, she alienated the land in Sy.No.115 i.e., land came towards her share in the partition to the husband of the plaintiff No.2 and another under the Ex.A- 3/Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney. As stated supra, as per the arguments of the plaintiffs, as the D. Lalithamba got the Ac.1-20 guntas of land in Sy.No.114, 115, 116 & 134, it shall be inferred that she got the remaining land of Ac.0-20 guntas in other Survey number among the above Survey numbers. On the other hand, as the DW-1 deposed that land admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas in the above Sy.No. 114, 115, 116 & 134 came towards the share of D. Eeshwaraiah under the Award passed in the Lok-Adalat in the partition suit vide OS.No.862/2000 and the said extent of land exclusively falls in the Sy.No.114 and by purchasing the same from him, as he is in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and thus, D. Eeshwaraiah is not having any piece of land in

Sy.No.115, his contention that taking the advantage of reflection of his

Dt.20-06-2017 PJCJ, Medchal

O.S.No.152/2012 Page No.8

name in the revenue records i.e., pananies for Sy.No.115, said

Eeshwaraiah is trying to interfere with his possession over the said purchased land of Ac.0-20 guntas in Sy.No.114 as well as the suit schedule plots of the plaintiffs can not be ruled out. As the perusal of

Ex.A-6 to A-9/Pahanies also reflects the name of the D. Eeshwaraiah for the land admeasuring Ac.0-11 guntas in Sy.No.115/A out of the Ac.0-38 guntas, whereas the name of the D. Lalithamba for the land admeasuring

Ac.0-08 guntas in Sy.No.115/A and land admeasuring Ac.0-32 guntas in

Sy.No.115/C (Total Ac.0-40 guntas = 1 acre in Sy.No.115), the above contention of the plaintiffs and the defendants No.2 & 3 cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, as the grievance of the defendant No.2 is that said D. Eeshwaraiah in collusion with the Defendant No.1 brought into the existence of Sale Deed bearing document No.2325/2011 in the name of the defendant No.1 though the said Eeashwaraiah is not having any piece of land in Sy.No.115 after the sold out of his entire share of land admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas in pursuance of the Award passed in the

Lok-Adalat vide OS.No.862/2000 in his favour and further, the said share falls exclusively in the Sy.No.114 only, he has the apprehension that his property would be indulged in a litigation and accordingly present suit is being filed against him, it must be seen that whether the oral evidence of

PW-1 and DW-1 is sufficient to come to a conclusion that plaintiffs are in the possession of suit schedule plots or not.

8. The perusal of oral evidence of PW-1 and DW-1 goes to show that PW-1 admitted in her evidence that land admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas in

Sy.No.114 of defendant No.2 is situated adjacent to the suit Sy.No.115.

Dt.20-06-2017 PJCJ, Medchal

O.S.No.152/2012 Page No.9

But, as the plaintiffs reported that they have no grievance against the

Defendant No.1 and thereby, requested this court to dismiss the suit against the said Defendant No.1, and moreover, as DW-1 admitted in his evidence that plaintiffs are in the possession of their respective suit schedule plots, I have no hesitation to hold that plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of injunction for the suit schedule open plots against the defendant No.2 & 3. Here, it is pertinent to mention that as the vendor of the plaintiffs through her Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of

Attorney holders alienated the land admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas in

Sy.No.115 by converting the same into the house plots including the suit schedule to the various prospective purchasers including the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs failed to produce the sanctioned Lay out of the said land to convert the same into the plots, it gives rise to draw an inference that without being obtained the said approved Layout, vendors of the plaintiffs alienated the suit schedule plots to them, hence, plaintiffs are intending to obtain the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants for it.

Thus, as the plaintiffs are claiming their possession over the suit schedule open plots only by giving the schedule to the plaint, I am of the view that through the oral evidence of Pw.1 coupled with the Ex.A-1 to A-9, plaintiffs could establish their possession over it as on the date of the filing of the suit against the defendants No.2 & 3. Thus, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

Issue No.2 & 3:

7. The evidence of PW.1 is that without having any right or interest over the above suit schedule open plots, defendants No.2 & 3 tried to interfere

Dt.20-06-2017 PJCJ, Medchal

O.S.No.152/2012 Page No.10

with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over it on 13-08-2012 and 20-8-2012. As the pleadings of the defendants discloses that D.

Eeshwaraiah in collusion with the defendant No.1 brought into the existence of a Sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1 for the alienation of land in Sy.No.115, an inference can be drawn that defendant No.2 being purchased the entire land of said Eeshwaraiah which came towards his share in the partition has the apprehension that his purchased land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas in Sy.No.114 from the said Eeshwaraiah would be indulged in a litigation, hence, an inference can be drawn that alleged cause of action arose to the plaintiff against the defendants No.2 & 3 and the same constrained them to file the present suit against them.

Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants No.2 & 3. Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants No.2 & 3 for the suit schedule open plots.

In the result: the suit is decreed with costs by restraining the defendants

No.2 & 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule-'A' & 'B' open plots, whereas the suit against the defendant No.1 is dismissed as the plaintiffs themselves have not prosecuted the suit against him.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20 th day of June, 2017.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Plaintiff

PW.1: Smt.Kairamkonda Hemalatha / Plaintiff No.2

Dt.20-06-2017 PJCJ, Medchal

O.S.No.152/2012 Page No.11

Defendant

DW.1: Ganapuram Raju/Defendant No.2

Exhibits marked

Ex. A - 1 - C.C. of Sale Deed bearing doc. No. 1284/2012

Ex. A - 2 – C.C. of Sale Deed bearing doc. No. 1283/2012

EX. A - 3 – C.C. of AGPA bearing doc. No. 4486/2001

Ex. A - 4 – Original encumbrance certificate dated 12-07-2012

Ex. A - 5 – Original encumbrance certificate dated 12-07-2012

Ex. A - 6 – C.C. of pahani for 2012

Ex. A - 7 – C.C. of pahani for 2012

Ex. A - 8 – C.C. of pahani for 2010

Ex. A - 9 – C.C. of pahani for 2010

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal

Dt.20-06-2017 PJCJ, Medchal

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DIST.,

PRESENT: SRI SYED QAYAM HUSSAIN, B.SC., LL.B.,

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT MEDCHAL.

DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST, 2015

C.C. No.291 of 2010

Between:

The state through

P.S. Medchal ……. Complaint

R. Karnakar Reddy ……. Accused

a) Serial Number of the case : CC. No. 291 of 2010

b) Date of commission of offence : 15-6-2010

c) Name of the complainant (if any) : State through P.S. Medchal

d) Name of the accused person : R. Karnakar Reddy S/o. Nagi Reddy

Age: 35 years, Occ: Driver,

R/o. Athvelly village, Medchal Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District.

e) Offence complained of : U/s. 304-A, 337 of IPC

f) Plea of the accused : Not guilty

g) Finding of the court : Acquittal

h) Date of Judgment : 31-08-2015

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State, and of Sri.

C. Hanmanth Reddy, learned counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Medchal, Cyberabad has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.161/2010, for the offence under Sec. U/s. 304-

A and 337 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:-

It is alleged that on 15-06-2010 at 2230 hours LW 13 received complaint from V. Sudershan Reddy (LW1) stating that his sister’s son P. Kishore Reddy is working as a driver on DCM MH 01 L 1859 of R. Goverdhan. On 15-6-2010 while he was going to Chegunta along with his cleaner by taking chemical load in the said DCM from Balanagar near Medchal fish centre on NH 7, at about 1830 hours all of a sudden his DCM’s front left wheel got burst. He has taken all precautions and while removing the tyre at about 1900 from behind i.e. from Hyderabad one Medchal depot RTC Bus AP 10 Z 5966 came in rash and negligent speed and dashed to said DCM from its behind and the wheel passed over Kishore Reddy due to which he received severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot. The bus driver and passenger also received injuries.

As per the contents of the above complaint LW 13 registered a case in

Crime no.161/2010 u/secs.304-A and 337 of IPC and entrusted to LW 14 for investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW 14 examined and recorded his statement of LW 1 and visited scene of offence, inspected it and caused enquiries, secured two panchas i.e. 9 and 10 in presence of them examined

LWs 2 to 6 recorded their statements and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted the sketch, shifted the dead body to Governement

Civil Hospital, Medchal in presence of said two panchas and examined LWs 7 and 8 and also recorded their statements. Thereafter conducted the inquest over dead body and the dead body has been subjected to PME.

LW 14 collected PME report in which, LW 11 who conducted PME opined that the cause of death was due to “Head Injury” and collected MC of 3 the injured in which LW 11 who treated the injured opined that the nature of injury is “Simple”.

LW 14 collected MVI report in which LW 12 who inspected the crime vehicle opined that “the accident is not occurred due to any mechanical defects of vehicle”.

Thus the acts of the accused constitute of offence punishable u/sec.304-A and 337 of IPC.

On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. the accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. with the allegations leveled against the accused, read over to him and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 V. Sudershan

Reddy, who is the complainant, PW 2 S. Sainath, who is the eyewitness, PW3

R. Goverdhan, who is the owner of the crime vehicle; PW 4 is K. Harish

Reddy, who is the Cousin of decease, PW 5 S. Anjaiah, who is the panch witness for scene of offence, PW6 V. Yadagiri Reddy who is the Investigation

Officer and got exhibits marked from P1 to P 10. Ex: P1 is report of PW1, Ex:

P2 is Crime Details form, Ex: P3 is Signatures on crime details form and inquest panchanama, Ex: P4 is Signatures on crime details form and inquest panchanama, Ex: P5 is endorsement of LW 13 on the report, Ex: P6 is FIR,

Ex: P7 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex: P8 is Inquest panchanama, Ex:

P9 is PME report, Ex: P10 is MVI Report, Ex: P11 is Medical certificate of

LW4.

The examination of accused u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with, as there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of PW1.

The point for determination is 4 “whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offences U/s. 304-A & 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

Point: The accused stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A & 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, for causing death of one P. Kishore Reddy and ‘Simple’ injuries to LW.4 namely

Md. Kaleem.

To prove the offences under Sections 304-A & 337 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution is required to establish the following essential ingredients :--

(a)Death of the deceased and simple injuries to the person in question in the accident;

(b)That the accused caused such accident due to which the deceased died and the injured sustained simple injuries, and ;

(c)That such act of the accused was rash or negligent, although it did not amount to culpable homicide;

Let us see whether the prosecution could prove the above essential ingredients of Sections 304A and 337 IPC, with which the accused stood charged, beyond all reasonable doubt.

To connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Exs. P1 to P11. PW-1 is the complainant and maternal uncle of the deceased, PW 2 is the eye witness, PW.3 is the owner of the crime vehicle, PW.4 is cousin of the deceased, PW-5 is panch for

Scene and Inquest, and PW-6 D. Anjaiah who is the Investigating officer.

Ex.P1 is the Report of PW-1, Ex.P2 to P4 are signatures on Crime Details 5

Form and Inquest, Ex.P5 is Endorsement of LW.13 on the Report, Ex.P6 is

First Information Report, Ex.P7 is Scene of offence panchanama/crime details form, Ex.P8 is Inquest Panchanama, Ex.P9 is Post Mortem

Examination Report, Ex.P10 is Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, and Ex.P11 is the Medical certificate of the injured Lw4.

P.Ws.1 to 4 consistently deposed that when the deceased was changing the tyres of DCM by putting indicating lights, one RTC bus proceeding towards Medchal dashed to the deceased due to whom he sustained head injury and succumbed to injuries on the spot. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and PW.6, the Investigating Officer, coupled with

Exs.P1 to P11 established that the deceased P. Kishore Reddy died and

LW.4 sustained simple injuries in the accident. Thus, the prosecution proved the first limb of the charges, beyond all reasonable doubt.

Now it has to be seen whether the accused caused the accident and if so, whether he drove the crime vehicle rashly or negligently resulting in the accident and death of the deceased and simple injuries to LW.4.

PW-1 who is the complainant deposed that in the month of June 201- 0, when he was present at his house, he received information that his son in law Kishore Reddy met with an accident on NH No.7 in from of Classic Dhaba and that one RTC bus dashed to him and he immediately rushed to the

Government Hospital, Medchal and found the dead body and he lodged

Ex.P1 report and that the crime vehicle No. is AP 10Z 5966. In the cross examination, he admitted that the scene of offence is an Express High Way and it is frequented with heavy vehicles.

PW-2 who is cited as eye witness and who is the cleaner, deposed that on15-6-2010 when himself and the deceased wire proceeding in DCM van from Balanagar to Chegunta, one of the tyres got burst after passing

Medchal Checkpost and when the deceased was changing the tyres after 6 putting indicating lights, one RTC bus proceeding towards Medchal dashed to the deceased due to which he sustained head injury and other bodily injuries and succumbed to injuries instantaneously. He further deposed that he cannot say the registration number of the RTC bus and at the time of the accident he was fitting the bolts of the wheel. In the cross examination, he admitted that he do not know the contents of his S.161 Cr.P.C. statement, that the DCM was stationed diagonally on the road, it was dark night at the time of accident, that there was heavy traffic at that time, that it was raining and that if any person is present near the DCM and due to the emission of the lights of the vehicle coming from opposite direction, nothing will be visible.

PW.3 who is the owner of the DCM van deposed that the deceased and

P.W.2 worked under him as Driver and Cleaner and on 15-6-2010 he received information from PW.2 about the accident to the deceased and that his vehicle number is MH 01 8159 and he do not know the registration number of the RTC bus. In the cross examination it is elicited through him on admission that the scene of offence is situated on National High Way and it was raining heavily at the time of accident.

PW.4 who is the cousin of the deceased is not the eye witness and he deposed about the accident on getting information from PW.1. He admitted that it was raining heavily at the time of accident.

PW.5 who is panch for scene and inquest deposed that the police not conducted any panchanama in his presence and obtained his signatures on some papers and he does not know the contents of those papers. He identified his signatures on the scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama and the same are marked as Exs.P2 to P4. The learned APP declared him hostile and cross examined him at length with the permission of the court but nothing material could be elicited to disbelieve his testimony.

7

PW-6 is the Investigating officer whose evidence in chief is procedural in nature. In the cross examination, he admitted that he has not examined the Depot Manager or anybody concerned with the RTC, that the place of accident is National Highway and there is heavy flow of traffic. He deposed his ignorance whether there heavy rain on the day of alleged accident.

A close scrutiny and appreciation of the above evidence disclose that PWs.1, 3 and 4 are not the eye witnesses to the accident and hence their evidence is not useful to the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime. PWs.1 and 4 went to the sport on coming to know about the accident and their evidence is silent about the driver or about the identity particulars of the driver of the crime vehicle.

PW.2 is the sole eye witness who is the cleaner of the DCM van and who was present at the time accident. Though he deposed about the accident, but his evidence is totally silent about the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., RTC bus and that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. He categorically deposed that at the time of accident he was fitting the bolts of the wheel which goes to show that he has not seen the accident and the driver of the crime vehicle. Thus the evidence of PW.2, the sole eye witness, is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the complicity of the accused in the crime. PW.5, who is panch for scene and inquest, has not supported the case of the prosecution. He categorically deposed that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and his signatures are obtained on some papers and he does not know the contents of the said papers. Now we are left with the evidence of Pw.6, who is the Investigating Officer. However, PW.6 has not conducted the investigation as required by him. He has not examined the Depot Manager or anybody concerned with the RTC, to ascertain whether the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. He has not seized the trip sheet or log sheet and produced before the court.

8

Even if it is believed without admitting that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident, there is nothing before the court to prove that the accident occurred due to the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. Admittedly, the place of accident is National

High Way and busy road and it was heavily raining and dark night at the time of accident. There is nothing to prove that the deceased taken all types of precautions while changing the tyres. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

It is cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and if the prosecution failed to prove the same, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. As discussed above, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.

For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused with cogent and convincing evidence and beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and due to his rashness or negligence the accident occurred and the deceased died and LW.4 sustained simple injuries.

Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the 2nd and 3rd limbs of essential ingredients of Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC and consequently I hold the accused not guilty of the offence with which he stood charged.

In the result, the accused is acquitted under Section 255(1)

Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled after six months of the date of judgment.

Dictated to the Typist, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on the 31st day of August, 2015.

9

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED

PW 1V. Sudershan ReddyNIL PW 2 S. Sainath PW 3 R. Goverdhan PW 4 K. Harish Reddy PW 5 S. Anjaiah PW 6 D. Anjaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED: NIL

Ex: P1 is report of PW1, Ex: P2 is Crime Details form, Ex: P3 is Signatures on crime details form and inquest panchanama, Ex: P4 is Signatures on crime details form and inquest panchanama, Ex: P5 is endorsement of LW 13 on the report, Ex: P6 is FIR, Ex: P7 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex: P8 is Inquest panchanama, Ex: P9 is PME report, Ex: P10 is MVI Report, Ex: P11 is Medical certificate of LW4.

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT MEDHCAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DIST.,

PRESENT: SRI SYED QAYAM HUSSAIN, B.SC., LL.B.,

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT MEDCHAL.

DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF AUGUST, 2015

C.C. No. 43 of 2014

Between:

The state through P.S. Prohibition Excise, Medchal

.... Complainant

A N D

B. Parvathi ....Accused

a) Serial Number of the case: CC. No. 43 of 2014

b) Date of commission of offence: 16-08-2013

c) Name of the complainant (if any) : State through P.S. Prohibition and Excise, Medchal

d) Name of the accused person : Banoth Parvathi W/o. Bolu, Age: 36 years, R/o. Plot No.9/P, NGO’s Colony, Medchal.

e) Offence complained of: U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) AP Prohibition Act

f) Plea of the accused : Not guilty

g) Finding of the court: Acquittal

h) Date of Judgment: 21-08-2015

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State, and of Sri.

Boyini Venu Raj Yadav, learned counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and Excise Medchal Police station, Cyberabad has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.

2

No.225/2013-14, for the offence under Sec. U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) AP Prohibition Act.

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:-

It is alleged that on 16-08-2013 at about 6.40 P.M. on reliable information about illegal sales of Illicit Distilled Liquor at a house in Plot No.9/P, NGO’s Colony, LW3 along with staff went to the above place and secured two panch witnesses LW1 and 2 called inmates of the house and the accused came out. On enquiry the accused revealed her particulars as Banoth Parvathi. LW3 served recorded search memo and served to her. On search of the house, found one plastic can at a corner and on verification of can found about 5 litres illicit distilled liquor for sale purpose. Upon which LW 3 drawn two samples each about 350 ml., seized the samples and remaining contraband under the cover of panchanama in the presence of LW1 and 2 and brought to the station and registered a case in Cr.

No.225/2013-14 U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 and produced the accused before the court for judicial remand.

The Government chemical examiner after analyzing the samples issued CE

Report No.5696/2013/2, dated 27-9-2013 and opined that the sample is illicit distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

3. The case was taken on file under section U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP

Prohibition Act, 1995.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to her as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. for allegations levelled against her and explained to her in vernacular language. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of Trial, the prosecution examined LW1 J. Raja Lingam as

PW1, LW 2 B. Bipin Kumar Yadav as PW2 and LW3 T. Deepika as PW3 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P4. Ex: P1 and P2 are signatures of PW1 on panchanama and search memo, Ex: P3 and P4 are signatures of PW2 on panchanama and 3 search memo.

7. Prosecution evidence was closed and the accused was examined u/sec.313

Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against her, the accused denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The point that arises for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond

all reasonable doubt?”

Point:-- The accused stood charged for the offence punishable U/s 7(A) R/W 8

(e) of AP. Prohibition Act for selling Illicit Distilled Liquor in spite of imposition of

prohibition on possession and sale of the same

In order to connect the accused with the crime the prosecution examined PW’s 1

to 3 and got marked Exs: P1 to P8. PWs.1 and 2 are panch for confession and recovery

and PW 3 is the Investigating Officer..

10.The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who are panch for confession and recovery is to the effect that about 2 years back the Excise Police, Medchal obtained their signatures on

white papers and no panchanama was conducted and nothing was seized from the

accused in their presence. The learned APP declared them hostile and cross examined

them but nothing material could be elicited to disbelieve their testimony.

11.PW3 who is cited as Investigating Officer and who filed charge sheet deposed that on 16-08-2013 at 6-40 pm on credible information about illegal sale of distilled liquor (IDL) at a House in Plot No.9/T at NGO's colony, Medchal, she along with staff, secured two panchas PWs.1 and 2 and proceeded to the said place where in one person

was found in possession of IDL and selling to the needy persons. On enquiry she

revealed her name as Parvathi (accused) and she served search memo and on search she found 5 litres IDL in a plastic Can, that she drawn two samples each 350ML and seized the samples and remaining contraband under cover of panchanama, in the presence of

PW.1 and PW.2, brought the accused to police station along with seized property and 4 registered a case in crime No 225/13-14 U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and produced the accused before the court for judicial custody and deposited samples before the court with request to send one of the samples for chemical analysis and during the course of investigation she collected the report from Assistant Director, FSL and after completion of the investigation she filed charge sheet against the accused. In the cross examination, she admitted that she has not recorded the statement of the staff, that she

has not enquired about the ownership of the place of offence.

12.A close scrutiny and appreciation of the above evidence discloses that PWs 1 and 2 who are panch for confession and recovery and who are the material witnesses, have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. They categorically deposed

that no panchanama was conducted and nothing was seized from anybody in their

presence. Now we are left with the evidence PW 3 who is investigating officer and naturally interested in the success of her investigation. No doubt, the evidence of investigating officers cannot be brushed aside just because they are police officials.

However, their evidence is to be looked into cautiously before placing reliance to base conviction of the accused. It is seen from the evidence of PW 3 that she admitted that she has not enquired about the ownership of the house of the accused and further Pw.3 has not enquired about the source of procuring the seized contraband. Further, Pw.3 has not prepared the list of property seized from the accused and served a copy on the

accused as provided U/s 100(4) Cr.P.C.

13.In view of hostility of PWs.1 and 2, the uncorroborated testimony of Pw.3, and the legal lacuna discussed above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently I find the accused not guilty

of the offence with which he stood charged.

14. In the result, the accused is acquitted U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s 7(A) r/w 8(e) A.P. Prohibition Act. The bail bond of the accused shall stands cancelled after

six months of the date of judgment.

5

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court, on this the 21 st day of August, 2015 . 21 st

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW 1 J. RajalingamNIL PW 2 y. Bipin Yadav

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex: P1 and P2 are signatures of PW1 on panchanama and search memo,

Ex: P3 and P4 are signatures of PW2 on panchanama and search memo.

FOR ACCUSED

NIL

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DIST.,

PRESENT: SRI SYED QAYAM HUSSAIN, B.SC., LL.B.,

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT MEDCHAL.

DATED THIS THE 14 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2015

C.C. No. 231 of 2012

Between: The state through P.S. Medchal ……. Complainant

A N D

Manikela Raju ….. Accused

a) Serial Number of the case : CC. No. 231 of 2012

b) Date of commission of offence : 14-05-2012

c) Name of the complainant (if any): State through P.S.Medchal

d) Name of the accused person : Manikela Raju S/o. Nageshwar Rao

Age: 30 years, R/o.Backside of Ayyappa Swamy Temple, Housing board colony, Medchal village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

e) Offence complained of : U/s. 497 of IPC

f) Plea of the accused : Not guilty

g) Finding of the court :Acquittal

h) Date of Judgment :14-08-2015

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State, and of Sri. C.

Krishna, learned counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Prohibition and Excise Medchal Police

Station, Cyberabad has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.

No.162/2012, for the offence under Sec. U/s. 497 of Indian Penal Code.

2

2. The brief averments of the Charge sheet are as follows:-

On 11-05-2012 at 1300 hours the complainant lodged a petition in which he stated that he got married at Nacharam Gutta, Medak district with one Rani. They blessed with two male children and he is working as Security Guard in SV

Residency, Medchal since 3 months. On 11-5-2012 at 0832 hours he went to his duty as usual and when he returned to home at 1040 hours on the same day in order to Iron to his dress, he found that his wife Rani and his Co-brother Raju was in the house without clothes. Immediately they weared clothes, came out and invade on him.

As the contents of petition attracts Sec.497 of Indian Penal Code which is

Non-Cognizable one, LW 4 obtained the permission from Hon’ble XV MM Court,

Medchal and registered a case in Cr. No.162/2012 under Section 497 of Indian

Penal Code and entrusted to LW 5.

During the course of investigation, LW 5 examined and recorded the statement of LWs 1 to 3 and caused enquiries.

On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. with allegations leveled against the accused, and a charge under section 497 of IPC is framed under section 240 Cr.P.C. read over to him and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 K. Srinivas who is the complainant, PW 2 A. Kotamma who is the witness, PW 3 S. Anji Reddy who is the witness and got marked exhibits P1 and P2. Ex: P1 is the complaint and Ex:

P2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement.

The examination of accused u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with, as there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of PW1 3

Hence perused the record.

The point that arises for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?”

Point:- The accused stood charged for the offence under Section 497 IPC for having adultery with the wife of PW.1.

In order to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution examined

Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. PW.1 is the complainant and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the circumstantial witnesses. In view of the hostile evidence of Pws.1 to 3, the evidence of other witnesses is closed.

PW.1, who is the complainant, deposed that about 3 years back a petty quarrel took place between and his wife Rani and the accused and he informed to the police and the police took his signature on a blank paper and that he has not lodged any written complaint against the accused and the police never examined and recorded his statement. In the cross examination, he categorically denied to have filed any written complaint and stated to the police as in Ex.P2.

Pws.2 and 3 who are stated to be the circumstancial witnesses to the alleged incident also turned against the case of the prosecution and deposed that they do not know anything about this case and the police not examined and recorded their statements. The learned APP declared Pws.1 to 3 as hostile and cross examined them, but nothing could brought on record during the course of cross examination to disbelieve their testimonies on solemn oath. Since the material witness i.e. the complainant turned against the case of prosecution the evidence of other listed witnesses was given up by the learned APP and the prosecution evidence was closed.

Since there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against accused, his examination U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

Heard both sides.

4

Apparently and evidently, though the case of the prosecution at the stage of complaint is that accused committed an offence punishable U/s. 497 of IPC but the evidence of Pws.1 is quite contra to the version in the complaint. PW 1 categorically deposed that a petty quarrel took place between himself and his wife and the accused and he informed to police and the police took his signature on blank paper. When the evidence of PW-1 is vital to the case of prosecution and when the same witness had not spoken anything against the accused, it appears that there are no incriminating material appearing against the accused. The cardinal principle of criminal Jurisprudence is that, if the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. As noticed, when no evidence is forthcoming from the case of prosecution, accused is entitled for acquittal. It appears the matter has been settled outside the court.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge under Sec. 497 of IPC, and accordingly he is acquitted under Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for charge under Sec. 497 of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months of the date of the judgment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of August, 2015.

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: Nil

PW-1: K. Srinivas PW-2: A. Kotamma PW-3: S. Anji Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: Nil

Ex: P1 is the complaint and

Ex: P2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement.

5

XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL