Sri G Venu
V Addl Dist and Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda
Miryalaguda, V ADJ Court Complex · Nalgonda · Telangana
Sri G Venu, V Addl Dist and Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, is posted at Miryalaguda, V ADJ Court Complex, Nalgonda, Telangana, India. 371 court orders on record since 2019. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, CRLA, MVOP cases.
Featured Judgments
1 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
IN THE COURT OF V - ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT:
MIRYALAGUDA , NALGONDA DISTRICT
Tuesday, the 14th day of October, 2025
Present: Mr. Gajawada Venu V - Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda.
O.S.No. 30 of 2017
AND
O.S.No. 55 of 2017
OS.No.30 / 20 17
Between: Gambhirapati Anitha, S/o.Raju, Age:56 years, R/o.H.No.1-2-228/43, Nageshwara Nagar Colony,
Kothapet, Hyderabad. ...Plaintiff
AND
1.Alli Peddi Raju, S/o.Chandraiah Age:40 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Boyagudem village, Anumula Mandal, Nalgonda District.
2.Shagam Swathi, D/o.Nagi Reddy, Age:33 years, Occ:House hold, R/o.Tirumalagiri (v & m), Nalgonda District. (Defendant No.2 is impleaded as per the Order in IA.No.436/2017 dated 12-11-2018) …Defendants
OS.No. 55 / 20 17
Between:
1. Gambhirapati Raju, S/o. Guttaiah Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-2-228/43, Nageshwara Nagar Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad.
2 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
2. Gambhirapati Anitha, W/o.Raju, Aged about 56 years, Occ: House-wife R/o.H.No.1-2-228/43, Nageshwara Nagar Colony,
Kothapet, Hyderabad. ...Plaintiffs
AND
1Shagam Swathi, D/o. Nagi Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Occ:House hold, R/o.Tirumalagiri (v & m), Nalgonda District.
2Shagam Eeshwaramma, W/o. Nagi Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ:House hold, R/o.Tirumalagiri (v & m), Nalgonda District. …Defendants
These suits are coming before me for final hearing on 23-09-2025 in the presence of Mr. Jaffar Shariff, Advocate for the plaintiff, and of Mr.M.C.Koti Reddy, Advocate for the defendant No.1, Mr.K.Pratap Reddy, Advocate for the defendant No.2 in OS.No.30 / 2017 and of Mr. Jaffar Shariff, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Mr.K.Pratap Reddy, Advocate for the defendants No.1 & 2 in
OS.No.55/2017 and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood
over for consideration till this day, the Court deliveres the following:-
:: COMMON JUDGMENT ::
1.Plaintiff filed the suit vide OS.No.30 / 2017 seeking the relief of specific performance of Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 for the suit schedule land by directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in her favour. The same plaintiff along with her husband filed the suit vide OS.No.55 / 2017 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants to restrain them from interfere with their possession over the suit schedule land. As such, as the suit schedule land involved in both suits are one and the same and the parties to it are also more or less, one 3 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 and the same, and the evidence led by both parties in both the suits is overlapping with each other due to common facts, but separate & distinct reliefs are prayed, it is appropriate to take up these two suits jointly for proper appreciation of evidence and giving clarity in order to dispose of the same effectively with a common judgment.
OS.No.30 / 2017
2.Initially, this suit was filed against the defendant No.1 alone and thereafter, as it has come to the notice of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 fraudulently sold the suit schedule land in favour of defendant No.2, she impleaded the defendant No.2 as party to the suit for seeking effective relief. As per the averments / pleadings in the plaint, Defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of ‘Vaishnavi Stone Crusher’ along with the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3-32 gts in Sy.No.518, Ac.1-19 gts in
Sy.No.519 and Ac.3-21 gts in Sy.No.521 (total Ac.8-32 gts) situated at
Kunkuduchettu thanda, H/o.Chalakurthy village of Peddavoora mandal in
Nalgonda District. He offered to sell the same to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.25-00 lakhs. Plaintiff accepted for the same and paid an 4 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 amount of Rs.22-00 lakhs by way of Cheque bearing No.717017 dated 16-05-2016 drawn on SBH bank, Mohan Nagar branch, Hyderabad and
Rs.1-00 lakh in cash to the defendant No.1. Having received the same, defendant No.1 executed an Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 in favour of the plaintiff by agreeing to receive the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs from the plaintiff on or before 05-06-2016 and execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. As the same was witnessed by M.Ramanath Reddy & P.Satyanarayana Rao, they signed on it as witnesses. Ever since the purchase of suit schedule land, plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract i.e., paying balance consideration, but the defendant No.1 did not come forward to receive the same and dodged the matter for one reason or other. While so, as it has come to know to the plaintiff that defendant No.1, with a malafide intention, is trying to alienate the suit schedule land in favour of third parties, she finally demanded him in the 1st week of June, 2016 to execute the registered sale deed in her favour by receiving the balance sale consideration, but he did not come forward. At last, vexed with the said attitude of defendant No.1, plaintiff issued a notice dated 20-09-2016 to 5 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 the defendant No.1 calling upon him to receive the balance sale consideration within 7 days from the date of receiving the same and execute the registered sale deed in her favour for the suit schedule property. Along with the said notice, she also sent a photocopy of banker’s cheque / Demand Draft bearing No.121548 dated 19-09-2016 drawn on
SBH bank, Mohan Nagar branch, Hyderabad for an amount of Rs.2-00 lakhs showing her ready and willingness to perform her part of the contract in paying the balance sale consideration. But, despite receiving the said notice, as the defendant No.1 did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed and thus, failed to perform his part of the contract, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit against him alone to direct him to execute the registered sale deed in her favour by receiving the remaining agreed balance sale consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs or in the alternative, grant damages of Rs.25-00 lakhs besides refund Rs.23-00 lakhs paid by her, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit to the date of realization.
3.During the pending suit, as it has come to the notice of the plaintiff 6 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 that defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property to the defendant No.2 by executing the registered sale deed, she filed a petition vide
IA.No.436/2017 to implead the defendant No.2 as party to the suit. As such,
defendant No.2 was impleaded as per the Order dated 12-11-2018. Plaintiff also filed a petition vide IA.No.825/2024 to permit her to amend the pleadings to the effect that defendant No.2 be directed to join the defendant No.1 in executing the registered sale deed in her favour and the same was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 17-12-2024. As such, plaintiff is praying to direct the defendants No.1 & 2 to execute the registered sale deed in her favour.
4.On the other hand, defendant No.1, by filing written statement, admitted the execution of Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 by him in favour of the plaintiff and also receiving of part sale consideration, but denied the contention of the plaintiff that ever since the entering into of agreement, she was ready and willing to perform her obligation of paying the remaining agreed balance sale consideration. It is pleaded that issuing of alleged legal notice dated 20-09-2016 along with the photocopy of 7 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Banker’s cheque / Demand Draft bearing No.121548/2016 dated 19-09- 2016 drawn on SBH bank, Mohan Nagar branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2-00 lakhs is false. It is also pleaded that husband of the plaintiff – Gambhirapati
Raju and defendant No.1 are well known to each other, as such, in the month of May, 2016, when the defendant No.1 expressed his willingness to sell the suit schedule property, husband of the plaintiff has come forwarded to purchase the same, and the same resulted into the entering of Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. As per the said agreement, plaintiff shall pay balance sale consideration on or before 05-06-2016, but she failed to do the same.
Further, since from the date of entering into the agreement to the date of issuing Notice dated 20-09-2016, plaintiff never expressed her ready and willingness to perform her part of the contract. Though the defendant No.1 personally demanded the plaintiff several times to perform her part of the contract within the stipulated time, plaintiff failed to do the same, hence, as the Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 stands annulled by operation of law on 05-06-2016 itself, plaintiff is not entitled to press into service of said agreement.
8 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
5.It is also pleaded that as the husband of plaintiff / Gambhirapati Raju, being the actual purchaser of the suit schedule land, had already paid huge amount towards the part sale consideration, in order to get back the said amount, he with the consent of defendant No.1, entered into an
Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016 with one Bollam Saidulu, S/o.Balaiah,
R/o.Nidamanoor to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of
Rs.48-00 lakhs. As such, on 15-03-2017, as per the orders / directions of said Bollam Saidulu, defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2 for the suit schedule land. It is also pleaded that as per the oral understanding in between the plaintiff’s husband –
Gambhirapati Raju and the defendant No.1 which is within the knowledge of plaintiff, defendant No.2 and Bollam Saidulu, defendant No.2 shall pay an amount of Rs.23-00 lakhs to the plaintiff’s husband, whereas pay
Rs.25-00 lakhs to the defendant No.1. Accordingly, defendant No.2 paid
Rs.23-00 lakhs to the plaintiff’s husband, whereas Rs.25-00 lakhs to the defendant No.1 and got registered the sale deed No.914/2017 dated 15-03- 2017 in her favour on 21-03-2017 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor.
Thus, though the Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 was annulled by 9 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 operation of law on 05-06-2016 itself, and even, terminated by virtue of
Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016 executed by plaintiff’s husband in favour of Bollam Saidulu on being received Rs.23-00 lakhs from the defendant No.2, as the plaintiff filed this suit by suppressing the material facts and came to the court with unclean hands, she is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, defendant No.1 prayed to dismiss the suit.
6.Defendant No.2, by filing separate Written statement, denied the contention of the plaintiff. She pleaded that she is not aware of the fact as to defendant No.1 had offered to sell the suit schedule land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.25-00 lakhs and in turn, plaintiff accepted for the said offer and paid part sale consideration. She further pleaded that originally, part of the suit schedule property i.e., land admeasuring Ac.5-11 in Sy.No.518 & 519 belongs to the plaintiff who acquired the same in the year 2005 and enjoyed it for a considerable period and thereafter, alienated it to the defendant No.1. It is further pleaded that defendant
No.1 also acquired the land to an extent of Ac.3-21 gts in Sy.No.521 from one Banala Mangamma through registered sale deed No.421/2005 dated 10 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 05-03-2005 and similarly, purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0-30 gts in
Sy.No.518 and also land to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.519 from one
Gande Papa Rao vide registered deed No.907/2017 dated 20-03-2017.
Further, as per the registered sale deed No.1634/2009 dated 02-07-2009, defendant No.1 sold the land to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.519 to
Gande Papa Rao, but subsequently, cancelled the same vide document
No.907/2017 dated 20-03-2017 and thus, defendant No.1 was holding the land to an extent of Ac.9-22 gts in Sy.No.518, 519 & 521 which includes the suit schedule land. While so, as the defendant No.1 offered to sell the said land of Ac.9-22 gts, one Bollam Saidulu came forward to purchase the same for an amount of Rs.50-00 lakhs and accordingly, an Agreement to sell dated 29-04-2016 was entered into in between them and consequently, said Bollam Saidaiah paid an amount of Rs.1-00 lakhs as earnest money to the defendant No.1 by agreeing to pay the remaining sale consideration on or before 16-05-2016 and to which, plaintiff and one K.Ramreddy and
M.Saidi Reddy and also P.Bixam Reddy acted as witnesses. Thereafter, as the said Bollam Saidulu @ Saidaiah failed to perform his part of the contract, said Agreement to sell dated 29-04-2016 was canceled and 11 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 consequently, they came to a conclusion to sell the said land to the third parties. While so, as the defendant No.1 approached the defendant No.2 and her mother – Eeshwaramma and offered to sell the suit schedule land, defendant No.2 expressed her willingness to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs.66-00 lakhs and accordingly, an Agreement to sell
dated 17-10-2016 was entered into in between them. As per the said
Agreement to sell dated 17-10-2016, defendant No.2 paid an amount of
Rs.15-00 lakhs to the defendant No.1 on the same day as earnest money by agreeing to pay remaining balance consideration on or before 17-12- 2016. Thereafter, as the defendant No.2 paid entire balance sale consideration, defendant No.1 executed the registered sale deed
No.914/2017 in her favour on 21-03-2017 on the file of Sub-Registrar,
Nidamanoor and thus, defendant No.2 became the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule land.
7.It is pleaded that after got registering the suit schedule property vide sale deed No.914/2017, defendant No.2 approached the Tahesildar,
Paddavoora to mutate her name in the place of defendant No.1 in all 12 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 relevant revenue records for the suit schedule property, as such, the then
Tahesildar, Peddavoora made discrete enquiries and even, conducted field enquiry and finally, passed the Proceedings vide File No.B/461/2017 dated 27-07-2017 and consequently, directed the Village Revenue Officer of the
Chalakurthy and also Revenue Inspector of the Peddavoora to take necessary action in implementing the order passed vide above proceedings. Thereafter, pattadar passbook & title were issued in favour of the defendant No.2 by issuing 1-B Namuna (ROR) pahani. While so, plaintiff and her henchmen tried to interfere with the possession of defendant No.2 over the suit schedule property and also lodged a complaint against her and the defendant No.1 in Peddavoora police station on 08-04-2017 vide
Crime No.64/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.
Thereafter, as the plaintiff obstructed the possession and enjoyment of the defendant No.2 over the suit schedule property, defendant No.2 got lodged a complaint against her and one K.Krishna, Ravi and some others on 27-08-2017 vide Crime No.134/2017 for the offences punishable under
Sections 447, 504 & 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. On 10-01-2018 also, as the plaintiff along with her henchmen tried to dispossess the defendant No.2 from the 13 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 suit schedule property, defendant No.2 got lodged another complaint against them vide Crime No.7/2018 for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 447 & 506 r/w 34 I.P.C and all the said cases are pending for trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor. Hence, by virtue of Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016, if the plaintiff suffers, she can initiate appropriate proceedings against the defendant No.1 for the recovery of advance amount paid by her to him, as such, present suit claiming the relief of specific performance of Agreement to sell dated 16- 05-2016 against her is not maintainable when she is not a party to the said agreement and thereby, there is no privity of contract between them.
Accordingly, defendant No.2 prayed to dismiss the suit.
8.On the basis of above rival pleadings, following issues were settled for trial:
1) Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract ?
2) Whether the suit Agreement to sell annulled on 05-06-2015 ?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the suit Agreement to sell ?
4) Whether the defendant No.2 is bound by the suit Agreement to sell ?
14 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
5) To what relief ?
9.On behalf of the plaintiff, she herself was got examined as PW-1 and got marked / Exhibited Ex.A.1 to A.3. She also examined one of the witnesses to the Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016, as PW-2. On the other hand, defendant No.1 himself was got examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.B.1 / Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016 executed in between the husband of the plaintiff and Bollam Saidulu. While cross examining him, defendant No.2 got marked Ex.B.2 / Agreement to sell dated 29-04- 2016 entered into in between him and one Bollam Saidulu by confronting the same to him. Defendant No.2 examined her mother-cum-Special
Power of Attorney, as PW-2 and got marked Ex.B.3 to B.39. She also examined DW-3 to DW-5.
OS.No.55 / 2017
10.This suit is filed by plaintiff in OS.No.30 / 2017 along with her husband against the defendant No.2 in OS.No.30 / 2017 and her mother, as such, plaintiff No.1 in this suit is the husband of plaintiff in OS.No.30 / 15 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 2017, whereas defendant No.2 is the mother of defendant No.2 in OS.No.
30 /2017. As per the averments / pleadings of the plaint, Plaintiff No.1 entered into a Lease Agreement dated 31-10-2011 with A.Peddi Raju in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., ‘Vaishnavi Stone Crusher’ along with the land admeasuring Ac.3-32 gts in Sy.No.518, Ac.1-19 gts in
Sy.No.519 & Ac.3-21 gts in Sy.No.521 (total Ac.8-32 gts) situated at
Kunkuduchettu thanda, H/o.Chalakurthy village of Peddavoora mandal in
Nalgonda District. While so, plaintiff No.2 i.e., wife of the plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit schedule property from the said A. Peddi Raju (Lessor) vide Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 for a consideration of Rs.25-00 lakhs and paid an amount of Rs.22-00 lakhs vide Cheque No.717017 dated 16-05-2016 drawn on SBH bank, Mohan Nagar branch, Hyderabad and
Rs.1-00 lakh in cash by agreeing to pay the remaining balance consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs on or before 05-06-2016 or at the time of registration whichever is earlier. As the said A.Peddi Raju was not coming forward to receive the balance consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs and execute the registered sale deed in her favour, she got issued a legal notice dated 20-09-2016 calling upon him to receive Rs.2-00 lakhs and execute the 16 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 registered sale deed, but he neither gave any reply nor performed his part of the contract. In those circumstances, plaintiff No.2 filed a suit vide
OS.No.30/2017 against him on 16-03-2017. As Alli Peddi Raju was
constantly following the plaintiffs and received information as to the filing of said suit, he in collusion with the defendants herein, brought into existence of registered sale deed No.914/2017 dated 15-03-2017 on 21-03- 2017 in order to defraud them and thereby, deprive legitimate right of the plaintiff No.2 over the suit schedule land. Thus, said registered sale deed
No.914/2017 is a sham and nominal document when the possession of the suit schedule land is remained with the plaintiffs by virtue of the lease agreement.
11.After brought into the existence of sale deed No.914/2017, defendant
No.1 made an application to the Tahesildar, Peddavoora for mutation of her name in the revenue records for the suit schedule land and to which, plaintiff No.2 filed her objection by filing the copy of the Agreement to sell
dated 16-05-2016 executed by Alli Peddi Raju in her favour and also suit
documents pertaining to OS.No.30 / 2017, but the said Tahesildar did not 17 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 consider her objection and passed order vide File No.B/461/2017 dated 27- 07-2017 mutating the name of the defendant No.1 in the place of Alli Peddi
Raju in the revenue records, as such, plaintiff No.2 is challenging the same by filing the Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court.
12.It is pleaded that even if the entries in the Record of Rights carries evidentiary value, that itself would not confer any title on the defendant
No.1 for the suit schedule land. It is further pleaded that though the extent of the suit schedule land is Ac.8-32 gts, property claimed by the defendants is to an extent of Ac.9-22 gts and thus, though it is totally different from the land purchased by defendants from the vendor of plaintiff No.2 i.e.,
A.Peddi Raju, they are trying to grab the suit schedule property under the guise of registered sale deed No.914/2017. It is also pleaded that after executing the alleged sale deed No.914/2017 by vendor of the plaintiff
No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1, he (Vendor - A.Peddi Raju), in order to harass the plaintiffs, gave an application to the TSSPDCL to dis-connect the power supply given to the ‘Vaishnavi Stone Crusher’ and thereby, dismantle the said service connection bearing S.C.No.3912400115. In 18 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 pursuance of the said application, as Assistant Engineer (Operation)
TSSPDCL, Peddavoora issued notice to the plaintiff No.2 on 24-04-2017, plaintiffs gave representation to the S.E., D.E., A.E., A.D.E of TSSPDCL requesting them to restore the connection as the Stone Crusher unit would suffer loss due to disconnecting of said service connection. Even, they filed a representation before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum-I on 01-05-2017. Thus, even after got disconnecting the power supply, as the plaintiff did not succumb to the pressure applied by the defendants with regard to their possession over the suit schedule property, defendants started to resorting all illegal methods to dispossess them. Accordingly, on 20-08-2017, defendants along with the anti social elements came to the suit schedule property and created seen and even, threatened them to vacate the suit schedule property, but they could resist the same. Even, defendants threatened the plaintiffs to get register false cases against them under the SC/ST Atrocities Act, and also eliminate them. On 22-08- 2017 also, defendants again came to the suit schedule property and threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess them, but the said illegal acts could also be resisted by them. Though the plaintiffs approached the police to 19 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 intervene in the matter, as the said police advised them to approach the competent civil Court to get reddressal of their grievance, they were constrained to file the present suit to restrain them from interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land.
13.On the other hand, defendant No.2, by filing Written statement, denied the whole allegations and contentions of the plaintiffs. She also taken the same defense stand taken by defendant No.2 in OS.No.30/2017.
Thus, contention in the written statement filed by defendant No.2 in
OS.No.30/2017, is the contention of the defendant No.1 & 2 in the present
suit as the defendant No.1 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.2 herein.
14.On the basis of above rival pleadings, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the injunction as prayed ?
3. To what relief ?
15.On behalf of the plaintiffs, Plaintiff No.1 himself was got examined as 20 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
PW-1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.7. On the other hand, defendant No.2 herself was got examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.B.1 to B-35. They also examined DW-2 & 3.
16.Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties and perused the written arguments filed by them. Though the witnesses examined and documents marked from both sides were assigned with the numbers of
PW & DW series and A & B series, in order to avoid the confusion as both suits were taken up jointly for delivering a common judgment, they will be referred with their names hereafter as per the convenience. Further, issues in both the suits will be taken up jointly as per the convenience in order to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective manner and give clarity.
I ssues :
Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform her part of
the contract ?
Whether the suit Agreement to sell annulled on 05-06-2015 ?
Whether the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit schedule property as on
the date of filing the suit ?
21 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
17.As these three (3) issues are inter connected with each other, they are taken up jointly for proper appreciation of evidence and give clarity in projecting the sequence of events. As per the pleadings in the written statement filed by Alli Peddi Raju, he admitted the execution of Agreement to sell dated 16-5-2016 (Ex.A-1 in OS.No.30/2017) in favour of Gambhirapati
Anitha (Plaintiff in OS.No.30/2017) and received Rs.23-00 lakhs out of agreed sale consideration of Rs.25-00 lakhs, but his only contention is that said agreement stands annulled by operation of law i.e., stands cancelled by effluxe of time for the failure of Gambhirapati Anitha (plaintiff) in paying the remaining balance consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs within the stipulated time i.e., by 5-6-2016. His another contention is that actual purchaser of the suit schedule property was the husband of Gambirapati Anitha i.e.,
Gambirapati Raju (Plaintiff No.1 in OS.No.55/2017), hence, in order to get back the amount of Rs.23-00 lakhs, said Gambirapati Raju with his consent, entered into an Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016 with one Bollam
Saidulu to sell the suit schedule property for an amount of Rs.48-00 lakhs and subsequently, as per the order of said Bollam Saidulu, he executed the sale deed dated 15-3-2017 in favour of Shagam Swathi (Defendant No.2 in 22 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
OS.No.30/2017) for the suit schedule property along with the land
admeasuring Ac.0-30 gts. in Sy.No.518 by registering the same on 21-3- 2017 vide document No.914 / 2017 on the file of Sub-Registrar,
Nidamanoor. His further contention is that as per the oral under standing in between him and Gambhirapati Raju and also with the consent / knowledge of Gambirapati Anitha, Bollam Saidulu and Shagam Swathi, out of Rs.48-00 lakhs, Shagam Swathi shall pay Rs.23-00 lakhs to the
Gambirapati Raju and the remaining amount of Rs.25-00 lakhs to him, as such, Shagam Swathi paid the said amount to them. In order to prove this contention, besides relying upon the terms and conditions of Agreement to
Sell dated 16-5-2016 (Ex.A-1), Alli Peddi Raju also relied upon the
Agreement to Sell dated 13-10-2016 (Ex.B-1 in OS.No.30/2017) said to be entered into in between Gambirapati Raju and Bollam Saidulu.
18.Admittedly, perusal of the Agreement to Sell dated 16-5-2016 (Ex.A-1) goes to show that there is no term and condition that if Gambirapati
Anitha (Plaintiff) fails to pay the remaining agreed balance consideration of
Rs.2-00 lakhs by 5-6-2016, said agreement shall stands cancelled. Even, 23 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 nothing is mentioned in it that in the event of such failure, already paid consideration of RS.23-00 lakhs would be either forfeited or returned to
Gambirapati Anitha (plaintiff). Hence, it has to be seen that how far the oral evidence of Alli Peddi Raju (defendant No.1) given as DW-1 and document of Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016 got marked / exhibited by him in his evidence, would substantiate his above contention. It is also to be seen that how far the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India relied upon by counsel for Shagam Swathi (defendant No.2) in the case of ‘Katta Sujatha
Reddy Vs. M/s. Siddamshetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd1. would helpful to her in arriving to a conclusion that she is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property and the right of Gambirapati Anitha (plaintiff) over it was ceased prior to purchasing the same by her vide registered sale deed on 21-03-2017.
19.It is settled legal proposition that in transactions of immovable properties, time is not essence of the contract. In this regard, full bench (5
Judges including the Chief Justice of India) Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of ‘Chand Rani (Smt) (died) by LRs Vs. Kamal Rani 1Civil Appeal No.5822/2022 dt: 25-8-2022 24 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 (Smt) (died) by LRs 2becomes relevant, wherein, it was held that ‘As a general proposition of law, in the case of immovable property, there is no presumption as to time being the essence of the contract. Even, if it is not of the essence of the contract, the Court may infer that it is to be performed in a reasonable time if the conditions are evident (a). From the express terms of the contract, (b). From the nature of property, (c). From the surrounding circumstances, for example the object of making the contract.
20.Further, whether the time is essence of contract or not in a transaction of immovable property, can be gathered if the said Agreement to sell is in writing and the language used is unmistakable. If it is not in writing, it can be inferred from the nature of the property agreed to be sold, conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances at or before the contract. To deduce the above proposition of law, Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of‘Govind Prasad
Chaturvidi Vs. Hari Dutt Sastry 3 , wherein, it was held that
It is settled law that the fixation of the period within which the contract has to be performed does not make the stipulation as to time is the essence of the contract.
Thus, above proposition of law makes it clear that in case of immovable property, time is never regarded as essence of the contract. It would be an essence of the contract, only when it is specifically stipulated 2(1993) 1 SCC 519 3(1977) 3 SCC 539 25 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 or when it clearly emerges by way of implication. In the present case, as stated supra, there is no explicit term & condition in Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-5-2016 to terminate the agreement by seller in the event of buyer fails to pay remaining agreed balance consideration on or before 05-6-2016.
21.As per the contention of counsel for the plaintiff, Clause-11 of Ex.A-1 /
Agreement to Sell dated 16-5-2016 mandates that seller – Alli Peddi Raju (defendant No.1) shall get measure the suit schedule land with the Tippon with a Government Surveyor of Survey & Land Records department and demarcate the same by fixing the boundaries, before to the registration, but the same was not complied with by him to pay the remaining balance consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs, hence, buyer – Gambirapati Anitha (plaintiff) demanded him constantly to comply with the said condition, but he dodged the matter on one pretext or other. At last, as she came to know that Alli Peddi Raju with a malafide intention, was trying to sell the suit schedule land to the third parties by suppressing the subsistence of Ex.A- 1 / Agreement to Sell dated 16-5-2016, she got issued legal Notice dated 26 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 20-9-2016 (Ex.A-2 in OS.No.30 / 2017) to him with a demand to receive the balance considerations of Rs.2-00 lakhs sent with the said notice in the shape of Banker Cheque / Demand Draft No.121548 dated 19-9-2016 drawn on S.B.H bank, Mothinagar branch, Hyderabad and execute the registered sale deed in her favour for the suit schedule land and thus, she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, but the seller – Alli Peddi Raju (defendant No.1) only avoided to perform his part of the contract.
22.As per the oral evidence of Alli Peddi Raju (defendant No.1) given as
DW-1, after two or three days of paying the amount of Rs.23-00 lakhs by
Shagam Swathi to the Gambirapati Raju, but before to preparing the sale deed dated 15-3-2017 in her favour, he got measured the suit schedule land with a private surveyor and thereafter only, executed the registered sale deed vide document No.914 / 2017 (Ex.B-28) in favour of said Shagam
Swathi on 21-3-2017 as Server in the Sub-Registrar office was down on 15-3-2017. This means, in order to execute the register sale deed in favour of Shagam Swathi (defendant No.2) also, measuring the land agreed to be 27 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 sold was mandatory. The perusal of registered Sale Deed No.914 / 2017 executed by Alli Peddi Raju in favour of Shagam Swathi goes to show that he sold the land admeasuring Ac.9-22 gts. within the same boundaries shown to the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts. While giving evidence as DW-1, Alli Peddi Raju also admitted that boundaries of suit schedule land and the land sold vide registered sale deed No.914 / 2017 are one and the same, but he has not offered any explanation as to why the same boundaries are shown to the different extents. Though a plea was taken in the written statement filed by Shagam Swathi (defendant No.2) stating that Alli Peddi Raju purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0-30 gts in
Sy.No.518 & Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.519 from one Gande Papa Rao vide registered sale deed No.907/2017 dated 20-03-2017 (Ex.B.27), perusal of the same goes to show that it is a registered Cancellation deed only to cancel the registered sale deed No.1634/2009 (Ex.B.26) executed by Alli
Peddi Raju in favour of Gande Papa Rao for the land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.519 only. Moreover, though Alli Peddi Raju deposed during the cross examination that after entering into the Agreement to Sell dated 16- 5-2016 (Ex.A-1) with Gambirapati Anitha, he got conduct of survey with a 28 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 private surveyor and the said survey disclosed that extent of land admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts. is available and out of the said Ac.8-32 gts, he transferred Ac.1-00 gts to Gande Papa Rao and in turn, got registered
Ac.0.30 gts from him as the same comes adjacent to his land, no documentary evidence like registered sale deed is produced to believe the same. Thus, there is no documentary evidence to believe that Alli Peddi
Raju purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0-30 gts in Sy.No.518 from Gande
Papa Rao and thereby, he is the owner of the said land besides the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.5-11 gts in Sy.No.518 & 519 by the time he executed Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 in favour of
Ganbhirapati Anitha (plaintiff). Thus, Cancellation deed No.907/2017 (Ex.B.27) and Sale deed No.1634/2009 (Ex.B.26) are no way connected to the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts.
23.Further, perusal of the pahanies for the year 2000-01 to 2013-14 (Ex.B.10 to B.15) goes to show that one Gambhirapati Sudheer Kumar,
S/o.Raju is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0-08 gts in
Sy.No.518/A1. However, perusal of the pahanies for the fasli year No.1426 29 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 which is corresponding to the year 2017-18 (Ex.B.16 & B.17) only goes to show that Alli Peddi Raju got the land admeasuring Ac.0-30 gts in
Sy.No.518/A5/A1 for the first time in the year 2017-18 only. This means, he acquired this part of the land subsequent to the entering into of
Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 (Ex.A.1) with Gambhirapati Anitha, but
before to the execution of sale deed No.914/2017 (Ex.B.28) in favour of
Shagam Swathi (defendant No.1). This demonstrates / makes to understand that prior to entering into the Ex.A-1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-5-2016,
Gambirapati Anitha (plaintiff) knows that within the boundaries shown by
Alli Peddi Raju, extent of the land admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts is not comprised, hence, condition of measuring the land and demarcate the same with the boundaries has become mandatory for paying the remaining sale consideration and get registration. In this connection,
Counsel for the plaintiff, by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of ‘Gaddipati Divija & Another Vs.Pathuri
Samrajyam & Others 4 ’ wherein, it was held that ‘When vendor failed to get the land demarcated, the question paying balance consideration by plaintiff did not arise’., would contend that as the seller – Alli Peddi Raju has not 42023 SCC Online SC 442 30 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 complied with this condition, paying for remaining agreed balance consideration by purchaser – Gambirapati Anitha and obtain the registered sale deed from him does not arise, as such, it does not mean that she failed to perform her part of the contract to Ex.A-1 within the stipulated time, but it means that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, but the seller – Alli Peddi Raju only failed to perform his part of the contract.
24.Though Alli Peddi Raju deposed that 2 or 3 days after entering into the Agreement to Sell dated 16-5-2016 (Ex.A-1) with Gambirapati Anitha, he got measured and surveyed the land with a private Surveyor, he has not taken this plea in the written statement. Even, he has not taken a plea in the written statement stating that though he got conducted survey and the land admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts is available on the ground within the boundaries, Gambirapati Anitha has not come forwarded to pay the remaining agreed balance consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs and thereby, failed to perform her part of the contract. As he admitted that when he got surveyed the suit schedule land, he has not issued any written notice to 31 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Gambirapati Anitha for her presence while measuring the same and did not demand her to get register sale deed by paying the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs and thereby, he performed his part of the contract and thus, it is she (Gambhirapati Anitha) only to perform her part of the contract, it casts doubt on the credibility of his evidence to believe that he was fair enough in performing his part of the contract. As he also admitted that he has not filed the copy of said survey report into the court to believe his contention, it fortifies that his oral evidence is not credible to rely upon the same in order to believe his contention that he performed his part of the contract, but for the failure of Gambirapati
Anitha (plaintiff) only in paying the remaining agreed balance consideration by 5-6-2016, Ex.A-1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-5-2016 stands annulled by operation of law by due date of 5-6-2016. In this regard, though the counsel for Alli Peddi Raju (Defendant No.1) has relied upon Section 55 of
Indian Contract Act, 1872, it would not rescue him, as, as stated supra, he only failed to establish that he got measured and surveyed the suit schedule land and intimated the same to the buyer i.e., Gambhirapati
Anitha to verify the correctness of the same. Now, it has to be seen that 32 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 how plaintiff got the knowledge as to the correctness of extent of the suit schedule land prior to entering into the Ex.A-1 / Agreement to Sell dated 16-5-2016 with Alli Peddi Raju for including the said Clause No.11 in the said agreement.
25.As per the contention of counsel for the plaintiffs in both the suits,
Alli Peddi Raju gave the suit schedule property having the ‘Vaishnavi Stone
Crusher’ to Gambhirapati Raju (plaintiff No.1 in OS.No.55/2017) in the year 2011 and ever since the entering into of Lease Agreement dated 31-10- 2011 with him, said Gambhirapati Raju is in possession of the suit schedule property till the date of filing both suits. In the meanwhile, as Alli Peddi
Raju entered into the Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 with the wife of Gambhirapati Raju i.e., Gambhirapati Anitha, possession is remained with them i.e., plaintiffs in both suits. During the course of cross examination conducted by counsels for the plaintiffs as well as defendant
No.2 i.e., Shagam Swathi and her mother – Eeshwaramma (Defendant No.2 in OS.No.55/2017), Alli Peddi Raju admitted that prior to entering into the
Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 with Gambhirapati Anitha, he 33 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 also entered into an Agreement to sell dated 29-04-2016 (Ex.B.2) with one
Bollam Saidulu who is brother of his own brother-in-law to sell the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts only and till that date, stone crusher unit was in existence in it. He also admitted that he started the said Crusher in the name and style of ‘Vaishnavi Stone Crusher’ in the year 2005-06 by obtaining the license from competent authority. He further admitted that to run the said Crusher, he constructed a shed with two rooms and obtained electricity service connection to it. He further admitted that he gave the said Crusher unit with shed to Gambhirapati
Raju on lease in the year 2011 by entering into a lease agreement and accordingly, handed over the possession of suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts only to him. However, he deposed that when he taken back the possession of the same from Gambhirapati Raju in the year 2014, no document was executed in between them to believe that possession of it was handed over by Gambhirapati Raju to him. He also deposed that in the year 2014 itself, he gave a requisition to the concerned authorities to disconnect / dismantle the electricity service connection given to the Crusher unit and shed, but Gambhirapati Raju managed the 34 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 said authorities to continue the said service connection and paid electricity consumption charges up to 22-04-2017, hence, after executing the registered sale deed No.914/2017 (Ex.B.28) in favour of Shagam Swathi, he gave another application to the concerned authorities in order to disconnect / dismantle the said electricity service connection. Contrary to it, he also deposed that as on the date of execution of Ex.A.1, crusher unit was not in running condition and even the electricity connection given to it was disconnected. Thus, it gives an impression that Alli Peddi Raju &
Shagam Swathi and her mother – Eeshwaramma (defendants in both suits) are admitting the possession of Gambhirapati Anitha & Raju (plaintiffs in
OS.No.55/2017) over the suit schedule land till the Ex.A.1 / Agreement to
sell dated 16-05-2016 was executed in favour of Gambhirapati Anitha and thus, plaintiffs got knowledge as to the actual extent of suit schedule property by the time of entering into Ex.A1.
26.Though Alli Peddi Raju deposed that he also executed the Ex.B.2 /
Agreement sell dated 29-04-2016 in favour of Bollam Saidulu to sell the suit schedule land for an amount of Rs.50-00 lakhs prior to entering into the 35 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 with Gambhirapati Anitha for an amount of Rs.23-00 lakhs, he has not offered any explanation as to what circumstances compelled him to sell it to Gambhirapati Anitha for lesser consideration i.e., nearly half of the earlier consideration. Even, he has not disclosed the fact of execution of Ex.B.2 in the written statement filed by him into the court also. Moreover, he has not offered any explanation as to whether the said Agreement to sell dated 29-04-2016 (Ex.B.2) was canceled or not prior to entering into the Ex.A.1 with
Gambhirapati Anitha (plaintiff). Though he deposed that with his consent only, Gambhirapati Raju entered into Ex.B.1 / Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016 with Bollam Saidulu to sell the suit schedule land for an amount of Rs.48-00 lakhs, perusal of the same goes to show that cancellation of Ex.B.2 is not referred in it. But, plea taken by Shagam
Swathi (defendant No.2) shows that Alli Peddi Raju only entered into Ex.B.1 with Bollam Saidulu and later, as Bollam Saidulu failed to pay agreed sale consideration, Alli Peddi Raju entered into Agreement to sell dated 17-10- 2016 with her and thus, it is contrary to the plea taken by Alli Peddi Raju.
Though Alli Peddi Raju has taken a plea in the written statement stating 36 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 that as per the direction / order of Bollam Saidulu only, he executed the registered sale deed No.914/2017 in favour of Shagam Swathi for a consideration of Rs.48-00 lakhs and out of which, he kept an amount of
Rs.25-00 lakhs with him, whereas paid Rs.23-00 lakhs to Gambhirapati Raju towards the return of part sale consideration paid by Gambhirapati Anitha while entering into the Ex.A.1 with him, so as to cancel the said Ex.A.1, he deposed that he sold the suit schedule land to Shagam Swathi for an amount of Rs.66-00 lakhs. He has not offered any explanation as to who received the said difference amount. Thus, his evidence is contradictory to the plea taken by him. Even, he deposed that when Rs.23-00 lakhs were given to Gambhirapati Raju, no receipt acknowledging the receiving of the same was obtained by him either from said Gambhirapati Raju or his wife –
Gambhirapati Anitha. Furthermore, he has not issued any written notice to
Gambirapati Anitha stating that Ex.A-1 was cancelled in view of entering into of Ex.B-1 by her husband with Bollam Saidulu and so also execution of
Ex.B.28 / Sale deed No.914/2017 (Ex.B-28) in favour of Shagam Swathi and consequently, received back Rs.23-00 lakhs on behalf of her. In fact, if really amount of Rs.23-00 lakhs was paid to Gambirapati Raju, he would 37 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 have taken back the Ex.A-1 either from him or his wife – Gambirapati
Anitha and handed over the same to either Shagam Swathi or her mother when received the entire amount from them and executed Ex.B-28/ registered Sale deed, but the same was not taken place. In these circumstances, it casts doubt on the credibility of his oral evidence as to the repayment of said amount to Gambirapati Anitha (plaintiff) and consequently, on the plea taken by him as to the cancelling of Ex.A.1 and entering into of Ex.B.1 in its place. Moreover, when he could obtain the signature of Gambhirapati Anitha as a witness to Ex.B-2 while executing the same by him in favour of Bollam Saidulu, why her signature was again not taken as a witness to the Ex.B.1 as well as Ex.B.28 / registered sale deed No.914/2017 also is not explained by him. Hence, it fortifies that credibility of his oral evidence is doubtful in order to believe that Ex.A.1 was terminated when Ex.B.1 was entered into in between Gambhirapati
Raju and Bollam Saidulu. In these circumstances, contention of counsel for
Alli Peddi Raju that Ex.A.1 was rescinded in view of husband of
Gambhirapati Anitha i.e., Gambhirapati Raju entering into Ex.B.1 /
Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016 with Bollam Saidulu will have no 38 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 substance in the eye of law. As such, plea taken by him that as per Section 62 of Indian Contract Act, when Ex.B.1 superseded the Ex.A.1, still subsistence of Ex.A.1 does not arise, is a futile exercise.
27.As per the contention of Counsel for Gambirapati Anitha (plaintiff), Alli
Peddi Raju (defendant No.1) received the Ex.A-2 / Notice dated 20-9-2016 issued by her as to expressing her ready and willingness to perform her part of contract in paying the remaining agreed balance consideration with a demand to receive the same and execute registered sale deed in terms of Ex.A-1, but he neither gave any reply to it nor executed the registered sale deed as demanded by her. Though Alli Peddi Raju has taken a plea that he was not aware of issuing the said notice, he admitted the address shown on it, as that of belongs to him and he received the summons of this suit sent to the same address. Thus, though Ex.A.2 / Notice was served on him, issuing of said notice is not referred either in the Ex.B.1 or Ex.B.28. In this regard, specific plea taken by Alli Peddi Raju in the written statement stating that from the date of entering into the Ex.A-1 to till he received the
Ex.A-2, Gambirapati Anitha (plaintiff) never expressed her readiness to 39 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 perform her part under the contract though he personally demanded her several times, to perform her part of the contract within the stipulated the same, but she failed to do the same, establishes that he received the Ex.A-
2. In this connection, relied upon judgment of erstwhile Hon’ble High Court of A.P in the case of ‘Namala Ramachandra Rao vs. Kakileti Bhaskara
Rama Murthy and Others 5 ’ guides this Court to arrive above conclusion, as in the said case, it was held that
It is true that the respondents herein did not file any acknowledgment in proof of service of notice. But both the Courts below relying on Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act held that the notice sent in accordance with the legal requirements should be presumed to be served on the appellant unless the contrary is proved.
7.Admittedly, except denying that he has not received the notice, the appellant did not produce any evidence to show that the same was not issued notice by the respondents herein. Apart from Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, when a document is required to be served by post, unless different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post a letter containing the document unless the contrary is proved. It should be presumed that the letter is delivered in ordinary course of post. It is useful to extract Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
Hence, the cumulative reading of his evidence establishes that part sale consideration of Rs.23-00 lakhs paid as an advance to him, was not returned to Gambirapati Raju and thereby, Ex.A.1 is still in subsistence and 52004(3) ALT 812 40 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 not cancelled / annulled by efflux of time / operation of law. Thus, this much of evidence also establishes that Gambhirapati Anitha & her husband Gambhirapati Raju have knowledge that suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts is not comprised within the boundaries shown for it. Hence, measurement of the same before to paying the remaining balance sale consideration had become essential condition in Ex.A.1.
28.As per the contention of counsel for the plaintiffs, as Bollam Saidulu is near relative to Alli Peddi Raju, Ex.B.1 & B.2 were fabricated by them in collusion with each other only, hence, no weightage shall be given to these two documents in evidence for any purpose. On the other hand, counsel for Alli Peddi Raju would contend that when prima facie proved the signature of Gambirapati Raju on Ex.B-1, burden lies on plaintiffs to prove that it was not executed by Gambirapati Raju (plaintiff No.1 in
OS.No.55/2017) and his signature on it was forged. In this connection, he
relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Harish
Kumar Vs. Amar Nath (Dead) through LRs 6 ’ , wherein, it was held that ‘Mere admission of signature does not dispense with the proof of consensus ad 62025 INSC 924 41 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 idem or the existence of a valid contract. The burden not discharged by self serving testimony alone’.
He also relied upon the judgment in the case of ‘M/S. Sriram Industrial
Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Mahak Singh & Ors 7 ’, wherein, it was held that ‘If a party withholds from court the best evidence or some material evidence or witness, adverse presumption against such party can be drawn under Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act’.
29.Here, in the present case, it is the contention of Counsel for the plaintiffs that Ex.B-1 & B-2 were fabricated subsequent to the filing of this suit to suit the defense set up by defendants in the written statements only, hence, it will have no value in evidence for any purpose. It is also his contention that Allipeddi Raju (Defendant No.1) has not taken the plea in the written statement filed by him stating that he entered into Ex.B-2 /
Agreement to Sell dated 29-4-2016 with Bollam Saidulu to sell the suit schedule property for an amount of Rs.50-00 lakhs, whereas this plea is set up by Gambirapati Anitha and her mother - Eeshwaramma only in the written statements filed by them in both suits, hence, this mutually destructive pleas and evidence adduced by them in this regard, clearly establishes that EX.B-2 is a fabricated one at after thought for the purpose 7AIR 2007 SC 1370 42 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 of this case. It is his further contention that Stamp paper used for preparing the Ex.B-1 / Agreement to Sell dated 13-10-2016 was purchased on 16-2-2015, but by that time, even Ex.B-2 / Agreement to Sell dated 29/4/2016 was not prepared, hence, it itself establishes that it is also fabricated at after thought for the purpose of this case. As per his further contention, mother of Shagam Swathi i.e., Shagam Eeshwaramma (defendant No.2 in OS.No.55/2017) played a key role in got registering the
Ex.B.28 / Sale deed from Alli Peddi Raju in view of she having the agricultural lands in and around the suit schedule land, as such, knowing well about the subsistence of Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016, as she deliberately got registered the suit schedule land in the name of her daughter / Shagam Swathi in order to deprive the legitimate right and interest of Gambhirapati Anitha (plaintiff) over the suit schedule land, her evidence as well as the evidence of Bollam Saidulu shall not be relied upon for any purpose. Hence, it has to be seen that how far the oral evidence of these two witnesses also establish that Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell dated 16- 05-2016 stands canceled by due date of 05-06-2016 and that Gambhirapati
Anitha (plaintiff) was not always ready and willing to perform her part of 43 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 the contract and that plaintiffs are not in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suits.
30.As per Section 126 of Indian Evidence Act, in all civil proceedings, parties to the suit and the husband or wife of any party to the suit, are competent witnesses. In the present cases, it is an undisputed fact that initially, plaintiff No.1 in OS.No.55/2017 i.e., Alli Peddi Raju entered into a lease agreement with Alli Peddi Raju to take the suit schedule land on lease for carrying out the business pertaining to ‘Vaishanavi Stone Crusher’ situated in it. While so, as Alli Peddi Raju offered to sell the suit schedule land to him, his wife – Gambhirapati Anitha entered into Ex.A.1 /
Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 with him to purchase the same. Thus, both Gambhirapati Anitha & Raju have knowledge of each and every fact as to the transaction pertaining to the suit schedule land, hence, either of them are competent to depose as to the said transaction. On the other hand, it is the case of defendants No.1 & 2 in OS.No.55/2017 i.e., Shagam
Swathi & Eeshwaramma that Eeshwaramma came forward to purchase the suit schedule land and accordingly, after paying the entire sale 44 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 consideration, she got registered the same in the name of his daughter –
Shagam Swathi from Alli Pedd Raju on 21-03-2017 vide Ex.B.28 / Registered sale deed. Thus, each and every fact is within the knowledge of Shagam
Eeshwaramma as to the transaction of suit schedule land. In these circumstances, as plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2 in OS.No.55/2017 are competent to depose as to their personal knowledge in respect of transaction of the suit schedule land, it has to be seen that how far their oral evidence plays role in deciding the issues in OS.No.30/2017. Moreover defendant No.2 / Shagam Swathi in OS.No.32/2017 has not entered into the witness box to give evidence to substantiate the plea taken by her in the written statement, but by got appointing her mother – Shagam
Eeshwaramma (defendant No.2 in OS.No.55/2017) as her Special Power of
Attorney holder, adduced evidence from her side. This makes to believe the contention of the plaintiff that DW-2 (defendant No.2 in OS.No.55/2017) played active role in got registering the suit schedule land in favour of her daughter – Shagam Swathi and she knows each and every fact in entire sale transaction which culminated into the execution of Ex.B.28 / registered sale deed No.914/2017 by Alli Peddi Raju in favour of Shagam 45 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Swathi. Hence, it is appropriate to see that how far her evidence would establish that plaintiffs in both suits were not in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suits and that Ex.A.1 /
Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 was cancelled for receiving back the part sale consideration of Rs.23-00 lakhs by Gambhirapati Raju on behalf of his wife Gambhirapati Anitha.
31.As per the evidence of Shagam Eashwaramma given as DW-2 in
OS.No.55/2017, whereas given, as DW-1 in OS.No.33/2017, when Alli Peddi
Raju offered to sell the suit schedule land to her daughter, she participated in entire negotiations and in the said negotiations, Alli Peddi Raju did not inform them about the entering into of Ex.A.1 with Gambhirapati Anitha, but after the payment of two installments, Gambhirapati Raju informed her about the subsistence of Ex.A.1 and also stated to her that he had no objection to proceed with the sale with Alli Peddi Raju. She also deposed that 3 months prior to executing the Ex.B.28 / Sale deed, Alli Peddi Raju entered into an Agreement to sell the suit schedule land with them i.e.,
Shagam Swathi & Eeshwaramma and as per the said agreement, they paid 46 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Rs.16-00 lakhs to him in the first installment, and after 20 days, they paid
Rs.20-00 lakhs as second installment and after 5 days of it, Gambhirapati
Raju came to her and informed the subsistence of Ex.A.1. She further deposed that other than the Ex.A.1, she was not aware of any transaction / agreement entered into in between Alli Peddi Raju and others in respect of the suit schedule land and even, not aware that Bollam Saidulu is near relative of defendant No.1, but Bollam Saidulu came to the Court along with her. She also deposed that one month prior to entering into of
Agreement to sell with Alli Peddi Raju to purchase the suit schedule land, said Bollam Saidulu approached her with an offer to sell the suit schedule land, but she did not enter into any agreement with him. She further deposed that when she intended to purchase the suit schedule land, Alli
Peddi Raju & Bollam Saidulu shown the Ex.B.2 / Agreement to sell dated 24-04-2016 entered into in between them. She also deposed that
Gambhirapati Anitha resides in Nagarjunasagar and she along with her husband – Gambhirapati Raju and one Ramnath Reddy came to her and offered her to purchase the suit schedule land as she is having lands adjacent to it. She admitted that prior to get registered the sale deed for 47 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 the suit schedule land, she knows that Gambhirapati Anitha agreed to purchase the same from Alli Peddi Raju and she has seen the Ex.A.1 /
Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 entered into in between them. She further deposed that she did not pay any amount to either of the plaintiffs, but paid entire consideration of Rs.66-00 lakhs to Alli Peddi Raju only. She also deposed that she is having lands adjacent to the suit schedule land prior to purchase the same in the name of her daughter. Further, lands purchased by her were agricultural lands and there were no Stone Crusher units in it. Even, when purchased the suit schedule land, there was no
Stone Crusher unit in it and she has not seen any such crusher in it at any time. But, she admitted that she lodged F.I.R in Crime No.7/2018 on 10-01- 2018 against the labourers of plaintiff in Peddavoora police station by alleging that she purchased the Stone Crusher unit and one Kudhadi
Krishna, Ramavath Pekya & Ramavath Gangya were threatening her for purchasing the same. She further admitted that her husband also filed F.I.R
No.134/2017 on 27-08-2017 in Peddavoora police station alleging that one
Kudhati Krishna and Ravi threatened him for purchasing the suit schedule property. She further deposed that as she gave a complaint against the 48 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 plaintiffs in Peddavoora police station, Sub-Inspector of police addressed a letter to Tahesildar, Peddavoora to know the status and physical features of the suit schedule property and in response to it, as per the direction of
Tahesildar, Revenue Inspector visited the suit schedule land and gave a report on 05-01-2018 and in turn, Tahesildar replied to the Station House
Officer vide Ex.B.32 / Letter dated 06-01-2018 that as on the date of inspecting the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts in Sy.No.518, 519 & 521, there was a Stone Crusher unit in it. Thus, evidence of this witness makes understand that as on the date of filing both the suits,
Stone Crusher unit was in existence in the suit schedule land, but, as there is no documentary evidence to establish that plaintiffs were evicted from it under the due process of law even on expiry of lease period, it gives rise to draw an inference that plaintiffs only are in possession of the suit schedule land as on the date of filing both the suits. It also establishes that she deliberately got purchased the suit schedule land in the name of her daughter - Swathi during the subsistence of Ex.A.1.
32.As per the evidence of Bollam Saidulu, Alli Peddi Raju run Vaishnavi 49 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Stone Crusher unit in the suit schedule land and gave the same to
Gambhirapati Raju on lease and further, as on the date of selling the suit schedule land to Gambhirapati Anitha, said Gambhirapati Raju was running the said Stone Crusher. He also deposed that Gambhirapati Anitha entered into Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell with Alli Peddi Raju for a consideration of Rs.48-00 lakhs, but Rs.25-00 lakhs only was shown in it as consideration for the said sale. Moreover, he admitted that in his chief affidavit evidence, he has not mentioned that prior to purchasing the suit schedule land by Gambirapati Anitha from Alli Peddi Raju vide Ex.A.1, he purchased the same from defendant vide Ex.B.2 / Agreement to sell dated 29-04-2016. He also admitted that though Ex.B.2 was executed in his name, originally / actually suit schedule property was purchased by Gambhirapati
Raju only and accordingly, he paid Rs.1-00 lakh as an advance to Alli Peddi
Raju. He deposed that Eeshwaramma gave Rs.23-00 lakhs in cash to
Gambhirapati Raju on the date of registration of suit schedule land in favour of her daughter / Swathi vide Ex.B.28 / Sale deed, whereas gave
Rs.25-00 lakhs to Alli Peddi Raju on the same day and no receipt was obtained from Gambhirapati Raju acknowledging the receipt of the said 50 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 amount. As these facts were not deposed by him in the affidavit evidence filed by him, the cumulative reading of the same gives rise to draw an inference that this witness in collusion with Alli Peddi Raju &
Eeshwaramma, fabricated the Ex.B.1 & B.2 as contended by plaintiff, in order to deprive the legitimate right of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Moreover, it casts doubt on the credibility of his evidence as to the receiving of Rs.23-00 lakhs by Gambhirapati Raju on behalf of his wife –
Anitha from Shagam Swathi & Eeshwaramma.
33.As per the evidence of DW-5, initially, Gambhirapati Raju purchased the suit schedule land from Alli Peddi Raju vide simple sale deed, but subsequently, as he failed to arrange the sale consideration within the stipulated time, he with the consent of Alli Peddi Raju, sold away the suit schedule land to Bollam Saidulu for a valuable consideration of Rs.48-00 lakhs and accordingly, they entered into Ex.B.1 / Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016, as such, as the said transaction was witnessed by him, he signed on Ex.B.1 as a witness. In the cross examination, as he deposed that he had not seen the initial sale agreement entered into in between Alli 51 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Peddi Raju & Gambhirapati Raju and he does not know as to what was the consideration payable by Gambhirapati Raju to Bollam Saidulu when they entered into Ex.B.1 / Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016, it casts doubt on the credibility of his evidence. As he also deposed that he does not know as to whether Gambhirapati Raju was running Stone Crusher in the suit schedule land as on the date of preparing Ex.B.1 and further, Bollam
Saidulu has not paid any amount to Gambhirapati Raju on the date of preparing the said Ex.B.1, and even, Gambhirapati Anitha was not present when it was prepared, it casts doubt on the credibility of his evidence as to witnessing the execution of Ex.B.1 by Gambhirapati Raju in favour of
Bollam Saidulu. Moreover, as he deposed that he does not know as to whether the reference of earlier documents executed by Alli Peddi Raju in favour of Gambhirapati Raju & Anitha was mentioned in Ex.B.1 or not, it also fortifies that it is unsafe to rely upon his evidence to believe that
Ex.B.1 was entered into in between Gambhirapati Raju & Bollam Saidulu on 13-10-2016 only.
34.As per the evidence of DW-3, he was the witness to executing the 52 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Ex.B.28 / Sale deed by Alli Peddi Raju in favour of Shagam Swathi on 15.03.2017 in respect of suit schedule land and paying the entire sale consideration to Alli Peddi Raju. In the cross examination, as he deposed that there were 10 to 12 Stone Crusher units in and around the suit schedule property and further, there was a Stone Crusher unit having a shed with two rooms in the suit schedule land, but he does not know who run the said Stone Crusher unit and even, cannot say as to till how long it was run in it, his evidence would establish that till executing the Ex.B.28 /
Registered sale deed, Stone Crusher unit in the suit schedule land was in running condition. But, as he also deposed that though he was witness to the Ex.B.28 / Registered sale deed, he does not know as to what was the sale consideration for executing the Ex.B.28 and does not remember as to on which date or in which month, registration of the suit schedule land was taken place in between Alli Peddi Raju & Shagam Swathi, it casts doubt on the credibility of his evidence as to the execution of Ex.B.28 on 15-03-2017 only. Moreover, as he deposed that either 45 days or 65 days after the registering of Ex.B.28 / Sale deed, Revenue Inspector conducted the panchanama in respect of the suit schedule land and put his signature on 53 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 it as a witness, but he does not know as to whether the Revenue Inspector shown the shed having two rooms in the suit schedule land, in the said panchanama or not and also admitted that Ex.B.29 / Panchanama does not contains his signature, it also casts doubt on the credibility of his evidence, as to executing the Ex.B.28 / Sale deed by Alli Peddi Raju in favour of
Shagam Swathi on 15-03-2017 only, but registered on 21-03-2017.
35.As the oral evidence of DW-1 to 5 creates doubt on the credibility of
Ex.B.1 / Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016 said to be entered in between
Gambhirapati Raju & Bollam Saidulu, this court is of the view that mere signature of Gambhirapati Raju on it does not ispo facto establishes that he with the consent of Alli Peddi Raju only, executed the same in favour of
Bollam Saidulu for a consideration of Rs.48-00 lakhs on 13-10-2016.
Moreover, as stated supra, as per the evidence of DW-2 / Shagam
Eashwaramma, she has not paid any amount to the plaintiffs, but paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.66-00 lakhs to Alli Peddi Raju only by one day prior to executing the Ex.B.28 / Sale deed i.e., 14-03-2017, hence, it also casts doubt on the creditworthy of existence of Ex.B.1 & B.2 by the date of 54 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 executing the Ex.B.28 / Sale deed. Further, though it was pleaded by her in the written statement stating that before got registration of suit schedule property from Alli Peddi Raju vide Ex.B.28, they entered into an Agreement to sell dated 17-10-2016, non producing the same and so also receipts showing the payment of Rs.66-00 lakhs by them to Alli Peddi Raju, draws an inference as contended by counsel for the plaintiffs that Ex.B.28 / registered sale deed was obtained with anti date when it has come to their notice as to the filing of suit vide OS.No.30/2017 by plaintiff – Gambirapati
Anitha on 16-3-2017, in order to deprive her legitimate right over the suit schedule land only. As per the evidence of Shagam Eeshwaramma, though the sale deed was got prepared & executed on 15-03-2017, it was not presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration on the same day as
Server in the Registration office was down, hence, it could not be registered on that day, but could be registered on 21-03-2017 only. As per her further evidence, as Server was down on 15-03-2017, her daughter –
Shagam Swathi went back to her parents-in-law’s house in Karnataka state, but came back to Peddavoora before to 21-03-2017, hence, registration was got done on 21-03-2017. On the other hand, as per the evidence of 55 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
DW-3 who acted as one of the witnesses to Ex.B.28 / registered sale deed, on the date of registration i.e., on 21-03-2017, Shagam Swathi did not come to the Registration office, but her mother – Shagam Eeshwaramma was present and represented on behalf of her in got registering the sale deed.
Thus, as the evidence of Shagam Eeshwaramma is inconsistent and contradictory to the evidence of DW-3, it is appropriate to look into
Ex.B.28 / Sale deed. Accordingly, perusal of the Ex.B.28 goes to show that there is no endorsement of Sub-Registrar on it showing that it was received in the Sub-Registrar office on 15-03-2017. Moreover, Eeshwaramma only represented her daughter in the registration process and thus, her daughter / Shagam Swathi was not present in the Registration office on the date of registration. Hence, it casts doubt on the credibility of executing the
Ex.B.28 on 15-03-2017 only. Thus, Ex.B.1 & B.2 do not establish that
Gambhirapati Anitha was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and that Ex.A.1 / Agreement to Sell dated 16-5-2016 was cancelled for not paying the remaining agreed balance consideration by due date of 05-06-2016.
56 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
36.Though the counsel for Shagam Swathi & Eeshwaramma (defendants) relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Katta Sujatha Reddy (Supra)’, wherein, there was an explicit term and condition that in the event of non paying the agreed balance sale consideration within the stipulated time, advance amount already paid would be forfeited, it would not helpful to the defendants in this case, as there is no such explicit term and condition in the Ex.A.1 stating that in the event of failure to pay the remaining balance consideration on or before 05-06-2016, it would be cancelled by forfeiting the advance amount received by seller – Alli Peddi Raju or said amount would be returned to the buyer – Gambhirapati Anitha. Moreover, as there is no documentary evidence and also credible oral evidence to establish that Gambhirapati
Raju taken back the consideration of Rs.23-00 lakhs and further, as
Gambhirapati Anitha is not a party to the Ex.B.1, it cannot be said that
Ex.A.1 was cancelled on 05-06-2016 for non payment of remaining balance consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs only. On the other hand, as the plaintiff shown her ready and willingness in paying the said remaining balance consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs by sending the copy of Ex.A.3 / Banker 57 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 cheque (Demand Draft) along with the Ex.A.2 / Notice dated 26-09-2016 to
Alli Peddi Raju (seller), it clearly establishes that Gambhirapati Anitha was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Moreover, after filing the suit also, by depositing Rs.2-00 lakhs in the Court, she has shown her ready and willingness in performing her remaining part of contract to the Ex.A.1. In these circumstances, ratio decidendi laid down by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases relied upon by Alli Peddi Raju
(Defendant No.1) in ‘U.N.Krishnamurthy Vs. A.M.Krishnamurthy’ 8 , ‘C.S.Venkatesh Vs.A.S.C. Murthy’ 9and also ‘N.P.Thirugnanam Vs.
R.Jaganmohan Rao’ 10 , which emphasis that ‘as per Section 16(c) of Specific
Relief Act, in order to grant the relief of specific performance, buyer must prove his continuous readiness and willingness in performing his part of contract in terms of Agreement to sell entered into with the seller right from execution of contract to till the date of decree and in this regard, Court must take into consideration of conduct of plaintiff prior to and subsequent to filing the suit along with other attendant circumstances and the Court must exercise its judicial discretion and not act arbitrarily as contemplated under Section 20 of 8 2022 SCC Online SC 840, = (2023) 11 SCC 775 9(2020) 3 SCC 280 10 (1995) 5 SCC 115 58 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Specific Relief Act’, would not helpful to him in order to believe his contention that Gambhirapati Anitha was not ready and willing to perform her part of contract i.e., in paying the remaining balance consideration.
37.Though the counsel for Shagam Swathi & Eeshwaramma (defendants) also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Rajesh
Kumar Vs. Anand Kumar & Ors’ 11 , wherein, it was held that as ‘suit was preferred after a long delay, specific performance cannot be ordered’, it would not helpful to them as in the present suit, it was filed well in advance and that too, when it has come to the notice of the plaintiffs that Alli Peddi Raju is trying to alienate the suit schedule property to the third parties. Further, in the above relied upon judgment, ratio decidendi laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India is in respect of legal proposition that ‘if all co- sharers of the property have not entered into the suit Agreement to sell, it cannot be enforced. Further, buyer who have personal knowledge of the execution of suit Agreement to sell must only step into the witness box and depose as to his ready and willingness in performing the agreement, but his
Power of Attorney holder having no personal knowledge of transaction or ready 11(2024) SCC Online SC 981 59 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 and willingness, is not supposed to testify as the ready and willingness is a state of mind and conduct of buyer and his capacity and preparedness to perform contract’. Hence, this judgment would not helpful to the defendants in establishing that Gambhirapati Anitha was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract before to the due date of 05-06-2016.
38.In order to establish that plaintiffs are not in possession of suit schedule property, defendants in OS.No.55/2017, mainly relied upon the
Ex.B.28 / Sale deed and pattadar passbook-cum-title deed and pahanies issued in the name of Shagam Swathi in pursuance of said sale deed. On the other hand, as per the contention of plaintiffs, on came to know that defendants gave application to the Tahesildar of Peddavoora to mutate the name of Shagam Swathi in the place of Alli Peddi Raju in revenue records, they submitted their objections by stating that defendants obtained the sale deed from Alli Peddi Raju to deprive their legitimate right over the suit schedule property, as such, they filed suit vide OS.No.30/2017 against Alli
Peddi Raju and accordingly, furnished the copies of the same, but without considering their objections, as the name of Shagam Swathi was mutated, 60 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 they filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.28657/2017 before the Hon’ble High
Court, hence, Hon’ble High Court suspended the said mutation proceedings and the said Writ petition is still pending. As per the evidence of Shagam Eeshwaramma, on 24-03-2017, she on behalf of her daughter, gave application to Tahesildar of Peddavoora to mutate the name of her daughter in the name of Alli Peddi Raju in the revenue records for the suit schedule property, but she is not aware that plaintiffs raised objection for it or not, however, admitted that in the Ex.B.6 / Mutation proceedings issued by Tahesildar, it is reflected that plaintiffs raised objection, but the said objection was not considered by him. Further, as per the Ex.B.32 /
Letter dated 06-01-2018 given by Tahesildar, Peddavoora to Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddavoora, Stone Crusher unit in the suit schedule land is still in existence. Eeshwaramma also deposed that she filed Ex.B.35 / F.I.R dated 10-01-2018 in Peddavoora police station alleging that herself and her daughter purchased the Stone Crusher unit and one Kudhadi Krishna,
Ramavath Pekya and Ramavath Gangya were threatening her for purchasing the same. She also deposed that her husband also lodged similar nature of F.I.R vide Crime No.134/2017 on 27-08-2017. Thus, this 61 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 much of evidence establishes that plaintiffs only were running the Stone
Crusher unit in the suit schedule property as on the date of filing both the suits. Even the evidence of Alli Peddi Raju also establishes that plaintiffs gave complaint to higher authorities of electricity department against his action of got disconnecting the electricity service connection to the Stone
Crusher unit after filing the suit vide OS.No.30/2017 by them against him.
Ex.A.1 to A.6 filed by Gambhirapati Raju in OS.No.55/2017 also establishes the same. In these circumstances, as mere entry of the name of Shagam
Swathi in the revenue records for the suit schedule property would not establish her possession over the suit schedule land, whereas on the other hand, as the plaintiffs were not evicted by Alli Peddi Raju from suit schedule property under the due process of law under the guise of lease period is expired, it can be said that plaintiffs only are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing both the suits. Thus, issue No.1 & 2 in OS.No.30/2017, whereas issue No.1 in OS.No.55/2017 are decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
62 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Issues:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the suit
Agreement to sell ?
Whether the defendant No.2 is bound by the suit Agreement to sell ?
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the injunction as prayed for ?
39.As per the contention of Counsel for Alli Peddi Raju ( Defendant No.1), plaintiff – Gambhirapati Anitha has not specifically averred / pleaded in the plaint filed by her in the suit vide OS.No.30/2017 that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, Section 16(c) of Specific
Relief Act, 1963 debars her from claiming the relief of specific performance. On the other hand, as per the contention of Counsel for the plaintiff, though it is not specifically averred / pleaded with specific phraseology, as the whole reading of the plaint averments / pleadings are clearly indicating the readyness and willingness of the plaintiff in performing her part of the contract, it is sufficient to grant the relief of specific performance as prayed for. In this regard, plaintiff relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Motilal Jain Vs.
Smt. Ramdasi Devi & Others12’, wherein, it was held that 12AIR 2000 SC 2408 63 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Unless a statute specifically requires a plea to be in any particular form, it can be in any form. No specific phraseology or language is required to take such a plea. The language in Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not require any specific phraseology but only that the plaintiff must aver that he has performed or has always been and is willing to perform his part of the contract. So the compliance of readiness and willingness has to be in spirit and substance and not in letter and form. It is thus clear that an averment of readiness and willingness in the plaint is not a mathematical formula which should only be in specific words. If the averments in the plaint as a whole do clearly indicate the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to fulfill his part of the obligations under the contract which is subject- matter of the suit, the fact that they are differently worded will not militate against the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in a suit of specific performance of contract for sale.
40. Further, as plaintiff paid substantial portion of the agreed sale consideration i.e., Rs.23-00 lakhs out of total consideration of Rs.25-00 lakhs, it shows that she was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs, hence, she is not required to prove anything that she failed to pay the said balance consideration deliberately, as such, she is entitled for the relief of specific performance. In this regard also, relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘R.Rama Subbamma Vs.V.Vijayalaxmi & Others 13 ’ becomes relevant, wherein, it was held that ‘Once execution of Agreement to sell and payment / receipt of advance / substantial sale consideration was admitted by the vendor, thereafter nothing further required to be proved by the vendee, as such, vendee is entitled for specific performance’ .
13AIR 2002 SC 793 64 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
41.Hence, in view of above legal proposition, it can be said that plaintiff –
Gambhirapati Anitha is entitled for the relief of specific performance.
Moreover, as Shagam Eeshwaramma (defendant No.2 in OS.No.55/2017) admitted in her evidence that she has knowledge as to the subsistence of
Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 prior to got registering the suit schedule land vide Ex.B.28 / Registered sale deed, it can be said that her daughter - Shagam Swathi is not the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property, hence, she is bound by the suit Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016. Further, plea taken by defendants in the written statement stating that plaintiff is entitled for the relief of refund of money only from her vendor - Alli Peddi Raju and not the relief of specific performance clearly shows that they have knowledge of existence of Ex.A.1 prior to got registering the suit schedule property vide Ex.B-28 / registered sale deed, hence, such conduct itself establishes that they are not bonafide purchasers. Hence, as per Section 19(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the first purchaser is entitled for the sale deed along with joining the subsequent purchaser and in this regard, judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of ‘Maharaj Singh & Others Vs. Kiran Singh 65 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 through (Lrs) & Others14’, also states that ‘Subsequent purchaser who is not a bonafide purchaser cannot retain the property and his sale deed either can be cancelled or he is directed to join in the sale deed to be executed in favour of the plaintiff’, this Court has no hesitation to hold that Issue No.3 & 4 in
OS.No.30 / 2017 are decided in favour of the plaintiff – Gambhirapati
Anitha.
42.As per the contention of counsel for defendants, as the Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 is not a registered one, it shall not be considered in evidence as admissible in view of bar under Section 49 of Registration Act.
Further, as the plaintiffs filed the suit vide OS.No.55/2017 for the relief of bare injunction without being sought for relief of specific performance of
Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016, they are not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for. In order to substantiate this contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Balram Singh Vs.Kelodevi’ 15 , wherein, it was held that
Having conscious of the fact that the plaintiff might not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell as the same was unregistered, the plaintiff filed a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction only. It 14 AIR 2024 SC 3328 = (2024) 8 SCC 83 15(2024) 12 SCC 723 66 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 may be true that in a given case, an unregistered document can be used and/or considered for collateral purpose. However, at the same time, the plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for substantive relief, namely, in the present case the relief for specific performance. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot get the relief even for permanent injunction on the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell, more particularly when the defendant specifically filed the counter-claim for getting back the possession which was allowed by the learned trial Court. The plaintiff cleverly prayed for a relief of permanent injunction only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell as the agreement to sell was an unregistered document and therefore on such unregistered document/agreement to sell, no decree for specific performance could have been passed. The plaintiff cannot get the relief by clever drafting.
He also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Prakash Sahu Vs. Saulal 16 ’, wherein it was held that
Unregistered document can be used by way of collateral evidences provided in the provisio to the Section 49 of the Registration Act. For effecting the collateral transaction, whose registration is required by the law should be free from the transaction or be divisible from that. Collateral transaction should be such a transaction which may not be automatically expected of effecting by the registered document i.e., Rs.100/- or any transaction or instrument or right or interest in any immovable property are value of more than Rs.100/-. If the document is inadmissible in evidence in the absence of registration, then any of its estoppel cannot be admitted in evidence and for use of the document for purposes of providing important part, it would not utilized by way of collateral purpose.
He also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘M/s.K.B.Saha & Sons Pvt.Ltd., Vs.M/s.Development Consultant Ltd 17 .’, wherein, it was held that 162019 SCC Online 1905 17(2008) 8 SCC 564 67 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
A document which requires registration under Section 17 and which is not admissible for want of registration to prove a gift or mortgage or sale or lease is nevertheless admissible to prove the character of the possession of the person who holds under it.
He further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Ameer Minhaj Vs.Dierdre Elizabeth 18 ’, wherein, it was held that
The sale Agreement which is inadmissible in evidence, will have to be understand to mean that the document though exhibited, will bear an endorsement it is admissible only as evidence of the Agreement to sell under provisio to Section 49 of the Registration Act and shall not have any effect for the purpose of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act.
43.Admittedly, initially plaintiff / Gambhirapati Anitha filed the suit vide
OS.No.33/2017 seeking the relief of specific performance of Agreement to
sell dated 16-05-2016 against Alli Peddi Raju, but subsequently, as she came to know that during the pending suit, as Alli Peddi Raju registered the suit schedule land in favour of Shagam Swathi vide document No.914/2017 on 21-03-2017, he was constrained to implead the said subsequent purchaser / Shagam Swathi as party to the suit claiming relief against her to join Alli Peddi Raju and execute the registered sale deed in her favour for the suit schedule land. Apart from that, she along with her husband, filed a suit vide OS.No.55/2017 against her and her mother – Shagam 18(2018) 7 SCC 639 68 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Eeshwaramma claiming the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain them from interfere with their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land. This means, plaintiff prayed the relief of injunction as an ancillary relief to the main relief of seeking specific performance of Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016. As such, as the provisio to Section 49 of Registration
Act allowing the said Agreement to sell as admissible in evidence, it can be used for collateral purpose in deciding the possession of the suit schedule property also. Hence, as the suit vide OS.No.55/2017 is not an independent suit, but connected with the suit vide OS.No.30/2017, the above relied upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India would not applicable to the facts and circumstances in the suit vide OS.No.55/2017. Thus, ratio decidendi laid down in the above relied upon judgments would not helpful to the defendants in OS.No.55/2017 for denying the relief as prayed for by plaintiffs. Hence, issue No.2 in OS.No.55 / 2017 is also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
In the result: Suit vide OS.No.30/2017 is decreed with costs directing the defendants No.1 & 2 to execute the registered sale deed in favour of 69 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 plaintiff for the suit schedule land by receiving the balance consideration of
Rs.2-00 lakhs deposited by her in the Court.
Suit vide OS.No.55/2017 is decreed with costs restraining the defendants No.1 & 2 from interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
Typed by Stenographer (Gr.I) to the dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of October, 2025.
V - Additional District Judge,
Miryalaguda.
Appendix of evidence in OS.No. 30 / 2017
Witnesses Examined
On behalf of the Plaintiff:
PW.1:Gambhirapati Anitha / Plaintiff. PW.2:Madireddy Ramnadh Reddy.
On behalf of the defendants:
DW.1:Alli Peddi Raju / Defendant No.1. DW.2:Shagam Eeshwaramma. DW.3:Ramavath Ramji. DW.4:Bollam Saidulu. DW.5:Komati Venkanna.
Exhibits Marked
On behalf of the plaintiff:
Ex.A.1:Original Agreement of sale dated 16-05-2016 along with receipt (since it is insufficiently stamped, the deficit stamp duty and penalty thereof is collected by the Court and an endorsement is made to the said effect). Ex.A.2:Photocopy of Legal notice dated 20-09-2016.
70 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Ex.A.3:Original Demand Draft / Bankers Cheque for Rs.2,00,000/-issued by SBH, Mohan Nagar branch, Hyderabad dated 19-09-2016.
On behalf of the defendants:
Ex.B.1:Agreement dated 13-10-2016 between the husband of the plaintiff and Bollam Saidaiah. Ex.B.2:Certified copy of Agreement dated 29-04-2016 between Alli Peddi Raju (defendant No.1) and Bollam Saidaiah, contains the signatures of Gambhirapati Anitha (plaintiff), K.Ramreddy, M.Saidi Reddy, P.Bixam Reddy as attestors. Ex.B.3:Certified copy of pattadar passbook-cum-title deed vide Sl.No.T28260181040, Khata No.1805 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of defendant No.1. Ex.B.4:Certified copy of pattadar passbook vide Sl.No.806093, Khata No.1805 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of defendant No.1. Ex.B.5:Certified copy of title deed vide Sl.No.806093, Khata No.1805 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of defendant No.1 with the approval of the RDO, Miryalaguda. Ex.B.6: Certified copy of proceedings issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora vide Letter No.B/461/2017 dated 27-07-2017. Ex.B.7: Certified copy of Amendment register issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of the defendant No.1. Ex.B.8:Certified copy of 1-B issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of the defendant No.1. Ex.B.9:Certified copy of 1-B Namoona (ROR) pahani issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mee-seva in favour of the defendant No. 1, dated 07-03-2017. Ex.B.10: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-01 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal (2 pages). Ex.B.11: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2003-04 Issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal (2 pages). Ex.B.12: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.13: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-10 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar,Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.14: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2011-12 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.15:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2013-14 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar. Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.16: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016 (1426 fasli) dated 07-03-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.518/A5/1). Ex.B.17: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016 (1426 fasli) dated 07-03-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.518/3). Ex.B.18: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016 (1426 fasli) dated 07-03-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.519/4). Ex.B.19: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016 (1426 fasli) dated 07-03-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.521/3).
71 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Ex.B.20: Certified copy of 1-B Namoona (ROR) pahani issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva in favour of defendant No.1 dated 01-08-2017. Ex.B.21: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017 (1427 fasli) dated 01-08-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.519/4). Ex.B.22: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017 (1427 fasli) dated 01-08-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.518/A5/1). Ex.B.23: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017 (1427 fasli) dated 01-08-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.518/3). Ex.B.24:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017 (1427 fasli) dated 01-08-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy. No.521/3). Ex.B.25:Certified copy of Encumbrance certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor, statement No.26213881, dated 22-05-2017. Ex.B.26: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.1634/2009, dated 02-07-2009 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor. Ex.B.27:Certified copy of registered cancellation deed bearing No.907/2017, dated 20- 03-2017 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor. Ex.B.28: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.914/2017, dated 21- 03-2017 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor. Ex.B.29:Certified copy of panchanama conducted by the Additional Revenue Inspector, Peddavoora Mandal with regarding to the possession of the land before the mediators and witnesses, dated 20-07-2017. Ex.B.30: Certified copy of the statement of Mudireddy Shiva Reddy recorded by the
Additional Revenue Inspector, Peddavoora Mandal, dated 20-07-2017.
Ex.B.31:Certified copy of the statement of Banavath Shanker recorded by the Additional Revenue Inspector, Peddavoora Mandal, dated 20-07-2017. Ex.B.32: Proceedings issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora to the Station House Officer, Peddavoora P.S vide letter No.B/17/2018, dated 06-01-2018. Ex.B.33: Certified copy of the F.I.R.No.134/2017, dated 27-08-2017 against the plaintiff, henchmen, under Sections 447, 504, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C along with report. Ex.B.34: Certified copy of charge sheet in F.I.R.No.134/2017, dated 19-09-2017. Ex.B.35: Certified copy of F.I.R.No.07/2018, dated 10-01-2018 against the plaintiffs henchmen, under Sections 341, 447, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C along with report. Ex.B.36:Certified copy of charge-sheet in F.I.R.No.07/2018, dated 05-05-2018. Ex.B.37: Certified copy of passbook No.731390 vide patta No.560 pertaining to Alli Peddi Raju (defendant No.1). Ex.B.38:Certified copy of title deed book No.731390 vide patta No.560 pertaining to Alli Peddi Raju (defendant No.1). Ex.B.39:Original Special Power of Attorney executed by defendant No.2 in favour of Shagam Eashwaramma.
72 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Appendix of evidence in OS.No. 55 / 2017
Witnesses Examined
On behalf of the Plaintiff:
PW.1:Gambhirapati Raju / Plaintiff.
On behalf of the defendants:
DW.1:Shagam Eeshwaramma / Defendant No.2. DW.2:Midimalapu Brahmanandha Reddy. DW.3:Velugu Prashanth.
Exhibits Marked
On behalf of the plaintiff:
Ex.A.1:Two electricity bills dated 12-01-2017 and 27-02-2017. Ex.A.2:Office copy of complaint filed by the plaintiff to the Divisional Engineer dated 19.04.2017. Ex.A.3:Office copy of complaint filed by the plaintiff to the Additional Divisional Engineer, electricity Department dated 19-04-2017. Ex.A.4:Office copy of complaint given to the Superintending Engineer dated 19.04.2017. Ex.A.5:Copy of letter given to the Assistant Engineer dated 27-04-2017. Ex.A.6:Three photographs with CD dated 21-08-2017. Ex.A.7:Original MD license No.550/MDR/NLG/2014 dated 24-02-2014.
On behalf of the defendants:
Ex.B.1:Original pattadar passbook-cum-title deed vide Sl.No.T28260181040, Khata No.1805 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of the defendant No.1. Ex.B.2:Original pattadar passbook vide Sl.No.806093, Khata No.1805 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of the defendant No.1. Ex.B.3:Original title deed vide Sl.No.806093 Khata No.1805 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of defendant No.1 with the approval of the RDO, Miryalaguda. Ex.B.4:Original proceedings issued by the Tahesildar, Paddavoora vide letter No.B.461/2017, dated 27-07-2027. Ex.B.5:Certified copy of amendment register issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of defendant No.1. Ex.B.6: Original 1-B issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of the defendant No.1. Ex.B.7: Certified copy of 1-B Namoona (ROR) pahani issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva in favour of the defendant No.1 dated 07.03.2017.
73 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Ex.B.8:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-2001 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.9:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2003-2004 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.10: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-2008 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.11: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-2010 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.12: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2011-2012 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.13: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2013-2014 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.14: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016 (1426 fasli) dated 07-03-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.518/A5/1). Ex.B.15:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016 (1426 fasli) dated 07-03-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.518/3). Ex.B.16: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016 (1426 fasli) dated 07-03-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.519/4). Ex.B.17:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016 (1426 fasli) dated 07-03-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.521/3). Ex.B.18: Certified copy of 1-B Namoona (ROR) pahani issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva in favour of the defendant No.1 dated 01.08.2017. Ex.B.19: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017 (1427 fasli) dated 01-08-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.519/4). Ex.B.20: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017 (1427 fasli) dated 01-08-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.518/A5/1). Ex.B.21: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017 (1427 fasli) dated 01-08-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.518/3). Ex.B.22:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017 (1427 fasli) dated 01-08-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.521/3). Ex.B.23:Original encumbrance certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor, Statement No.26213881, dated 22-05-2015. Ex.B.24:Original registered sale deed bearing document No.1634/2009 dated 02-07-2009 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor. Ex.B.25:Original registered sale deed bearing document No.907/2017 dated 20-03-2017 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor. Ex.B.26: Original registered sale deed bearing document No.914/2017 dated 21-03-2017 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor. Ex.B.27:Certified copy of panchanama conducted by the Additional Revenue Inspector, Peddavoora Mandal with regarding to the possession of the land before the mediators and witnesses, dated 20-07-2017. Ex.B.28: Certified copy of statement of Mudireddy Shiva Reddy recorded by the
Additional Revenue Inspector, Peddavoora Mandal, dated 20-07-2017.
Ex.B.29:Certified copy of statement of Banavath Shanker recorded by the Additional Revenue Inspector, Peddavoora Mandal, dated 20-07-2017.
74 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Ex.B.30: Proceedings issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora to the Station House Officer, Peddavoora P.S vide letter No.B/17/2018, dated 06-01-2018. Ex.B.31:Attested copy of the F.I.R No.134/2017 dated 27-08-2017 against the plaintiff henchmen, under Sections 447, 504, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C along with report. Ex.B.32: Attested copy of charge-sheet in F.I.R.No.134/2017, dated 19-09-2017. Ex.B.33: Attested copy in F.I.R.No.07/2018, dated 10-01-2018 against the plaintiff’s henchmen, under Sections 341, 447, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C along with report. Ex.B.34: Attested copy of charge sheet in F.I.R.No.07/2018, dated 05-05-2018. Ex.B.35: Original sale deed in favour of the Bollam Saidaiah executed by Alli Peddi Raju
dated 29-04-2016 on Rs.100/- Non-judicial stamp paper.
V - Additional District Judge,
Miryalaguda.
1 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
IN THE COURT OF V - ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT:
MIRYALAGUDA , NALGONDA DISTRICT
Tuesday, the 14th day of October, 2025
Present: Mr. Gajawada Venu V - Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda.
O.S.No. 30 of 2017
AND
O.S.No. 55 of 2017
OS.No.30 / 20 17
Between: Gambhirapati Anitha, S/o.Raju, Age:56 years, R/o.H.No.1-2-228/43, Nageshwara Nagar Colony,
Kothapet, Hyderabad. ...Plaintiff
AND
1.Alli Peddi Raju, S/o.Chandraiah Age:40 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Boyagudem village, Anumula Mandal, Nalgonda District.
2.Shagam Swathi, D/o.Nagi Reddy, Age:33 years, Occ:House hold, R/o.Tirumalagiri (v & m), Nalgonda District. (Defendant No.2 is impleaded as per the Order in IA.No.436/2017 dated 12-11-2018) …Defendants
OS.No. 55 / 20 17
Between:
1. Gambhirapati Raju, S/o. Guttaiah Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-2-228/43, Nageshwara Nagar Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad.
2 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
2. Gambhirapati Anitha, W/o.Raju, Aged about 56 years, Occ: House-wife R/o.H.No.1-2-228/43, Nageshwara Nagar Colony,
Kothapet, Hyderabad. ...Plaintiffs
AND
1Shagam Swathi, D/o. Nagi Reddy, Aged about 33 years, Occ:House hold, R/o.Tirumalagiri (v & m), Nalgonda District.
2Shagam Eeshwaramma, W/o. Nagi Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ:House hold, R/o.Tirumalagiri (v & m), Nalgonda District. …Defendants
These suits are coming before me for final hearing on 23-09-2025 in the presence of Mr. Jaffar Shariff, Advocate for the plaintiff, and of Mr.M.C.Koti Reddy, Advocate for the defendant No.1, Mr.K.Pratap Reddy, Advocate for the defendant No.2 in OS.No.30 / 2017 and of Mr. Jaffar Shariff, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Mr.K.Pratap Reddy, Advocate for the defendants No.1 & 2 in
OS.No.55/2017 and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood
over for consideration till this day, the Court deliveres the following:-
:: COMMON JUDGMENT ::
1.Plaintiff filed the suit vide OS.No.30 / 2017 seeking the relief of specific performance of Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 for the suit schedule land by directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in her favour. The same plaintiff along with her husband filed the suit vide OS.No.55 / 2017 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants to restrain them from interfere with their possession over the suit schedule land. As such, as the suit schedule land involved in both suits are one and the same and the parties to it are also more or less, one 3 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 and the same, and the evidence led by both parties in both the suits is overlapping with each other due to common facts, but separate & distinct reliefs are prayed, it is appropriate to take up these two suits jointly for proper appreciation of evidence and giving clarity in order to dispose of the same effectively with a common judgment.
OS.No.30 / 2017
2.Initially, this suit was filed against the defendant No.1 alone and thereafter, as it has come to the notice of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 fraudulently sold the suit schedule land in favour of defendant No.2, she impleaded the defendant No.2 as party to the suit for seeking effective relief. As per the averments / pleadings in the plaint, Defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of ‘Vaishnavi Stone Crusher’ along with the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3-32 gts in Sy.No.518, Ac.1-19 gts in
Sy.No.519 and Ac.3-21 gts in Sy.No.521 (total Ac.8-32 gts) situated at
Kunkuduchettu thanda, H/o.Chalakurthy village of Peddavoora mandal in
Nalgonda District. He offered to sell the same to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.25-00 lakhs. Plaintiff accepted for the same and paid an 4 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 amount of Rs.22-00 lakhs by way of Cheque bearing No.717017 dated 16-05-2016 drawn on SBH bank, Mohan Nagar branch, Hyderabad and
Rs.1-00 lakh in cash to the defendant No.1. Having received the same, defendant No.1 executed an Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 in favour of the plaintiff by agreeing to receive the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs from the plaintiff on or before 05-06-2016 and execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. As the same was witnessed by M.Ramanath Reddy & P.Satyanarayana Rao, they signed on it as witnesses. Ever since the purchase of suit schedule land, plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract i.e., paying balance consideration, but the defendant No.1 did not come forward to receive the same and dodged the matter for one reason or other. While so, as it has come to know to the plaintiff that defendant No.1, with a malafide intention, is trying to alienate the suit schedule land in favour of third parties, she finally demanded him in the 1st week of June, 2016 to execute the registered sale deed in her favour by receiving the balance sale consideration, but he did not come forward. At last, vexed with the said attitude of defendant No.1, plaintiff issued a notice dated 20-09-2016 to 5 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 the defendant No.1 calling upon him to receive the balance sale consideration within 7 days from the date of receiving the same and execute the registered sale deed in her favour for the suit schedule property. Along with the said notice, she also sent a photocopy of banker’s cheque / Demand Draft bearing No.121548 dated 19-09-2016 drawn on
SBH bank, Mohan Nagar branch, Hyderabad for an amount of Rs.2-00 lakhs showing her ready and willingness to perform her part of the contract in paying the balance sale consideration. But, despite receiving the said notice, as the defendant No.1 did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed and thus, failed to perform his part of the contract, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit against him alone to direct him to execute the registered sale deed in her favour by receiving the remaining agreed balance sale consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs or in the alternative, grant damages of Rs.25-00 lakhs besides refund Rs.23-00 lakhs paid by her, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit to the date of realization.
3.During the pending suit, as it has come to the notice of the plaintiff 6 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 that defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property to the defendant No.2 by executing the registered sale deed, she filed a petition vide
IA.No.436/2017 to implead the defendant No.2 as party to the suit. As such,
defendant No.2 was impleaded as per the Order dated 12-11-2018. Plaintiff also filed a petition vide IA.No.825/2024 to permit her to amend the pleadings to the effect that defendant No.2 be directed to join the defendant No.1 in executing the registered sale deed in her favour and the same was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 17-12-2024. As such, plaintiff is praying to direct the defendants No.1 & 2 to execute the registered sale deed in her favour.
4.On the other hand, defendant No.1, by filing written statement, admitted the execution of Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 by him in favour of the plaintiff and also receiving of part sale consideration, but denied the contention of the plaintiff that ever since the entering into of agreement, she was ready and willing to perform her obligation of paying the remaining agreed balance sale consideration. It is pleaded that issuing of alleged legal notice dated 20-09-2016 along with the photocopy of 7 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Banker’s cheque / Demand Draft bearing No.121548/2016 dated 19-09- 2016 drawn on SBH bank, Mohan Nagar branch, Hyderabad for Rs.2-00 lakhs is false. It is also pleaded that husband of the plaintiff – Gambhirapati
Raju and defendant No.1 are well known to each other, as such, in the month of May, 2016, when the defendant No.1 expressed his willingness to sell the suit schedule property, husband of the plaintiff has come forwarded to purchase the same, and the same resulted into the entering of Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. As per the said agreement, plaintiff shall pay balance sale consideration on or before 05-06-2016, but she failed to do the same.
Further, since from the date of entering into the agreement to the date of issuing Notice dated 20-09-2016, plaintiff never expressed her ready and willingness to perform her part of the contract. Though the defendant No.1 personally demanded the plaintiff several times to perform her part of the contract within the stipulated time, plaintiff failed to do the same, hence, as the Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 stands annulled by operation of law on 05-06-2016 itself, plaintiff is not entitled to press into service of said agreement.
8 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
5.It is also pleaded that as the husband of plaintiff / Gambhirapati Raju, being the actual purchaser of the suit schedule land, had already paid huge amount towards the part sale consideration, in order to get back the said amount, he with the consent of defendant No.1, entered into an
Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016 with one Bollam Saidulu, S/o.Balaiah,
R/o.Nidamanoor to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of
Rs.48-00 lakhs. As such, on 15-03-2017, as per the orders / directions of said Bollam Saidulu, defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2 for the suit schedule land. It is also pleaded that as per the oral understanding in between the plaintiff’s husband –
Gambhirapati Raju and the defendant No.1 which is within the knowledge of plaintiff, defendant No.2 and Bollam Saidulu, defendant No.2 shall pay an amount of Rs.23-00 lakhs to the plaintiff’s husband, whereas pay
Rs.25-00 lakhs to the defendant No.1. Accordingly, defendant No.2 paid
Rs.23-00 lakhs to the plaintiff’s husband, whereas Rs.25-00 lakhs to the defendant No.1 and got registered the sale deed No.914/2017 dated 15-03- 2017 in her favour on 21-03-2017 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor.
Thus, though the Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 was annulled by 9 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 operation of law on 05-06-2016 itself, and even, terminated by virtue of
Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016 executed by plaintiff’s husband in favour of Bollam Saidulu on being received Rs.23-00 lakhs from the defendant No.2, as the plaintiff filed this suit by suppressing the material facts and came to the court with unclean hands, she is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, defendant No.1 prayed to dismiss the suit.
6.Defendant No.2, by filing separate Written statement, denied the contention of the plaintiff. She pleaded that she is not aware of the fact as to defendant No.1 had offered to sell the suit schedule land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.25-00 lakhs and in turn, plaintiff accepted for the said offer and paid part sale consideration. She further pleaded that originally, part of the suit schedule property i.e., land admeasuring Ac.5-11 in Sy.No.518 & 519 belongs to the plaintiff who acquired the same in the year 2005 and enjoyed it for a considerable period and thereafter, alienated it to the defendant No.1. It is further pleaded that defendant
No.1 also acquired the land to an extent of Ac.3-21 gts in Sy.No.521 from one Banala Mangamma through registered sale deed No.421/2005 dated 10 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 05-03-2005 and similarly, purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0-30 gts in
Sy.No.518 and also land to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.519 from one
Gande Papa Rao vide registered deed No.907/2017 dated 20-03-2017.
Further, as per the registered sale deed No.1634/2009 dated 02-07-2009, defendant No.1 sold the land to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.519 to
Gande Papa Rao, but subsequently, cancelled the same vide document
No.907/2017 dated 20-03-2017 and thus, defendant No.1 was holding the land to an extent of Ac.9-22 gts in Sy.No.518, 519 & 521 which includes the suit schedule land. While so, as the defendant No.1 offered to sell the said land of Ac.9-22 gts, one Bollam Saidulu came forward to purchase the same for an amount of Rs.50-00 lakhs and accordingly, an Agreement to sell dated 29-04-2016 was entered into in between them and consequently, said Bollam Saidaiah paid an amount of Rs.1-00 lakhs as earnest money to the defendant No.1 by agreeing to pay the remaining sale consideration on or before 16-05-2016 and to which, plaintiff and one K.Ramreddy and
M.Saidi Reddy and also P.Bixam Reddy acted as witnesses. Thereafter, as the said Bollam Saidulu @ Saidaiah failed to perform his part of the contract, said Agreement to sell dated 29-04-2016 was canceled and 11 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 consequently, they came to a conclusion to sell the said land to the third parties. While so, as the defendant No.1 approached the defendant No.2 and her mother – Eeshwaramma and offered to sell the suit schedule land, defendant No.2 expressed her willingness to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs.66-00 lakhs and accordingly, an Agreement to sell
dated 17-10-2016 was entered into in between them. As per the said
Agreement to sell dated 17-10-2016, defendant No.2 paid an amount of
Rs.15-00 lakhs to the defendant No.1 on the same day as earnest money by agreeing to pay remaining balance consideration on or before 17-12- 2016. Thereafter, as the defendant No.2 paid entire balance sale consideration, defendant No.1 executed the registered sale deed
No.914/2017 in her favour on 21-03-2017 on the file of Sub-Registrar,
Nidamanoor and thus, defendant No.2 became the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule land.
7.It is pleaded that after got registering the suit schedule property vide sale deed No.914/2017, defendant No.2 approached the Tahesildar,
Paddavoora to mutate her name in the place of defendant No.1 in all 12 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 relevant revenue records for the suit schedule property, as such, the then
Tahesildar, Peddavoora made discrete enquiries and even, conducted field enquiry and finally, passed the Proceedings vide File No.B/461/2017 dated 27-07-2017 and consequently, directed the Village Revenue Officer of the
Chalakurthy and also Revenue Inspector of the Peddavoora to take necessary action in implementing the order passed vide above proceedings. Thereafter, pattadar passbook & title were issued in favour of the defendant No.2 by issuing 1-B Namuna (ROR) pahani. While so, plaintiff and her henchmen tried to interfere with the possession of defendant No.2 over the suit schedule property and also lodged a complaint against her and the defendant No.1 in Peddavoora police station on 08-04-2017 vide
Crime No.64/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.
Thereafter, as the plaintiff obstructed the possession and enjoyment of the defendant No.2 over the suit schedule property, defendant No.2 got lodged a complaint against her and one K.Krishna, Ravi and some others on 27-08-2017 vide Crime No.134/2017 for the offences punishable under
Sections 447, 504 & 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. On 10-01-2018 also, as the plaintiff along with her henchmen tried to dispossess the defendant No.2 from the 13 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 suit schedule property, defendant No.2 got lodged another complaint against them vide Crime No.7/2018 for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 447 & 506 r/w 34 I.P.C and all the said cases are pending for trial in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor. Hence, by virtue of Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016, if the plaintiff suffers, she can initiate appropriate proceedings against the defendant No.1 for the recovery of advance amount paid by her to him, as such, present suit claiming the relief of specific performance of Agreement to sell dated 16- 05-2016 against her is not maintainable when she is not a party to the said agreement and thereby, there is no privity of contract between them.
Accordingly, defendant No.2 prayed to dismiss the suit.
8.On the basis of above rival pleadings, following issues were settled for trial:
1) Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract ?
2) Whether the suit Agreement to sell annulled on 05-06-2015 ?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the suit Agreement to sell ?
4) Whether the defendant No.2 is bound by the suit Agreement to sell ?
14 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
5) To what relief ?
9.On behalf of the plaintiff, she herself was got examined as PW-1 and got marked / Exhibited Ex.A.1 to A.3. She also examined one of the witnesses to the Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016, as PW-2. On the other hand, defendant No.1 himself was got examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.B.1 / Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016 executed in between the husband of the plaintiff and Bollam Saidulu. While cross examining him, defendant No.2 got marked Ex.B.2 / Agreement to sell dated 29-04- 2016 entered into in between him and one Bollam Saidulu by confronting the same to him. Defendant No.2 examined her mother-cum-Special
Power of Attorney, as PW-2 and got marked Ex.B.3 to B.39. She also examined DW-3 to DW-5.
OS.No.55 / 2017
10.This suit is filed by plaintiff in OS.No.30 / 2017 along with her husband against the defendant No.2 in OS.No.30 / 2017 and her mother, as such, plaintiff No.1 in this suit is the husband of plaintiff in OS.No.30 / 15 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 2017, whereas defendant No.2 is the mother of defendant No.2 in OS.No.
30 /2017. As per the averments / pleadings of the plaint, Plaintiff No.1 entered into a Lease Agreement dated 31-10-2011 with A.Peddi Raju in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., ‘Vaishnavi Stone Crusher’ along with the land admeasuring Ac.3-32 gts in Sy.No.518, Ac.1-19 gts in
Sy.No.519 & Ac.3-21 gts in Sy.No.521 (total Ac.8-32 gts) situated at
Kunkuduchettu thanda, H/o.Chalakurthy village of Peddavoora mandal in
Nalgonda District. While so, plaintiff No.2 i.e., wife of the plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit schedule property from the said A. Peddi Raju (Lessor) vide Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 for a consideration of Rs.25-00 lakhs and paid an amount of Rs.22-00 lakhs vide Cheque No.717017 dated 16-05-2016 drawn on SBH bank, Mohan Nagar branch, Hyderabad and
Rs.1-00 lakh in cash by agreeing to pay the remaining balance consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs on or before 05-06-2016 or at the time of registration whichever is earlier. As the said A.Peddi Raju was not coming forward to receive the balance consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs and execute the registered sale deed in her favour, she got issued a legal notice dated 20-09-2016 calling upon him to receive Rs.2-00 lakhs and execute the 16 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 registered sale deed, but he neither gave any reply nor performed his part of the contract. In those circumstances, plaintiff No.2 filed a suit vide
OS.No.30/2017 against him on 16-03-2017. As Alli Peddi Raju was
constantly following the plaintiffs and received information as to the filing of said suit, he in collusion with the defendants herein, brought into existence of registered sale deed No.914/2017 dated 15-03-2017 on 21-03- 2017 in order to defraud them and thereby, deprive legitimate right of the plaintiff No.2 over the suit schedule land. Thus, said registered sale deed
No.914/2017 is a sham and nominal document when the possession of the suit schedule land is remained with the plaintiffs by virtue of the lease agreement.
11.After brought into the existence of sale deed No.914/2017, defendant
No.1 made an application to the Tahesildar, Peddavoora for mutation of her name in the revenue records for the suit schedule land and to which, plaintiff No.2 filed her objection by filing the copy of the Agreement to sell
dated 16-05-2016 executed by Alli Peddi Raju in her favour and also suit
documents pertaining to OS.No.30 / 2017, but the said Tahesildar did not 17 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 consider her objection and passed order vide File No.B/461/2017 dated 27- 07-2017 mutating the name of the defendant No.1 in the place of Alli Peddi
Raju in the revenue records, as such, plaintiff No.2 is challenging the same by filing the Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court.
12.It is pleaded that even if the entries in the Record of Rights carries evidentiary value, that itself would not confer any title on the defendant
No.1 for the suit schedule land. It is further pleaded that though the extent of the suit schedule land is Ac.8-32 gts, property claimed by the defendants is to an extent of Ac.9-22 gts and thus, though it is totally different from the land purchased by defendants from the vendor of plaintiff No.2 i.e.,
A.Peddi Raju, they are trying to grab the suit schedule property under the guise of registered sale deed No.914/2017. It is also pleaded that after executing the alleged sale deed No.914/2017 by vendor of the plaintiff
No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1, he (Vendor - A.Peddi Raju), in order to harass the plaintiffs, gave an application to the TSSPDCL to dis-connect the power supply given to the ‘Vaishnavi Stone Crusher’ and thereby, dismantle the said service connection bearing S.C.No.3912400115. In 18 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 pursuance of the said application, as Assistant Engineer (Operation)
TSSPDCL, Peddavoora issued notice to the plaintiff No.2 on 24-04-2017, plaintiffs gave representation to the S.E., D.E., A.E., A.D.E of TSSPDCL requesting them to restore the connection as the Stone Crusher unit would suffer loss due to disconnecting of said service connection. Even, they filed a representation before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum-I on 01-05-2017. Thus, even after got disconnecting the power supply, as the plaintiff did not succumb to the pressure applied by the defendants with regard to their possession over the suit schedule property, defendants started to resorting all illegal methods to dispossess them. Accordingly, on 20-08-2017, defendants along with the anti social elements came to the suit schedule property and created seen and even, threatened them to vacate the suit schedule property, but they could resist the same. Even, defendants threatened the plaintiffs to get register false cases against them under the SC/ST Atrocities Act, and also eliminate them. On 22-08- 2017 also, defendants again came to the suit schedule property and threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess them, but the said illegal acts could also be resisted by them. Though the plaintiffs approached the police to 19 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 intervene in the matter, as the said police advised them to approach the competent civil Court to get reddressal of their grievance, they were constrained to file the present suit to restrain them from interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land.
13.On the other hand, defendant No.2, by filing Written statement, denied the whole allegations and contentions of the plaintiffs. She also taken the same defense stand taken by defendant No.2 in OS.No.30/2017.
Thus, contention in the written statement filed by defendant No.2 in
OS.No.30/2017, is the contention of the defendant No.1 & 2 in the present
suit as the defendant No.1 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.2 herein.
14.On the basis of above rival pleadings, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the injunction as prayed ?
3. To what relief ?
15.On behalf of the plaintiffs, Plaintiff No.1 himself was got examined as 20 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
PW-1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.7. On the other hand, defendant No.2 herself was got examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.B.1 to B-35. They also examined DW-2 & 3.
16.Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties and perused the written arguments filed by them. Though the witnesses examined and documents marked from both sides were assigned with the numbers of
PW & DW series and A & B series, in order to avoid the confusion as both suits were taken up jointly for delivering a common judgment, they will be referred with their names hereafter as per the convenience. Further, issues in both the suits will be taken up jointly as per the convenience in order to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective manner and give clarity.
I ssues :
Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform her part of
the contract ?
Whether the suit Agreement to sell annulled on 05-06-2015 ?
Whether the plaintiffs are in possession over the suit schedule property as on
the date of filing the suit ?
21 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
17.As these three (3) issues are inter connected with each other, they are taken up jointly for proper appreciation of evidence and give clarity in projecting the sequence of events. As per the pleadings in the written statement filed by Alli Peddi Raju, he admitted the execution of Agreement to sell dated 16-5-2016 (Ex.A-1 in OS.No.30/2017) in favour of Gambhirapati
Anitha (Plaintiff in OS.No.30/2017) and received Rs.23-00 lakhs out of agreed sale consideration of Rs.25-00 lakhs, but his only contention is that said agreement stands annulled by operation of law i.e., stands cancelled by effluxe of time for the failure of Gambhirapati Anitha (plaintiff) in paying the remaining balance consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs within the stipulated time i.e., by 5-6-2016. His another contention is that actual purchaser of the suit schedule property was the husband of Gambirapati Anitha i.e.,
Gambirapati Raju (Plaintiff No.1 in OS.No.55/2017), hence, in order to get back the amount of Rs.23-00 lakhs, said Gambirapati Raju with his consent, entered into an Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016 with one Bollam
Saidulu to sell the suit schedule property for an amount of Rs.48-00 lakhs and subsequently, as per the order of said Bollam Saidulu, he executed the sale deed dated 15-3-2017 in favour of Shagam Swathi (Defendant No.2 in 22 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
OS.No.30/2017) for the suit schedule property along with the land
admeasuring Ac.0-30 gts. in Sy.No.518 by registering the same on 21-3- 2017 vide document No.914 / 2017 on the file of Sub-Registrar,
Nidamanoor. His further contention is that as per the oral under standing in between him and Gambhirapati Raju and also with the consent / knowledge of Gambirapati Anitha, Bollam Saidulu and Shagam Swathi, out of Rs.48-00 lakhs, Shagam Swathi shall pay Rs.23-00 lakhs to the
Gambirapati Raju and the remaining amount of Rs.25-00 lakhs to him, as such, Shagam Swathi paid the said amount to them. In order to prove this contention, besides relying upon the terms and conditions of Agreement to
Sell dated 16-5-2016 (Ex.A-1), Alli Peddi Raju also relied upon the
Agreement to Sell dated 13-10-2016 (Ex.B-1 in OS.No.30/2017) said to be entered into in between Gambirapati Raju and Bollam Saidulu.
18.Admittedly, perusal of the Agreement to Sell dated 16-5-2016 (Ex.A-1) goes to show that there is no term and condition that if Gambirapati
Anitha (Plaintiff) fails to pay the remaining agreed balance consideration of
Rs.2-00 lakhs by 5-6-2016, said agreement shall stands cancelled. Even, 23 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 nothing is mentioned in it that in the event of such failure, already paid consideration of RS.23-00 lakhs would be either forfeited or returned to
Gambirapati Anitha (plaintiff). Hence, it has to be seen that how far the oral evidence of Alli Peddi Raju (defendant No.1) given as DW-1 and document of Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016 got marked / exhibited by him in his evidence, would substantiate his above contention. It is also to be seen that how far the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court of India relied upon by counsel for Shagam Swathi (defendant No.2) in the case of ‘Katta Sujatha
Reddy Vs. M/s. Siddamshetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd1. would helpful to her in arriving to a conclusion that she is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property and the right of Gambirapati Anitha (plaintiff) over it was ceased prior to purchasing the same by her vide registered sale deed on 21-03-2017.
19.It is settled legal proposition that in transactions of immovable properties, time is not essence of the contract. In this regard, full bench (5
Judges including the Chief Justice of India) Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of ‘Chand Rani (Smt) (died) by LRs Vs. Kamal Rani 1Civil Appeal No.5822/2022 dt: 25-8-2022 24 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 (Smt) (died) by LRs 2becomes relevant, wherein, it was held that ‘As a general proposition of law, in the case of immovable property, there is no presumption as to time being the essence of the contract. Even, if it is not of the essence of the contract, the Court may infer that it is to be performed in a reasonable time if the conditions are evident (a). From the express terms of the contract, (b). From the nature of property, (c). From the surrounding circumstances, for example the object of making the contract.
20.Further, whether the time is essence of contract or not in a transaction of immovable property, can be gathered if the said Agreement to sell is in writing and the language used is unmistakable. If it is not in writing, it can be inferred from the nature of the property agreed to be sold, conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances at or before the contract. To deduce the above proposition of law, Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of‘Govind Prasad
Chaturvidi Vs. Hari Dutt Sastry 3 , wherein, it was held that
It is settled law that the fixation of the period within which the contract has to be performed does not make the stipulation as to time is the essence of the contract.
Thus, above proposition of law makes it clear that in case of immovable property, time is never regarded as essence of the contract. It would be an essence of the contract, only when it is specifically stipulated 2(1993) 1 SCC 519 3(1977) 3 SCC 539 25 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 or when it clearly emerges by way of implication. In the present case, as stated supra, there is no explicit term & condition in Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-5-2016 to terminate the agreement by seller in the event of buyer fails to pay remaining agreed balance consideration on or before 05-6-2016.
21.As per the contention of counsel for the plaintiff, Clause-11 of Ex.A-1 /
Agreement to Sell dated 16-5-2016 mandates that seller – Alli Peddi Raju (defendant No.1) shall get measure the suit schedule land with the Tippon with a Government Surveyor of Survey & Land Records department and demarcate the same by fixing the boundaries, before to the registration, but the same was not complied with by him to pay the remaining balance consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs, hence, buyer – Gambirapati Anitha (plaintiff) demanded him constantly to comply with the said condition, but he dodged the matter on one pretext or other. At last, as she came to know that Alli Peddi Raju with a malafide intention, was trying to sell the suit schedule land to the third parties by suppressing the subsistence of Ex.A- 1 / Agreement to Sell dated 16-5-2016, she got issued legal Notice dated 26 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 20-9-2016 (Ex.A-2 in OS.No.30 / 2017) to him with a demand to receive the balance considerations of Rs.2-00 lakhs sent with the said notice in the shape of Banker Cheque / Demand Draft No.121548 dated 19-9-2016 drawn on S.B.H bank, Mothinagar branch, Hyderabad and execute the registered sale deed in her favour for the suit schedule land and thus, she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, but the seller – Alli Peddi Raju (defendant No.1) only avoided to perform his part of the contract.
22.As per the oral evidence of Alli Peddi Raju (defendant No.1) given as
DW-1, after two or three days of paying the amount of Rs.23-00 lakhs by
Shagam Swathi to the Gambirapati Raju, but before to preparing the sale deed dated 15-3-2017 in her favour, he got measured the suit schedule land with a private surveyor and thereafter only, executed the registered sale deed vide document No.914 / 2017 (Ex.B-28) in favour of said Shagam
Swathi on 21-3-2017 as Server in the Sub-Registrar office was down on 15-3-2017. This means, in order to execute the register sale deed in favour of Shagam Swathi (defendant No.2) also, measuring the land agreed to be 27 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 sold was mandatory. The perusal of registered Sale Deed No.914 / 2017 executed by Alli Peddi Raju in favour of Shagam Swathi goes to show that he sold the land admeasuring Ac.9-22 gts. within the same boundaries shown to the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts. While giving evidence as DW-1, Alli Peddi Raju also admitted that boundaries of suit schedule land and the land sold vide registered sale deed No.914 / 2017 are one and the same, but he has not offered any explanation as to why the same boundaries are shown to the different extents. Though a plea was taken in the written statement filed by Shagam Swathi (defendant No.2) stating that Alli Peddi Raju purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0-30 gts in
Sy.No.518 & Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.519 from one Gande Papa Rao vide registered sale deed No.907/2017 dated 20-03-2017 (Ex.B.27), perusal of the same goes to show that it is a registered Cancellation deed only to cancel the registered sale deed No.1634/2009 (Ex.B.26) executed by Alli
Peddi Raju in favour of Gande Papa Rao for the land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.519 only. Moreover, though Alli Peddi Raju deposed during the cross examination that after entering into the Agreement to Sell dated 16- 5-2016 (Ex.A-1) with Gambirapati Anitha, he got conduct of survey with a 28 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 private surveyor and the said survey disclosed that extent of land admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts. is available and out of the said Ac.8-32 gts, he transferred Ac.1-00 gts to Gande Papa Rao and in turn, got registered
Ac.0.30 gts from him as the same comes adjacent to his land, no documentary evidence like registered sale deed is produced to believe the same. Thus, there is no documentary evidence to believe that Alli Peddi
Raju purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0-30 gts in Sy.No.518 from Gande
Papa Rao and thereby, he is the owner of the said land besides the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.5-11 gts in Sy.No.518 & 519 by the time he executed Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 in favour of
Ganbhirapati Anitha (plaintiff). Thus, Cancellation deed No.907/2017 (Ex.B.27) and Sale deed No.1634/2009 (Ex.B.26) are no way connected to the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts.
23.Further, perusal of the pahanies for the year 2000-01 to 2013-14 (Ex.B.10 to B.15) goes to show that one Gambhirapati Sudheer Kumar,
S/o.Raju is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0-08 gts in
Sy.No.518/A1. However, perusal of the pahanies for the fasli year No.1426 29 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 which is corresponding to the year 2017-18 (Ex.B.16 & B.17) only goes to show that Alli Peddi Raju got the land admeasuring Ac.0-30 gts in
Sy.No.518/A5/A1 for the first time in the year 2017-18 only. This means, he acquired this part of the land subsequent to the entering into of
Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 (Ex.A.1) with Gambhirapati Anitha, but
before to the execution of sale deed No.914/2017 (Ex.B.28) in favour of
Shagam Swathi (defendant No.1). This demonstrates / makes to understand that prior to entering into the Ex.A-1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-5-2016,
Gambirapati Anitha (plaintiff) knows that within the boundaries shown by
Alli Peddi Raju, extent of the land admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts is not comprised, hence, condition of measuring the land and demarcate the same with the boundaries has become mandatory for paying the remaining sale consideration and get registration. In this connection,
Counsel for the plaintiff, by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of ‘Gaddipati Divija & Another Vs.Pathuri
Samrajyam & Others 4 ’ wherein, it was held that ‘When vendor failed to get the land demarcated, the question paying balance consideration by plaintiff did not arise’., would contend that as the seller – Alli Peddi Raju has not 42023 SCC Online SC 442 30 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 complied with this condition, paying for remaining agreed balance consideration by purchaser – Gambirapati Anitha and obtain the registered sale deed from him does not arise, as such, it does not mean that she failed to perform her part of the contract to Ex.A-1 within the stipulated time, but it means that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, but the seller – Alli Peddi Raju only failed to perform his part of the contract.
24.Though Alli Peddi Raju deposed that 2 or 3 days after entering into the Agreement to Sell dated 16-5-2016 (Ex.A-1) with Gambirapati Anitha, he got measured and surveyed the land with a private Surveyor, he has not taken this plea in the written statement. Even, he has not taken a plea in the written statement stating that though he got conducted survey and the land admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts is available on the ground within the boundaries, Gambirapati Anitha has not come forwarded to pay the remaining agreed balance consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs and thereby, failed to perform her part of the contract. As he admitted that when he got surveyed the suit schedule land, he has not issued any written notice to 31 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Gambirapati Anitha for her presence while measuring the same and did not demand her to get register sale deed by paying the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs and thereby, he performed his part of the contract and thus, it is she (Gambhirapati Anitha) only to perform her part of the contract, it casts doubt on the credibility of his evidence to believe that he was fair enough in performing his part of the contract. As he also admitted that he has not filed the copy of said survey report into the court to believe his contention, it fortifies that his oral evidence is not credible to rely upon the same in order to believe his contention that he performed his part of the contract, but for the failure of Gambirapati
Anitha (plaintiff) only in paying the remaining agreed balance consideration by 5-6-2016, Ex.A-1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-5-2016 stands annulled by operation of law by due date of 5-6-2016. In this regard, though the counsel for Alli Peddi Raju (Defendant No.1) has relied upon Section 55 of
Indian Contract Act, 1872, it would not rescue him, as, as stated supra, he only failed to establish that he got measured and surveyed the suit schedule land and intimated the same to the buyer i.e., Gambhirapati
Anitha to verify the correctness of the same. Now, it has to be seen that 32 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 how plaintiff got the knowledge as to the correctness of extent of the suit schedule land prior to entering into the Ex.A-1 / Agreement to Sell dated 16-5-2016 with Alli Peddi Raju for including the said Clause No.11 in the said agreement.
25.As per the contention of counsel for the plaintiffs in both the suits,
Alli Peddi Raju gave the suit schedule property having the ‘Vaishnavi Stone
Crusher’ to Gambhirapati Raju (plaintiff No.1 in OS.No.55/2017) in the year 2011 and ever since the entering into of Lease Agreement dated 31-10- 2011 with him, said Gambhirapati Raju is in possession of the suit schedule property till the date of filing both suits. In the meanwhile, as Alli Peddi
Raju entered into the Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 with the wife of Gambhirapati Raju i.e., Gambhirapati Anitha, possession is remained with them i.e., plaintiffs in both suits. During the course of cross examination conducted by counsels for the plaintiffs as well as defendant
No.2 i.e., Shagam Swathi and her mother – Eeshwaramma (Defendant No.2 in OS.No.55/2017), Alli Peddi Raju admitted that prior to entering into the
Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 with Gambhirapati Anitha, he 33 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 also entered into an Agreement to sell dated 29-04-2016 (Ex.B.2) with one
Bollam Saidulu who is brother of his own brother-in-law to sell the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts only and till that date, stone crusher unit was in existence in it. He also admitted that he started the said Crusher in the name and style of ‘Vaishnavi Stone Crusher’ in the year 2005-06 by obtaining the license from competent authority. He further admitted that to run the said Crusher, he constructed a shed with two rooms and obtained electricity service connection to it. He further admitted that he gave the said Crusher unit with shed to Gambhirapati
Raju on lease in the year 2011 by entering into a lease agreement and accordingly, handed over the possession of suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts only to him. However, he deposed that when he taken back the possession of the same from Gambhirapati Raju in the year 2014, no document was executed in between them to believe that possession of it was handed over by Gambhirapati Raju to him. He also deposed that in the year 2014 itself, he gave a requisition to the concerned authorities to disconnect / dismantle the electricity service connection given to the Crusher unit and shed, but Gambhirapati Raju managed the 34 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 said authorities to continue the said service connection and paid electricity consumption charges up to 22-04-2017, hence, after executing the registered sale deed No.914/2017 (Ex.B.28) in favour of Shagam Swathi, he gave another application to the concerned authorities in order to disconnect / dismantle the said electricity service connection. Contrary to it, he also deposed that as on the date of execution of Ex.A.1, crusher unit was not in running condition and even the electricity connection given to it was disconnected. Thus, it gives an impression that Alli Peddi Raju &
Shagam Swathi and her mother – Eeshwaramma (defendants in both suits) are admitting the possession of Gambhirapati Anitha & Raju (plaintiffs in
OS.No.55/2017) over the suit schedule land till the Ex.A.1 / Agreement to
sell dated 16-05-2016 was executed in favour of Gambhirapati Anitha and thus, plaintiffs got knowledge as to the actual extent of suit schedule property by the time of entering into Ex.A1.
26.Though Alli Peddi Raju deposed that he also executed the Ex.B.2 /
Agreement sell dated 29-04-2016 in favour of Bollam Saidulu to sell the suit schedule land for an amount of Rs.50-00 lakhs prior to entering into the 35 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 with Gambhirapati Anitha for an amount of Rs.23-00 lakhs, he has not offered any explanation as to what circumstances compelled him to sell it to Gambhirapati Anitha for lesser consideration i.e., nearly half of the earlier consideration. Even, he has not disclosed the fact of execution of Ex.B.2 in the written statement filed by him into the court also. Moreover, he has not offered any explanation as to whether the said Agreement to sell dated 29-04-2016 (Ex.B.2) was canceled or not prior to entering into the Ex.A.1 with
Gambhirapati Anitha (plaintiff). Though he deposed that with his consent only, Gambhirapati Raju entered into Ex.B.1 / Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016 with Bollam Saidulu to sell the suit schedule land for an amount of Rs.48-00 lakhs, perusal of the same goes to show that cancellation of Ex.B.2 is not referred in it. But, plea taken by Shagam
Swathi (defendant No.2) shows that Alli Peddi Raju only entered into Ex.B.1 with Bollam Saidulu and later, as Bollam Saidulu failed to pay agreed sale consideration, Alli Peddi Raju entered into Agreement to sell dated 17-10- 2016 with her and thus, it is contrary to the plea taken by Alli Peddi Raju.
Though Alli Peddi Raju has taken a plea in the written statement stating 36 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 that as per the direction / order of Bollam Saidulu only, he executed the registered sale deed No.914/2017 in favour of Shagam Swathi for a consideration of Rs.48-00 lakhs and out of which, he kept an amount of
Rs.25-00 lakhs with him, whereas paid Rs.23-00 lakhs to Gambhirapati Raju towards the return of part sale consideration paid by Gambhirapati Anitha while entering into the Ex.A.1 with him, so as to cancel the said Ex.A.1, he deposed that he sold the suit schedule land to Shagam Swathi for an amount of Rs.66-00 lakhs. He has not offered any explanation as to who received the said difference amount. Thus, his evidence is contradictory to the plea taken by him. Even, he deposed that when Rs.23-00 lakhs were given to Gambhirapati Raju, no receipt acknowledging the receiving of the same was obtained by him either from said Gambhirapati Raju or his wife –
Gambhirapati Anitha. Furthermore, he has not issued any written notice to
Gambirapati Anitha stating that Ex.A-1 was cancelled in view of entering into of Ex.B-1 by her husband with Bollam Saidulu and so also execution of
Ex.B.28 / Sale deed No.914/2017 (Ex.B-28) in favour of Shagam Swathi and consequently, received back Rs.23-00 lakhs on behalf of her. In fact, if really amount of Rs.23-00 lakhs was paid to Gambirapati Raju, he would 37 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 have taken back the Ex.A-1 either from him or his wife – Gambirapati
Anitha and handed over the same to either Shagam Swathi or her mother when received the entire amount from them and executed Ex.B-28/ registered Sale deed, but the same was not taken place. In these circumstances, it casts doubt on the credibility of his oral evidence as to the repayment of said amount to Gambirapati Anitha (plaintiff) and consequently, on the plea taken by him as to the cancelling of Ex.A.1 and entering into of Ex.B.1 in its place. Moreover, when he could obtain the signature of Gambhirapati Anitha as a witness to Ex.B-2 while executing the same by him in favour of Bollam Saidulu, why her signature was again not taken as a witness to the Ex.B.1 as well as Ex.B.28 / registered sale deed No.914/2017 also is not explained by him. Hence, it fortifies that credibility of his oral evidence is doubtful in order to believe that Ex.A.1 was terminated when Ex.B.1 was entered into in between Gambhirapati
Raju and Bollam Saidulu. In these circumstances, contention of counsel for
Alli Peddi Raju that Ex.A.1 was rescinded in view of husband of
Gambhirapati Anitha i.e., Gambhirapati Raju entering into Ex.B.1 /
Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016 with Bollam Saidulu will have no 38 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 substance in the eye of law. As such, plea taken by him that as per Section 62 of Indian Contract Act, when Ex.B.1 superseded the Ex.A.1, still subsistence of Ex.A.1 does not arise, is a futile exercise.
27.As per the contention of Counsel for Gambirapati Anitha (plaintiff), Alli
Peddi Raju (defendant No.1) received the Ex.A-2 / Notice dated 20-9-2016 issued by her as to expressing her ready and willingness to perform her part of contract in paying the remaining agreed balance consideration with a demand to receive the same and execute registered sale deed in terms of Ex.A-1, but he neither gave any reply to it nor executed the registered sale deed as demanded by her. Though Alli Peddi Raju has taken a plea that he was not aware of issuing the said notice, he admitted the address shown on it, as that of belongs to him and he received the summons of this suit sent to the same address. Thus, though Ex.A.2 / Notice was served on him, issuing of said notice is not referred either in the Ex.B.1 or Ex.B.28. In this regard, specific plea taken by Alli Peddi Raju in the written statement stating that from the date of entering into the Ex.A-1 to till he received the
Ex.A-2, Gambirapati Anitha (plaintiff) never expressed her readiness to 39 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 perform her part under the contract though he personally demanded her several times, to perform her part of the contract within the stipulated the same, but she failed to do the same, establishes that he received the Ex.A-
2. In this connection, relied upon judgment of erstwhile Hon’ble High Court of A.P in the case of ‘Namala Ramachandra Rao vs. Kakileti Bhaskara
Rama Murthy and Others 5 ’ guides this Court to arrive above conclusion, as in the said case, it was held that
It is true that the respondents herein did not file any acknowledgment in proof of service of notice. But both the Courts below relying on Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act held that the notice sent in accordance with the legal requirements should be presumed to be served on the appellant unless the contrary is proved.
7.Admittedly, except denying that he has not received the notice, the appellant did not produce any evidence to show that the same was not issued notice by the respondents herein. Apart from Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, when a document is required to be served by post, unless different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post a letter containing the document unless the contrary is proved. It should be presumed that the letter is delivered in ordinary course of post. It is useful to extract Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
Hence, the cumulative reading of his evidence establishes that part sale consideration of Rs.23-00 lakhs paid as an advance to him, was not returned to Gambirapati Raju and thereby, Ex.A.1 is still in subsistence and 52004(3) ALT 812 40 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 not cancelled / annulled by efflux of time / operation of law. Thus, this much of evidence also establishes that Gambhirapati Anitha & her husband Gambhirapati Raju have knowledge that suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts is not comprised within the boundaries shown for it. Hence, measurement of the same before to paying the remaining balance sale consideration had become essential condition in Ex.A.1.
28.As per the contention of counsel for the plaintiffs, as Bollam Saidulu is near relative to Alli Peddi Raju, Ex.B.1 & B.2 were fabricated by them in collusion with each other only, hence, no weightage shall be given to these two documents in evidence for any purpose. On the other hand, counsel for Alli Peddi Raju would contend that when prima facie proved the signature of Gambirapati Raju on Ex.B-1, burden lies on plaintiffs to prove that it was not executed by Gambirapati Raju (plaintiff No.1 in
OS.No.55/2017) and his signature on it was forged. In this connection, he
relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Harish
Kumar Vs. Amar Nath (Dead) through LRs 6 ’ , wherein, it was held that ‘Mere admission of signature does not dispense with the proof of consensus ad 62025 INSC 924 41 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 idem or the existence of a valid contract. The burden not discharged by self serving testimony alone’.
He also relied upon the judgment in the case of ‘M/S. Sriram Industrial
Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Mahak Singh & Ors 7 ’, wherein, it was held that ‘If a party withholds from court the best evidence or some material evidence or witness, adverse presumption against such party can be drawn under Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act’.
29.Here, in the present case, it is the contention of Counsel for the plaintiffs that Ex.B-1 & B-2 were fabricated subsequent to the filing of this suit to suit the defense set up by defendants in the written statements only, hence, it will have no value in evidence for any purpose. It is also his contention that Allipeddi Raju (Defendant No.1) has not taken the plea in the written statement filed by him stating that he entered into Ex.B-2 /
Agreement to Sell dated 29-4-2016 with Bollam Saidulu to sell the suit schedule property for an amount of Rs.50-00 lakhs, whereas this plea is set up by Gambirapati Anitha and her mother - Eeshwaramma only in the written statements filed by them in both suits, hence, this mutually destructive pleas and evidence adduced by them in this regard, clearly establishes that EX.B-2 is a fabricated one at after thought for the purpose 7AIR 2007 SC 1370 42 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 of this case. It is his further contention that Stamp paper used for preparing the Ex.B-1 / Agreement to Sell dated 13-10-2016 was purchased on 16-2-2015, but by that time, even Ex.B-2 / Agreement to Sell dated 29/4/2016 was not prepared, hence, it itself establishes that it is also fabricated at after thought for the purpose of this case. As per his further contention, mother of Shagam Swathi i.e., Shagam Eeshwaramma (defendant No.2 in OS.No.55/2017) played a key role in got registering the
Ex.B.28 / Sale deed from Alli Peddi Raju in view of she having the agricultural lands in and around the suit schedule land, as such, knowing well about the subsistence of Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016, as she deliberately got registered the suit schedule land in the name of her daughter / Shagam Swathi in order to deprive the legitimate right and interest of Gambhirapati Anitha (plaintiff) over the suit schedule land, her evidence as well as the evidence of Bollam Saidulu shall not be relied upon for any purpose. Hence, it has to be seen that how far the oral evidence of these two witnesses also establish that Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell dated 16- 05-2016 stands canceled by due date of 05-06-2016 and that Gambhirapati
Anitha (plaintiff) was not always ready and willing to perform her part of 43 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 the contract and that plaintiffs are not in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suits.
30.As per Section 126 of Indian Evidence Act, in all civil proceedings, parties to the suit and the husband or wife of any party to the suit, are competent witnesses. In the present cases, it is an undisputed fact that initially, plaintiff No.1 in OS.No.55/2017 i.e., Alli Peddi Raju entered into a lease agreement with Alli Peddi Raju to take the suit schedule land on lease for carrying out the business pertaining to ‘Vaishanavi Stone Crusher’ situated in it. While so, as Alli Peddi Raju offered to sell the suit schedule land to him, his wife – Gambhirapati Anitha entered into Ex.A.1 /
Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 with him to purchase the same. Thus, both Gambhirapati Anitha & Raju have knowledge of each and every fact as to the transaction pertaining to the suit schedule land, hence, either of them are competent to depose as to the said transaction. On the other hand, it is the case of defendants No.1 & 2 in OS.No.55/2017 i.e., Shagam
Swathi & Eeshwaramma that Eeshwaramma came forward to purchase the suit schedule land and accordingly, after paying the entire sale 44 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 consideration, she got registered the same in the name of his daughter –
Shagam Swathi from Alli Pedd Raju on 21-03-2017 vide Ex.B.28 / Registered sale deed. Thus, each and every fact is within the knowledge of Shagam
Eeshwaramma as to the transaction of suit schedule land. In these circumstances, as plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2 in OS.No.55/2017 are competent to depose as to their personal knowledge in respect of transaction of the suit schedule land, it has to be seen that how far their oral evidence plays role in deciding the issues in OS.No.30/2017. Moreover defendant No.2 / Shagam Swathi in OS.No.32/2017 has not entered into the witness box to give evidence to substantiate the plea taken by her in the written statement, but by got appointing her mother – Shagam
Eeshwaramma (defendant No.2 in OS.No.55/2017) as her Special Power of
Attorney holder, adduced evidence from her side. This makes to believe the contention of the plaintiff that DW-2 (defendant No.2 in OS.No.55/2017) played active role in got registering the suit schedule land in favour of her daughter – Shagam Swathi and she knows each and every fact in entire sale transaction which culminated into the execution of Ex.B.28 / registered sale deed No.914/2017 by Alli Peddi Raju in favour of Shagam 45 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Swathi. Hence, it is appropriate to see that how far her evidence would establish that plaintiffs in both suits were not in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suits and that Ex.A.1 /
Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 was cancelled for receiving back the part sale consideration of Rs.23-00 lakhs by Gambhirapati Raju on behalf of his wife Gambhirapati Anitha.
31.As per the evidence of Shagam Eashwaramma given as DW-2 in
OS.No.55/2017, whereas given, as DW-1 in OS.No.33/2017, when Alli Peddi
Raju offered to sell the suit schedule land to her daughter, she participated in entire negotiations and in the said negotiations, Alli Peddi Raju did not inform them about the entering into of Ex.A.1 with Gambhirapati Anitha, but after the payment of two installments, Gambhirapati Raju informed her about the subsistence of Ex.A.1 and also stated to her that he had no objection to proceed with the sale with Alli Peddi Raju. She also deposed that 3 months prior to executing the Ex.B.28 / Sale deed, Alli Peddi Raju entered into an Agreement to sell the suit schedule land with them i.e.,
Shagam Swathi & Eeshwaramma and as per the said agreement, they paid 46 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Rs.16-00 lakhs to him in the first installment, and after 20 days, they paid
Rs.20-00 lakhs as second installment and after 5 days of it, Gambhirapati
Raju came to her and informed the subsistence of Ex.A.1. She further deposed that other than the Ex.A.1, she was not aware of any transaction / agreement entered into in between Alli Peddi Raju and others in respect of the suit schedule land and even, not aware that Bollam Saidulu is near relative of defendant No.1, but Bollam Saidulu came to the Court along with her. She also deposed that one month prior to entering into of
Agreement to sell with Alli Peddi Raju to purchase the suit schedule land, said Bollam Saidulu approached her with an offer to sell the suit schedule land, but she did not enter into any agreement with him. She further deposed that when she intended to purchase the suit schedule land, Alli
Peddi Raju & Bollam Saidulu shown the Ex.B.2 / Agreement to sell dated 24-04-2016 entered into in between them. She also deposed that
Gambhirapati Anitha resides in Nagarjunasagar and she along with her husband – Gambhirapati Raju and one Ramnath Reddy came to her and offered her to purchase the suit schedule land as she is having lands adjacent to it. She admitted that prior to get registered the sale deed for 47 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 the suit schedule land, she knows that Gambhirapati Anitha agreed to purchase the same from Alli Peddi Raju and she has seen the Ex.A.1 /
Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 entered into in between them. She further deposed that she did not pay any amount to either of the plaintiffs, but paid entire consideration of Rs.66-00 lakhs to Alli Peddi Raju only. She also deposed that she is having lands adjacent to the suit schedule land prior to purchase the same in the name of her daughter. Further, lands purchased by her were agricultural lands and there were no Stone Crusher units in it. Even, when purchased the suit schedule land, there was no
Stone Crusher unit in it and she has not seen any such crusher in it at any time. But, she admitted that she lodged F.I.R in Crime No.7/2018 on 10-01- 2018 against the labourers of plaintiff in Peddavoora police station by alleging that she purchased the Stone Crusher unit and one Kudhadi
Krishna, Ramavath Pekya & Ramavath Gangya were threatening her for purchasing the same. She further admitted that her husband also filed F.I.R
No.134/2017 on 27-08-2017 in Peddavoora police station alleging that one
Kudhati Krishna and Ravi threatened him for purchasing the suit schedule property. She further deposed that as she gave a complaint against the 48 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 plaintiffs in Peddavoora police station, Sub-Inspector of police addressed a letter to Tahesildar, Peddavoora to know the status and physical features of the suit schedule property and in response to it, as per the direction of
Tahesildar, Revenue Inspector visited the suit schedule land and gave a report on 05-01-2018 and in turn, Tahesildar replied to the Station House
Officer vide Ex.B.32 / Letter dated 06-01-2018 that as on the date of inspecting the suit schedule land admeasuring Ac.8-32 gts in Sy.No.518, 519 & 521, there was a Stone Crusher unit in it. Thus, evidence of this witness makes understand that as on the date of filing both the suits,
Stone Crusher unit was in existence in the suit schedule land, but, as there is no documentary evidence to establish that plaintiffs were evicted from it under the due process of law even on expiry of lease period, it gives rise to draw an inference that plaintiffs only are in possession of the suit schedule land as on the date of filing both the suits. It also establishes that she deliberately got purchased the suit schedule land in the name of her daughter - Swathi during the subsistence of Ex.A.1.
32.As per the evidence of Bollam Saidulu, Alli Peddi Raju run Vaishnavi 49 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Stone Crusher unit in the suit schedule land and gave the same to
Gambhirapati Raju on lease and further, as on the date of selling the suit schedule land to Gambhirapati Anitha, said Gambhirapati Raju was running the said Stone Crusher. He also deposed that Gambhirapati Anitha entered into Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell with Alli Peddi Raju for a consideration of Rs.48-00 lakhs, but Rs.25-00 lakhs only was shown in it as consideration for the said sale. Moreover, he admitted that in his chief affidavit evidence, he has not mentioned that prior to purchasing the suit schedule land by Gambirapati Anitha from Alli Peddi Raju vide Ex.A.1, he purchased the same from defendant vide Ex.B.2 / Agreement to sell dated 29-04-2016. He also admitted that though Ex.B.2 was executed in his name, originally / actually suit schedule property was purchased by Gambhirapati
Raju only and accordingly, he paid Rs.1-00 lakh as an advance to Alli Peddi
Raju. He deposed that Eeshwaramma gave Rs.23-00 lakhs in cash to
Gambhirapati Raju on the date of registration of suit schedule land in favour of her daughter / Swathi vide Ex.B.28 / Sale deed, whereas gave
Rs.25-00 lakhs to Alli Peddi Raju on the same day and no receipt was obtained from Gambhirapati Raju acknowledging the receipt of the said 50 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 amount. As these facts were not deposed by him in the affidavit evidence filed by him, the cumulative reading of the same gives rise to draw an inference that this witness in collusion with Alli Peddi Raju &
Eeshwaramma, fabricated the Ex.B.1 & B.2 as contended by plaintiff, in order to deprive the legitimate right of plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Moreover, it casts doubt on the credibility of his evidence as to the receiving of Rs.23-00 lakhs by Gambhirapati Raju on behalf of his wife –
Anitha from Shagam Swathi & Eeshwaramma.
33.As per the evidence of DW-5, initially, Gambhirapati Raju purchased the suit schedule land from Alli Peddi Raju vide simple sale deed, but subsequently, as he failed to arrange the sale consideration within the stipulated time, he with the consent of Alli Peddi Raju, sold away the suit schedule land to Bollam Saidulu for a valuable consideration of Rs.48-00 lakhs and accordingly, they entered into Ex.B.1 / Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016, as such, as the said transaction was witnessed by him, he signed on Ex.B.1 as a witness. In the cross examination, as he deposed that he had not seen the initial sale agreement entered into in between Alli 51 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Peddi Raju & Gambhirapati Raju and he does not know as to what was the consideration payable by Gambhirapati Raju to Bollam Saidulu when they entered into Ex.B.1 / Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016, it casts doubt on the credibility of his evidence. As he also deposed that he does not know as to whether Gambhirapati Raju was running Stone Crusher in the suit schedule land as on the date of preparing Ex.B.1 and further, Bollam
Saidulu has not paid any amount to Gambhirapati Raju on the date of preparing the said Ex.B.1, and even, Gambhirapati Anitha was not present when it was prepared, it casts doubt on the credibility of his evidence as to witnessing the execution of Ex.B.1 by Gambhirapati Raju in favour of
Bollam Saidulu. Moreover, as he deposed that he does not know as to whether the reference of earlier documents executed by Alli Peddi Raju in favour of Gambhirapati Raju & Anitha was mentioned in Ex.B.1 or not, it also fortifies that it is unsafe to rely upon his evidence to believe that
Ex.B.1 was entered into in between Gambhirapati Raju & Bollam Saidulu on 13-10-2016 only.
34.As per the evidence of DW-3, he was the witness to executing the 52 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Ex.B.28 / Sale deed by Alli Peddi Raju in favour of Shagam Swathi on 15.03.2017 in respect of suit schedule land and paying the entire sale consideration to Alli Peddi Raju. In the cross examination, as he deposed that there were 10 to 12 Stone Crusher units in and around the suit schedule property and further, there was a Stone Crusher unit having a shed with two rooms in the suit schedule land, but he does not know who run the said Stone Crusher unit and even, cannot say as to till how long it was run in it, his evidence would establish that till executing the Ex.B.28 /
Registered sale deed, Stone Crusher unit in the suit schedule land was in running condition. But, as he also deposed that though he was witness to the Ex.B.28 / Registered sale deed, he does not know as to what was the sale consideration for executing the Ex.B.28 and does not remember as to on which date or in which month, registration of the suit schedule land was taken place in between Alli Peddi Raju & Shagam Swathi, it casts doubt on the credibility of his evidence as to the execution of Ex.B.28 on 15-03-2017 only. Moreover, as he deposed that either 45 days or 65 days after the registering of Ex.B.28 / Sale deed, Revenue Inspector conducted the panchanama in respect of the suit schedule land and put his signature on 53 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 it as a witness, but he does not know as to whether the Revenue Inspector shown the shed having two rooms in the suit schedule land, in the said panchanama or not and also admitted that Ex.B.29 / Panchanama does not contains his signature, it also casts doubt on the credibility of his evidence, as to executing the Ex.B.28 / Sale deed by Alli Peddi Raju in favour of
Shagam Swathi on 15-03-2017 only, but registered on 21-03-2017.
35.As the oral evidence of DW-1 to 5 creates doubt on the credibility of
Ex.B.1 / Agreement to sell dated 13-10-2016 said to be entered in between
Gambhirapati Raju & Bollam Saidulu, this court is of the view that mere signature of Gambhirapati Raju on it does not ispo facto establishes that he with the consent of Alli Peddi Raju only, executed the same in favour of
Bollam Saidulu for a consideration of Rs.48-00 lakhs on 13-10-2016.
Moreover, as stated supra, as per the evidence of DW-2 / Shagam
Eashwaramma, she has not paid any amount to the plaintiffs, but paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.66-00 lakhs to Alli Peddi Raju only by one day prior to executing the Ex.B.28 / Sale deed i.e., 14-03-2017, hence, it also casts doubt on the creditworthy of existence of Ex.B.1 & B.2 by the date of 54 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 executing the Ex.B.28 / Sale deed. Further, though it was pleaded by her in the written statement stating that before got registration of suit schedule property from Alli Peddi Raju vide Ex.B.28, they entered into an Agreement to sell dated 17-10-2016, non producing the same and so also receipts showing the payment of Rs.66-00 lakhs by them to Alli Peddi Raju, draws an inference as contended by counsel for the plaintiffs that Ex.B.28 / registered sale deed was obtained with anti date when it has come to their notice as to the filing of suit vide OS.No.30/2017 by plaintiff – Gambirapati
Anitha on 16-3-2017, in order to deprive her legitimate right over the suit schedule land only. As per the evidence of Shagam Eeshwaramma, though the sale deed was got prepared & executed on 15-03-2017, it was not presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration on the same day as
Server in the Registration office was down, hence, it could not be registered on that day, but could be registered on 21-03-2017 only. As per her further evidence, as Server was down on 15-03-2017, her daughter –
Shagam Swathi went back to her parents-in-law’s house in Karnataka state, but came back to Peddavoora before to 21-03-2017, hence, registration was got done on 21-03-2017. On the other hand, as per the evidence of 55 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
DW-3 who acted as one of the witnesses to Ex.B.28 / registered sale deed, on the date of registration i.e., on 21-03-2017, Shagam Swathi did not come to the Registration office, but her mother – Shagam Eeshwaramma was present and represented on behalf of her in got registering the sale deed.
Thus, as the evidence of Shagam Eeshwaramma is inconsistent and contradictory to the evidence of DW-3, it is appropriate to look into
Ex.B.28 / Sale deed. Accordingly, perusal of the Ex.B.28 goes to show that there is no endorsement of Sub-Registrar on it showing that it was received in the Sub-Registrar office on 15-03-2017. Moreover, Eeshwaramma only represented her daughter in the registration process and thus, her daughter / Shagam Swathi was not present in the Registration office on the date of registration. Hence, it casts doubt on the credibility of executing the
Ex.B.28 on 15-03-2017 only. Thus, Ex.B.1 & B.2 do not establish that
Gambhirapati Anitha was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and that Ex.A.1 / Agreement to Sell dated 16-5-2016 was cancelled for not paying the remaining agreed balance consideration by due date of 05-06-2016.
56 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
36.Though the counsel for Shagam Swathi & Eeshwaramma (defendants) relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Katta Sujatha Reddy (Supra)’, wherein, there was an explicit term and condition that in the event of non paying the agreed balance sale consideration within the stipulated time, advance amount already paid would be forfeited, it would not helpful to the defendants in this case, as there is no such explicit term and condition in the Ex.A.1 stating that in the event of failure to pay the remaining balance consideration on or before 05-06-2016, it would be cancelled by forfeiting the advance amount received by seller – Alli Peddi Raju or said amount would be returned to the buyer – Gambhirapati Anitha. Moreover, as there is no documentary evidence and also credible oral evidence to establish that Gambhirapati
Raju taken back the consideration of Rs.23-00 lakhs and further, as
Gambhirapati Anitha is not a party to the Ex.B.1, it cannot be said that
Ex.A.1 was cancelled on 05-06-2016 for non payment of remaining balance consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs only. On the other hand, as the plaintiff shown her ready and willingness in paying the said remaining balance consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs by sending the copy of Ex.A.3 / Banker 57 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 cheque (Demand Draft) along with the Ex.A.2 / Notice dated 26-09-2016 to
Alli Peddi Raju (seller), it clearly establishes that Gambhirapati Anitha was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Moreover, after filing the suit also, by depositing Rs.2-00 lakhs in the Court, she has shown her ready and willingness in performing her remaining part of contract to the Ex.A.1. In these circumstances, ratio decidendi laid down by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases relied upon by Alli Peddi Raju
(Defendant No.1) in ‘U.N.Krishnamurthy Vs. A.M.Krishnamurthy’ 8 , ‘C.S.Venkatesh Vs.A.S.C. Murthy’ 9and also ‘N.P.Thirugnanam Vs.
R.Jaganmohan Rao’ 10 , which emphasis that ‘as per Section 16(c) of Specific
Relief Act, in order to grant the relief of specific performance, buyer must prove his continuous readiness and willingness in performing his part of contract in terms of Agreement to sell entered into with the seller right from execution of contract to till the date of decree and in this regard, Court must take into consideration of conduct of plaintiff prior to and subsequent to filing the suit along with other attendant circumstances and the Court must exercise its judicial discretion and not act arbitrarily as contemplated under Section 20 of 8 2022 SCC Online SC 840, = (2023) 11 SCC 775 9(2020) 3 SCC 280 10 (1995) 5 SCC 115 58 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Specific Relief Act’, would not helpful to him in order to believe his contention that Gambhirapati Anitha was not ready and willing to perform her part of contract i.e., in paying the remaining balance consideration.
37.Though the counsel for Shagam Swathi & Eeshwaramma (defendants) also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Rajesh
Kumar Vs. Anand Kumar & Ors’ 11 , wherein, it was held that as ‘suit was preferred after a long delay, specific performance cannot be ordered’, it would not helpful to them as in the present suit, it was filed well in advance and that too, when it has come to the notice of the plaintiffs that Alli Peddi Raju is trying to alienate the suit schedule property to the third parties. Further, in the above relied upon judgment, ratio decidendi laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India is in respect of legal proposition that ‘if all co- sharers of the property have not entered into the suit Agreement to sell, it cannot be enforced. Further, buyer who have personal knowledge of the execution of suit Agreement to sell must only step into the witness box and depose as to his ready and willingness in performing the agreement, but his
Power of Attorney holder having no personal knowledge of transaction or ready 11(2024) SCC Online SC 981 59 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 and willingness, is not supposed to testify as the ready and willingness is a state of mind and conduct of buyer and his capacity and preparedness to perform contract’. Hence, this judgment would not helpful to the defendants in establishing that Gambhirapati Anitha was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract before to the due date of 05-06-2016.
38.In order to establish that plaintiffs are not in possession of suit schedule property, defendants in OS.No.55/2017, mainly relied upon the
Ex.B.28 / Sale deed and pattadar passbook-cum-title deed and pahanies issued in the name of Shagam Swathi in pursuance of said sale deed. On the other hand, as per the contention of plaintiffs, on came to know that defendants gave application to the Tahesildar of Peddavoora to mutate the name of Shagam Swathi in the place of Alli Peddi Raju in revenue records, they submitted their objections by stating that defendants obtained the sale deed from Alli Peddi Raju to deprive their legitimate right over the suit schedule property, as such, they filed suit vide OS.No.30/2017 against Alli
Peddi Raju and accordingly, furnished the copies of the same, but without considering their objections, as the name of Shagam Swathi was mutated, 60 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 they filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.28657/2017 before the Hon’ble High
Court, hence, Hon’ble High Court suspended the said mutation proceedings and the said Writ petition is still pending. As per the evidence of Shagam Eeshwaramma, on 24-03-2017, she on behalf of her daughter, gave application to Tahesildar of Peddavoora to mutate the name of her daughter in the name of Alli Peddi Raju in the revenue records for the suit schedule property, but she is not aware that plaintiffs raised objection for it or not, however, admitted that in the Ex.B.6 / Mutation proceedings issued by Tahesildar, it is reflected that plaintiffs raised objection, but the said objection was not considered by him. Further, as per the Ex.B.32 /
Letter dated 06-01-2018 given by Tahesildar, Peddavoora to Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddavoora, Stone Crusher unit in the suit schedule land is still in existence. Eeshwaramma also deposed that she filed Ex.B.35 / F.I.R dated 10-01-2018 in Peddavoora police station alleging that herself and her daughter purchased the Stone Crusher unit and one Kudhadi Krishna,
Ramavath Pekya and Ramavath Gangya were threatening her for purchasing the same. She also deposed that her husband also lodged similar nature of F.I.R vide Crime No.134/2017 on 27-08-2017. Thus, this 61 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 much of evidence establishes that plaintiffs only were running the Stone
Crusher unit in the suit schedule property as on the date of filing both the suits. Even the evidence of Alli Peddi Raju also establishes that plaintiffs gave complaint to higher authorities of electricity department against his action of got disconnecting the electricity service connection to the Stone
Crusher unit after filing the suit vide OS.No.30/2017 by them against him.
Ex.A.1 to A.6 filed by Gambhirapati Raju in OS.No.55/2017 also establishes the same. In these circumstances, as mere entry of the name of Shagam
Swathi in the revenue records for the suit schedule property would not establish her possession over the suit schedule land, whereas on the other hand, as the plaintiffs were not evicted by Alli Peddi Raju from suit schedule property under the due process of law under the guise of lease period is expired, it can be said that plaintiffs only are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing both the suits. Thus, issue No.1 & 2 in OS.No.30/2017, whereas issue No.1 in OS.No.55/2017 are decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
62 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Issues:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the suit
Agreement to sell ?
Whether the defendant No.2 is bound by the suit Agreement to sell ?
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the injunction as prayed for ?
39.As per the contention of Counsel for Alli Peddi Raju ( Defendant No.1), plaintiff – Gambhirapati Anitha has not specifically averred / pleaded in the plaint filed by her in the suit vide OS.No.30/2017 that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, Section 16(c) of Specific
Relief Act, 1963 debars her from claiming the relief of specific performance. On the other hand, as per the contention of Counsel for the plaintiff, though it is not specifically averred / pleaded with specific phraseology, as the whole reading of the plaint averments / pleadings are clearly indicating the readyness and willingness of the plaintiff in performing her part of the contract, it is sufficient to grant the relief of specific performance as prayed for. In this regard, plaintiff relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Motilal Jain Vs.
Smt. Ramdasi Devi & Others12’, wherein, it was held that 12AIR 2000 SC 2408 63 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Unless a statute specifically requires a plea to be in any particular form, it can be in any form. No specific phraseology or language is required to take such a plea. The language in Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not require any specific phraseology but only that the plaintiff must aver that he has performed or has always been and is willing to perform his part of the contract. So the compliance of readiness and willingness has to be in spirit and substance and not in letter and form. It is thus clear that an averment of readiness and willingness in the plaint is not a mathematical formula which should only be in specific words. If the averments in the plaint as a whole do clearly indicate the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to fulfill his part of the obligations under the contract which is subject- matter of the suit, the fact that they are differently worded will not militate against the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in a suit of specific performance of contract for sale.
40. Further, as plaintiff paid substantial portion of the agreed sale consideration i.e., Rs.23-00 lakhs out of total consideration of Rs.25-00 lakhs, it shows that she was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2-00 lakhs, hence, she is not required to prove anything that she failed to pay the said balance consideration deliberately, as such, she is entitled for the relief of specific performance. In this regard also, relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘R.Rama Subbamma Vs.V.Vijayalaxmi & Others 13 ’ becomes relevant, wherein, it was held that ‘Once execution of Agreement to sell and payment / receipt of advance / substantial sale consideration was admitted by the vendor, thereafter nothing further required to be proved by the vendee, as such, vendee is entitled for specific performance’ .
13AIR 2002 SC 793 64 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
41.Hence, in view of above legal proposition, it can be said that plaintiff –
Gambhirapati Anitha is entitled for the relief of specific performance.
Moreover, as Shagam Eeshwaramma (defendant No.2 in OS.No.55/2017) admitted in her evidence that she has knowledge as to the subsistence of
Ex.A.1 / Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 prior to got registering the suit schedule land vide Ex.B.28 / Registered sale deed, it can be said that her daughter - Shagam Swathi is not the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property, hence, she is bound by the suit Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016. Further, plea taken by defendants in the written statement stating that plaintiff is entitled for the relief of refund of money only from her vendor - Alli Peddi Raju and not the relief of specific performance clearly shows that they have knowledge of existence of Ex.A.1 prior to got registering the suit schedule property vide Ex.B-28 / registered sale deed, hence, such conduct itself establishes that they are not bonafide purchasers. Hence, as per Section 19(b) of Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the first purchaser is entitled for the sale deed along with joining the subsequent purchaser and in this regard, judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of ‘Maharaj Singh & Others Vs. Kiran Singh 65 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 through (Lrs) & Others14’, also states that ‘Subsequent purchaser who is not a bonafide purchaser cannot retain the property and his sale deed either can be cancelled or he is directed to join in the sale deed to be executed in favour of the plaintiff’, this Court has no hesitation to hold that Issue No.3 & 4 in
OS.No.30 / 2017 are decided in favour of the plaintiff – Gambhirapati
Anitha.
42.As per the contention of counsel for defendants, as the Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016 is not a registered one, it shall not be considered in evidence as admissible in view of bar under Section 49 of Registration Act.
Further, as the plaintiffs filed the suit vide OS.No.55/2017 for the relief of bare injunction without being sought for relief of specific performance of
Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016, they are not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for. In order to substantiate this contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Balram Singh Vs.Kelodevi’ 15 , wherein, it was held that
Having conscious of the fact that the plaintiff might not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell as the same was unregistered, the plaintiff filed a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction only. It 14 AIR 2024 SC 3328 = (2024) 8 SCC 83 15(2024) 12 SCC 723 66 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 may be true that in a given case, an unregistered document can be used and/or considered for collateral purpose. However, at the same time, the plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for substantive relief, namely, in the present case the relief for specific performance. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot get the relief even for permanent injunction on the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell, more particularly when the defendant specifically filed the counter-claim for getting back the possession which was allowed by the learned trial Court. The plaintiff cleverly prayed for a relief of permanent injunction only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell as the agreement to sell was an unregistered document and therefore on such unregistered document/agreement to sell, no decree for specific performance could have been passed. The plaintiff cannot get the relief by clever drafting.
He also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Prakash Sahu Vs. Saulal 16 ’, wherein it was held that
Unregistered document can be used by way of collateral evidences provided in the provisio to the Section 49 of the Registration Act. For effecting the collateral transaction, whose registration is required by the law should be free from the transaction or be divisible from that. Collateral transaction should be such a transaction which may not be automatically expected of effecting by the registered document i.e., Rs.100/- or any transaction or instrument or right or interest in any immovable property are value of more than Rs.100/-. If the document is inadmissible in evidence in the absence of registration, then any of its estoppel cannot be admitted in evidence and for use of the document for purposes of providing important part, it would not utilized by way of collateral purpose.
He also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘M/s.K.B.Saha & Sons Pvt.Ltd., Vs.M/s.Development Consultant Ltd 17 .’, wherein, it was held that 162019 SCC Online 1905 17(2008) 8 SCC 564 67 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
A document which requires registration under Section 17 and which is not admissible for want of registration to prove a gift or mortgage or sale or lease is nevertheless admissible to prove the character of the possession of the person who holds under it.
He further relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Ameer Minhaj Vs.Dierdre Elizabeth 18 ’, wherein, it was held that
The sale Agreement which is inadmissible in evidence, will have to be understand to mean that the document though exhibited, will bear an endorsement it is admissible only as evidence of the Agreement to sell under provisio to Section 49 of the Registration Act and shall not have any effect for the purpose of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act.
43.Admittedly, initially plaintiff / Gambhirapati Anitha filed the suit vide
OS.No.33/2017 seeking the relief of specific performance of Agreement to
sell dated 16-05-2016 against Alli Peddi Raju, but subsequently, as she came to know that during the pending suit, as Alli Peddi Raju registered the suit schedule land in favour of Shagam Swathi vide document No.914/2017 on 21-03-2017, he was constrained to implead the said subsequent purchaser / Shagam Swathi as party to the suit claiming relief against her to join Alli Peddi Raju and execute the registered sale deed in her favour for the suit schedule land. Apart from that, she along with her husband, filed a suit vide OS.No.55/2017 against her and her mother – Shagam 18(2018) 7 SCC 639 68 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Eeshwaramma claiming the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain them from interfere with their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land. This means, plaintiff prayed the relief of injunction as an ancillary relief to the main relief of seeking specific performance of Agreement to sell dated 16-05-2016. As such, as the provisio to Section 49 of Registration
Act allowing the said Agreement to sell as admissible in evidence, it can be used for collateral purpose in deciding the possession of the suit schedule property also. Hence, as the suit vide OS.No.55/2017 is not an independent suit, but connected with the suit vide OS.No.30/2017, the above relied upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India would not applicable to the facts and circumstances in the suit vide OS.No.55/2017. Thus, ratio decidendi laid down in the above relied upon judgments would not helpful to the defendants in OS.No.55/2017 for denying the relief as prayed for by plaintiffs. Hence, issue No.2 in OS.No.55 / 2017 is also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
In the result: Suit vide OS.No.30/2017 is decreed with costs directing the defendants No.1 & 2 to execute the registered sale deed in favour of 69 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017 plaintiff for the suit schedule land by receiving the balance consideration of
Rs.2-00 lakhs deposited by her in the Court.
Suit vide OS.No.55/2017 is decreed with costs restraining the defendants No.1 & 2 from interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
Typed by Stenographer (Gr.I) to the dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of October, 2025.
V - Additional District Judge,
Miryalaguda.
Appendix of evidence in OS.No. 30 / 2017
Witnesses Examined
On behalf of the Plaintiff:
PW.1:Gambhirapati Anitha / Plaintiff. PW.2:Madireddy Ramnadh Reddy.
On behalf of the defendants:
DW.1:Alli Peddi Raju / Defendant No.1. DW.2:Shagam Eeshwaramma. DW.3:Ramavath Ramji. DW.4:Bollam Saidulu. DW.5:Komati Venkanna.
Exhibits Marked
On behalf of the plaintiff:
Ex.A.1:Original Agreement of sale dated 16-05-2016 along with receipt (since it is insufficiently stamped, the deficit stamp duty and penalty thereof is collected by the Court and an endorsement is made to the said effect). Ex.A.2:Photocopy of Legal notice dated 20-09-2016.
70 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Ex.A.3:Original Demand Draft / Bankers Cheque for Rs.2,00,000/-issued by SBH, Mohan Nagar branch, Hyderabad dated 19-09-2016.
On behalf of the defendants:
Ex.B.1:Agreement dated 13-10-2016 between the husband of the plaintiff and Bollam Saidaiah. Ex.B.2:Certified copy of Agreement dated 29-04-2016 between Alli Peddi Raju (defendant No.1) and Bollam Saidaiah, contains the signatures of Gambhirapati Anitha (plaintiff), K.Ramreddy, M.Saidi Reddy, P.Bixam Reddy as attestors. Ex.B.3:Certified copy of pattadar passbook-cum-title deed vide Sl.No.T28260181040, Khata No.1805 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of defendant No.1. Ex.B.4:Certified copy of pattadar passbook vide Sl.No.806093, Khata No.1805 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of defendant No.1. Ex.B.5:Certified copy of title deed vide Sl.No.806093, Khata No.1805 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of defendant No.1 with the approval of the RDO, Miryalaguda. Ex.B.6: Certified copy of proceedings issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora vide Letter No.B/461/2017 dated 27-07-2017. Ex.B.7: Certified copy of Amendment register issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of the defendant No.1. Ex.B.8:Certified copy of 1-B issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of the defendant No.1. Ex.B.9:Certified copy of 1-B Namoona (ROR) pahani issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mee-seva in favour of the defendant No. 1, dated 07-03-2017. Ex.B.10: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-01 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal (2 pages). Ex.B.11: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2003-04 Issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal (2 pages). Ex.B.12: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.13: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-10 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar,Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.14: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2011-12 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.15:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2013-14 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar. Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.16: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016 (1426 fasli) dated 07-03-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.518/A5/1). Ex.B.17: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016 (1426 fasli) dated 07-03-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.518/3). Ex.B.18: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016 (1426 fasli) dated 07-03-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.519/4). Ex.B.19: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016 (1426 fasli) dated 07-03-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.521/3).
71 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Ex.B.20: Certified copy of 1-B Namoona (ROR) pahani issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva in favour of defendant No.1 dated 01-08-2017. Ex.B.21: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017 (1427 fasli) dated 01-08-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.519/4). Ex.B.22: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017 (1427 fasli) dated 01-08-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.518/A5/1). Ex.B.23: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017 (1427 fasli) dated 01-08-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.518/3). Ex.B.24:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017 (1427 fasli) dated 01-08-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy. No.521/3). Ex.B.25:Certified copy of Encumbrance certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor, statement No.26213881, dated 22-05-2017. Ex.B.26: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.1634/2009, dated 02-07-2009 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor. Ex.B.27:Certified copy of registered cancellation deed bearing No.907/2017, dated 20- 03-2017 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor. Ex.B.28: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.914/2017, dated 21- 03-2017 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor. Ex.B.29:Certified copy of panchanama conducted by the Additional Revenue Inspector, Peddavoora Mandal with regarding to the possession of the land before the mediators and witnesses, dated 20-07-2017. Ex.B.30: Certified copy of the statement of Mudireddy Shiva Reddy recorded by the
Additional Revenue Inspector, Peddavoora Mandal, dated 20-07-2017.
Ex.B.31:Certified copy of the statement of Banavath Shanker recorded by the Additional Revenue Inspector, Peddavoora Mandal, dated 20-07-2017. Ex.B.32: Proceedings issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora to the Station House Officer, Peddavoora P.S vide letter No.B/17/2018, dated 06-01-2018. Ex.B.33: Certified copy of the F.I.R.No.134/2017, dated 27-08-2017 against the plaintiff, henchmen, under Sections 447, 504, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C along with report. Ex.B.34: Certified copy of charge sheet in F.I.R.No.134/2017, dated 19-09-2017. Ex.B.35: Certified copy of F.I.R.No.07/2018, dated 10-01-2018 against the plaintiffs henchmen, under Sections 341, 447, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C along with report. Ex.B.36:Certified copy of charge-sheet in F.I.R.No.07/2018, dated 05-05-2018. Ex.B.37: Certified copy of passbook No.731390 vide patta No.560 pertaining to Alli Peddi Raju (defendant No.1). Ex.B.38:Certified copy of title deed book No.731390 vide patta No.560 pertaining to Alli Peddi Raju (defendant No.1). Ex.B.39:Original Special Power of Attorney executed by defendant No.2 in favour of Shagam Eashwaramma.
72 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Appendix of evidence in OS.No. 55 / 2017
Witnesses Examined
On behalf of the Plaintiff:
PW.1:Gambhirapati Raju / Plaintiff.
On behalf of the defendants:
DW.1:Shagam Eeshwaramma / Defendant No.2. DW.2:Midimalapu Brahmanandha Reddy. DW.3:Velugu Prashanth.
Exhibits Marked
On behalf of the plaintiff:
Ex.A.1:Two electricity bills dated 12-01-2017 and 27-02-2017. Ex.A.2:Office copy of complaint filed by the plaintiff to the Divisional Engineer dated 19.04.2017. Ex.A.3:Office copy of complaint filed by the plaintiff to the Additional Divisional Engineer, electricity Department dated 19-04-2017. Ex.A.4:Office copy of complaint given to the Superintending Engineer dated 19.04.2017. Ex.A.5:Copy of letter given to the Assistant Engineer dated 27-04-2017. Ex.A.6:Three photographs with CD dated 21-08-2017. Ex.A.7:Original MD license No.550/MDR/NLG/2014 dated 24-02-2014.
On behalf of the defendants:
Ex.B.1:Original pattadar passbook-cum-title deed vide Sl.No.T28260181040, Khata No.1805 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of the defendant No.1. Ex.B.2:Original pattadar passbook vide Sl.No.806093, Khata No.1805 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of the defendant No.1. Ex.B.3:Original title deed vide Sl.No.806093 Khata No.1805 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of defendant No.1 with the approval of the RDO, Miryalaguda. Ex.B.4:Original proceedings issued by the Tahesildar, Paddavoora vide letter No.B.461/2017, dated 27-07-2027. Ex.B.5:Certified copy of amendment register issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of defendant No.1. Ex.B.6: Original 1-B issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora in favour of the defendant No.1. Ex.B.7: Certified copy of 1-B Namoona (ROR) pahani issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva in favour of the defendant No.1 dated 07.03.2017.
73 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Ex.B.8:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2000-2001 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.9:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2003-2004 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.10: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-2008 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.11: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-2010 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.12: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2011-2012 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.13: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2013-2014 issued by the Nayab Tahesildar, Peddavoora Mandal. Ex.B.14: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016 (1426 fasli) dated 07-03-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.518/A5/1). Ex.B.15:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016 (1426 fasli) dated 07-03-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.518/3). Ex.B.16: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016 (1426 fasli) dated 07-03-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.519/4). Ex.B.17:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2016 (1426 fasli) dated 07-03-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.521/3). Ex.B.18: Certified copy of 1-B Namoona (ROR) pahani issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva in favour of the defendant No.1 dated 01.08.2017. Ex.B.19: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017 (1427 fasli) dated 01-08-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.519/4). Ex.B.20: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017 (1427 fasli) dated 01-08-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.518/A5/1). Ex.B.21: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017 (1427 fasli) dated 01-08-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.518/3). Ex.B.22:Certified copy of pahani for the year 2017 (1427 fasli) dated 01-08-2017 issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora through Mee-seva (Sy.No.521/3). Ex.B.23:Original encumbrance certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor, Statement No.26213881, dated 22-05-2015. Ex.B.24:Original registered sale deed bearing document No.1634/2009 dated 02-07-2009 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor. Ex.B.25:Original registered sale deed bearing document No.907/2017 dated 20-03-2017 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor. Ex.B.26: Original registered sale deed bearing document No.914/2017 dated 21-03-2017 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Nidamanoor. Ex.B.27:Certified copy of panchanama conducted by the Additional Revenue Inspector, Peddavoora Mandal with regarding to the possession of the land before the mediators and witnesses, dated 20-07-2017. Ex.B.28: Certified copy of statement of Mudireddy Shiva Reddy recorded by the
Additional Revenue Inspector, Peddavoora Mandal, dated 20-07-2017.
Ex.B.29:Certified copy of statement of Banavath Shanker recorded by the Additional Revenue Inspector, Peddavoora Mandal, dated 20-07-2017.
74 of 74 O.S.No.30 / 2017 & 55 / 2017
Ex.B.30: Proceedings issued by the Tahesildar, Peddavoora to the Station House Officer, Peddavoora P.S vide letter No.B/17/2018, dated 06-01-2018. Ex.B.31:Attested copy of the F.I.R No.134/2017 dated 27-08-2017 against the plaintiff henchmen, under Sections 447, 504, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C along with report. Ex.B.32: Attested copy of charge-sheet in F.I.R.No.134/2017, dated 19-09-2017. Ex.B.33: Attested copy in F.I.R.No.07/2018, dated 10-01-2018 against the plaintiff’s henchmen, under Sections 341, 447, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C along with report. Ex.B.34: Attested copy of charge sheet in F.I.R.No.07/2018, dated 05-05-2018. Ex.B.35: Original sale deed in favour of the Bollam Saidaiah executed by Alli Peddi Raju
dated 29-04-2016 on Rs.100/- Non-judicial stamp paper.
V - Additional District Judge,
Miryalaguda.
1 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF V - ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
AT: MIRYALAGUDA, NALGONDA DISTRICT
Friday the 16 th day of February, 2024
Present: Mr. Gajawada Venu, V - Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda.
S.C. No. 157 of 20 19
1Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Miryalaguda 2Name of the accusedGandam Bala Saidulu @ Saidulu, S/o.Ramaiah, Age:29 years, Occ:Agriculture & Auto Driver, R/o.Laxmipuram, H/o.Rudraram Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.
3Offences complained ofUnder Sections 498-A & 304-B of the Indian Penal Code 4Crime No. & Name of the PS501 of 2016 of P.S. Miryalaguda Rural 5Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 6Finding of the CourtFound guilty 7Sentence or orderAccused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of Three (3) years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C and in default of payment of such fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of six months. He is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of Three (3) years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C and in default of payment of such fine, he undergo simple imprisonment of six months. Both these two sentences shall run concurrently. Total fine is Rs.2,000/-. The remand periof of accused from 23-02-2017 to 28-03-2017 (34 days) shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
The Case property MO-1 to 5 deposited vide 2 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019
C.P.No.130 of 2018 ( C.P.No.19/2022 ) shall be destroyed after the expiry of Appeal time if no Appeal intimation is required. Office is directed to return the case property to the committal court to dispose the same as directed if no Appeal intimation is received.
Accused is appraised about his right to file Appeal against this Judgment.
A free copy of this Judgment is handed over to the accused under due acknowledgment.
This Sessions Case is coming before me on 07.02.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Mr. M.Manohar Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Mr. Ch.Raghu Rama Rao, Advocate for Accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
:: JUDGMENT ::
1. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Miryalaguda i.e., PW-11 filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.501 of 2016 of Miryalaguda
Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 304-B of Indian Penal Code and the allegations made in the said charge sheet, in brief, are as follows:
2. The marriage of deceased – Gandham Manemma with the accused –
Bala Saidulu was performed at about six years back. At the time of marriage, her parents presented Rs.60,000/- cash, 4 ½ tulas of gold and also gave Ac.1-00 gts of land to the accused towards the dowry. Out of 3 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 said marital life, deceased & accused gave birth to son & daughter.
After the marriage, accused looked after his wife - deceased well for about three years and thereafter, he started to harass her by suspecting her fidelity. He also used to beat her and abuse in filthy language by attributing the illegal relationship with other. Further, he being addicted to consume alcohol, used to demand her to bring
additional dowry. As such, deceased informed the said demand and
harassment of accused to her parents. In those circumstances, mother of the deceased i.e., PW-1 could arrange Rs.40,000/- and gave the same to the accused, but the accused spent the same for his bad vice of consuming alcohol. Thereafter, as the accused purchased a she
Buffalo, he demanded the deceased to bring the said purchased money from her parent’s house. A panchayat was also conducted to convince the accused to look after the deceased well and not to harass her, wherein, as the elders in the panchayat, reprimanded the accused and advised him to look after the deceased well, deceased continued the marital life with the accused. Even then, from past three days prior to the death of deceased, accused by coming to the house in a drunken 4 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 condition, continued to harass the deceased physically by beat her and also mentally by abusing her in filthy language and that too, by attributing illegal relationship to her. While so, on 29-12-2016 at about 12-00 noon also, accused by came to the house in a drunken condition, picked up a quarrel with the deceased, wherein, he beat her with his hands and also abused her in filthy language by attributing un-chastity to her character. Unbearable with the said harassment, deceased herself poured kerosene on her body in the compound of the house and set herself ablazed to her body. As such, on hues and cries made by her, accused and neighbors put off the fire flames and shifted her to one Sri Balaji hospital, Miryalaguda.
3. Thereafter, on receiving the information from the hospital to that affect, PW-10 / S.I of Police, Miryalaguda Rural rushed to the said hospital and examined and recorded the statement of the deceased.
On the strength of the same, he registered a case in Crime No.501 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and issued
Ex.P.14 / First Information Report. He also gave a requisition to PW-7, 5 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 the then Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda to record the dying declaration of the deceased. As such, PW-7 came to the hospital and recorded the Ex.P.11 / Statement (Dying Declaration) of the deceased. Thereafter, PW-10 visited the place of offence and verified the same in the presence of two panchas PW-5 & LW-9 / Boda
Shekhar. After examined and recorded the statements of PW-3 & 4, as it became late in the night, he could not conduct scene of offence panchanama on that day. As such, he again visited the said scene of offence on the next day i.e., 30-12-2016 and conducted Ex.P.7 / Scene of offence panchanama and also prepared Ex.P.8 / Rough sketch of the scene in the presence of same panchas and seized MO.1 to 5. He also recorded the statement of LW-7 / Kurra Lingaiah. Thus, while the investigation was in progress, he received the information from Gandhi
Hospital, Secundrabad that deceased died on 03-01-2017 at about 7:00 a.m. Hence, he visited the said hospital and got held of Ex.P-9 / Inquest over the dead body of the deceased through PW-8 / Tahsildar,
Musheerabad. Later, he requested the PW.9 / Doctor to conduct postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Be the 6 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 things as it may, basing on the statements given by PW-1, 2 & LW-4 given to the PW-8 while conducting the inquest panchanama, PW-10 added the Section of law of 304-B I.P.C and submitted the same in the court. In these circumstances, as the offence became grave offence,
PW-11 / Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Miryalaguda received the Case
Diary from PW-10 and examined and recorded the statements of PW-1, 2 & LW-4 / Ravula Lingaiah. He again visited the place of offence and examined and recorded the statements of PW-3, 4 & LW-7 / Kurra
Lingaiah. Further, he took steps to get the recording of statements of
PW-1, 2 & LW-4/Ravula Lingaiah by LW-15 / Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Miryalaguda under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Later, on the strength of said statements, he arrested the accused on 23-02-2017 and after collecting the P.M.E Report, as the investigation was completed, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
4. The learned 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Miryalaguda before whom the above charge-sheet was filed, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 304-B of 7 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 the Indian Penal Code and registered the case as P.R.C.No.29 of 2018 and committed the same to the Sessions Division, Nalgonda, vide order
dated 25.02.2019 under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Nalgonda registered the case as
S.C.No.157 of 2019 and made over the same to this Court for trial and disposal as per law.
5. Upon appearance of the accused before the Court and consideration of material available on record and after hearing the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, this Court framed charges under Sections 498-A & 304-B of the Indian Penal
Code, read over and explained the same to them, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-16 and also M.O.1 to 5 8 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019
7. PW.1 & 2 are the mother and elder sister respectively of the deceased.
PW.3 & 4 are the neighbors of the accused & deceased. PW.5 is the panch for Scene of offence panchanama and seizure of MO-1 to 5, whereas PW.6 is the panch for Inquest panchanama. PW-7 is the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class and recorded the dying declaration of
the deceased. PW.8 is the Tahsildar-cum-Executive magistrate and he conducted Inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased.
PW.9 is the Doctor & conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem examination report. PW.10 is the
Sub Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda Rural and issued FIR, whereas
PW.11 is the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Miryalaguda-cum-
Investigating Officer in this case. Prosecution has given up the examination and record the evidence of LW.4–Ravula Lingaiah, LW.7 –
Kurra Lingaiah, LW.9–Boda Shekar (panch for scene of offence panchanama) & LW.13–Kurra Shankar (panch for inquest panchanama).
9 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019
8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, when accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the incriminating material / circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence from his side to prove his innocence.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that though the material witnesses PW-1 to 4 have not supported the prosecution to some extent by turned hostile, evidence of PW-7 / Judicial Magistrate of First Class who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased unequivocally and clinchingly incriminates the accused to prove his guilt, as such, her evidence coupled with the oral evidence of PW-5, 6 & 8 to 11 along with Ex.P.2, 4 & 7 to 15 & M.O.1 to 5 proves the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the charges framed against him. Accordingly, he prayed to convict the accused for the said offences. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused would contend that relying upon the evidence of PW-7 who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, it is unsafe to convict the accused 10 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 when the material witnesses completely turned hostile, as such, accused is entitled for acquittal. He would also contend that as there was no alleged demand of dowry by accused soon before the death of the deceased, and thereby, no cruelty was meted out to the deceased to fulfill his alleged demand of dowry, presumption under Section 113-
B of Indian Evidence Act does not arise.
Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned 10.
counsel for accused.
Now, the point that arises for determination is :- 11.
Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, with which they are charged, beyond reasonable doubt ?
In order to prove this point, following facts in issue would emerge 12.
for consideration:-
1.Whether the death of the deceased was occurred otherwise than under a normal circumstances ?
2.Whether the death of the deceased was occurred within 7 years of her marriage with the accused ?
3.Whether soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband in connection with the demand of dowry ?
Fact No.1 :- 11 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019
Whether the death of the deceased was occurred otherwise than under a
normal circumstances ?
It is an undisputed fact that accused is the husband of the 13.
deceased. PW-1 & 2 are the mother and elder sister respectively of the deceased. PW-1 deposed that she performed the marriage of accused about 7 years prior to her death and after the marriage, deceased and accused lead happy marital life, wherein, they blessed with two children. Later, as the deceased was suffering from severe stomachache, unbearable with the same, she attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene and setting herself ablazed. As such, they took the deceased to a private hospital at Miryalaguda, but as her condition was serious, they shifted her to Gandhi Hospital,
Secundrabad, however, she died after the three days of said incident.
Thus, her undisputed evidence to this extent establishes that deceased was died as she committed suicide by pouring kerosene herself on her body and setting herself ablazed.
PW-2 deposed that marriage of deceased with the accused was 14.
performed at about 12 years back to the said date of giving evidence 12 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 and out of the said marital life, they blessed with two children. She also deposed that as the deceased was suffering from severe stomachache, having unbearable with the same, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting herself ablazed. Thus, undisputed evidence of this witness to this extent also establishes the death of the deceased as she committed suicide by pouring kerosene herself on her body and setting herself ablazed.
PW-3 & 4 being the relative and neighbor of the deceased & 15.
accused respectively, deposed in one and the same lines that deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene herself on her body and even by setting herself ablazed. They also deposed that as the deceased was suffering from stomachache, she committed such suicide. Thus, their evidence also establishes that death of the deceased is otherwise than under normal circumstances.
PW-6 deposed that deceased & accused are her relatives, as such, 16.
on came to know about the death of the deceased in Gandhi Hospital, 13 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019
Secundrabad, she visited the said hospital and there, one Deputy
M.R.O. conducted Ex.P.9 / Inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in her presence and in the presence of LW-11 – Kurra
Shekar and obtained their signatures on it.
PW-8 deposed that he worked as a Deputy Tahsildar, Musheerabad 17.
mandal, Hyderabad District between 01-09-2016 & 10-07-2019 and on 03-01-2017, as he received a requisition from A.S.I of Police,
Miryalaguda Rural Police station to conduct inquest panchanama over the dead body of Gandam Manemma at mortuary of Gandhi Hospital,
Secundrabad, he visited the said hospital and conducted Ex.P-9 /
Inquest over the said dead body in the presence of two panchas PW-6 & LW-11 – Kurra Shekar and obtained their signatures. Thus, evidence of PW-6 & 8 coupled with the Ex.P.11 / Inquest panchanama establishes the unnatural death of the deceased.
PW-5 deposed that police came to the house of the accused at 18.
Laxmipuram village and drafted a panchanama in his presence and in 14 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 the presence of LW-9 / Boda Shekar and also seized some burnt cloth pieces, burnt nylon nupital thread and pusthe, burnt max stick, broken yello colour bangle pieces and a 5 liter capacity empty plastic container under the said panchanama. Further, as the said police also prepared a rough sketch of the scene in their presence, they put their signatures on it. In the cross-examination, though this witness deposed that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.7 / Scene observation-cum-seizure panchanama and also Ex.P.8 / Rough sketch and he went to the house of the accused as the Patel of the village called him there and on the instructions of said Patel only, he signed Ex.P.7 & P.8, he denied that he signed on some white paper only, Moreover, as this witness was not suggested by counsel for the accused that M.O.1 to 5 were not recovered by police in his presence, it would helpful to the prosecution to establish that deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene herself on her body and also set herself ablazed. Thus, evidence of this witness corroborates the evidence of PW-1 to 4, 6 & 8 to believe that deceased died with burn injuries only.
15 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019
PW-9 deposed that on 03-01-2017, as he received requisition from 19.
Deputy Tahsildar, Musheerabad to conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of the Gandam Manemma lying at mortuary of the
Gandhi Hospital, Secundrabad, he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the said deceased and issued Ex.P.12 /
Postmortem Examination Report, wherein, he opined that death of the deceased was due to burns and it’s complications only. Thus, his evidence coupled with the evidence of remaining witnesses concludes that deceased died due to burn injuries only.
PW-7 deposed that on 29-12-2016 at about 4:45 p.m, as she 20.
received a requisition to record the dying declaration of one Gandam
Manemma, W/o.Saidulu, R/o. Laxmipuram village at Sri Balaji Hospital,
Miryalaguda, she recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, wherein, she stated that deceased herself poured kerosene on her body in their house compound and set herself ablazed. Thus, evidence of this witness also establishes that deceased died as she committed 16 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 suicide by pouring kerosene herself on her body and set herself ablazed.
PW-10 is the First Investigating officer. He deposed that 29-12-2016, 21.
as he received a phone call from Balaji Hospital, Miryalaguda informing him that one Gandam Manemma, R/o.Laxmipuram village was admitted in the said hospital with burn injuries and taking treatment, he rushed to the said hospital and recorded the statement of said
Gandam Manemma (deceased) under Ex.P.13 and basing on the same only, he registered a case in Crime No.501 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and issued Ex.P.14 / First
Information Report. Thereafter, as he requested the PW-7 to record the dying declaration of the deceased, PW-7 recorded the same. Later, on the same day, he visited the scene of offence and examined and recorded the statements of PW-3 & 4, but as it became late night, he could not conduct scene observation panchanama, as such, he again came to the said scene of offence on the next day and conducted
Ex.P.7 / Scene observation panchanama and also drafted rough sketch of the scene besides seizing the M.O.1 to 5 from the said scene of 17 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 offence. Thus, oral evidence of this witness coupled with the Ex.P.13 & 14 / First Information Report is corroborated by the evidence of PW-1 to 9 in establishing the fact that deceased died with burn injuries as she committed suicide by herself pouring kerosene on her body and herself set ablazed to it. Accordingly, prosecution proved this fact in its favour.
Fact No.2:-
Whether the death of the deceased was occurred within 7 years of her marriage
with the accused ?
Admittedly, no documentary evidence is collected by Investigating 22.
officers to establish that death of the deceased was taken place within 7 years of her marriage with the accused. However, undisputed oral evidence of PW-1 & 2 clearly establishes that approximately, it was taken place within 7 years of her marriage with the accused only.
Moreover, there is no dispute from the side of accused in this regard, as such, no questions or suggestions were posed by counsel for accused to the Investigating Officers during the course of cross examination to deny the same. In this connection, it is appropriate to mention that it is quite common & natural in rural areas that people 18 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 may not keep the wedding cards of the marriage with them for ever and even, some may not take the photographs of the marriage.
Further, for lack of legal awareness, it has become a practice in villages that villagers won’t register the marriages by approaching the concerned authorities. Be that as it may, in the Ex.P-10 / Dying
Declaration given by deceased to the PW-7, she categorically stated that her marriage with the deceased was performed about 6 years back only. In these circumstances, as it is not a disputed fact, this Court safely comes to a conclusion that marriage of deceased with the accused was performed within 7 years of her death. Accordingly, this fact No.2 is decided in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.
Fact No.3 :-
Whether soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband in connection with the demand of dowry ?
Before adverting to the evidence of prosecution witnesses on this
23.
fact, it is appropriate to analyze the law on dowry death & abetment to commit suicide by a married woman as the evidence of PW-1 to 4 19 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 speaks that deceased committed suicide as she suffered from unbearable stomachache only. In this connection, provisions of 306
I.P.C, 304-B I.P.C, 498-A I.P.C and 113-A & 113-B of Indian Evidence Act becomes relevant. The combined reading of these provisions of law makes it clear that in order to prove that dowry death was occurred, prosecution must establish that death of the deceased should be caused by burns, bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances and such death should have been occurred within 7 years of her marriage and she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband and such cruelty or harassment must have been meted out to her soon before her death by such her husband i.e., accused herein. As per the proviso appended to the
Section 498-A I.P.C, cruelty means a willful conduct of such a nature that likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. On the other hand, harassment must be in such a nature that it would coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security to meet the demand of her husband or near relative of the 20 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 husband. If these facts are able to be established by prosecution in its favour, Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act comes into play to presume by Court that death of the deceased is a dowry death and the accused caused for such dowry death. Thus, presumption as to dowry death would get activate only upon the proof of the fact that deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by accused and that too, in the reasonable contiguity of death. On the other hand, alternatively, as per Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act, when a married woman commits suicide within 7 years of her marriage due to cruelty contemplated under under Section 498-A I.P.C meted out to her by her husband or relative of husband wherein, if a question arises that whether the commission of such suicide had been abetted by her husband, the Court may presume, having regarding to the circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been committed by her husband of his relatives. Thus, both in the cases of dowry death as well as abetment of suicide by a married woman within the period of 7 years of her marriage, the common fact is that deceased woman must have been subjected to 21 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 cruelty contemplated under Section 498-A I.P.C either by her husband or relative of her husband. In this backdrop of legal proposition, it has to be seen that how far the evidence of prosecution witnesses establishes that deceased – Laxmi was subjected to cruelty in connection with the dowry by accused soon before her death and the same was constrained her to commit suicide by pouring kerosene herself on her body and set ablaze to herself.
Admittedly, mother & sister respectively of the deceased i.e., PW-1 24.
& 2 deposed that due to unbearable with the severe stomachache, deceased committed suicide and thus, they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution to say that accused subjected the deceased to cruelty by way of harassing her to bring dowry till soon before her death and the same only abetted the deceased to commit suicide by pouring kerosene herself on her body and set ablaze to it. PW-3 & 4 are the relative and neighbor respectively of the deceased & accused and they also did not depose that deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with the dowry and the same only drove her to commit suicide. In these circumstances, in order to establish that accused 22 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 harassed the deceased to bring additional dowry till soon before her death and due to which only, she committed suicide, prosecution completely relied upon the evidence of PW-7, 8 and 10 & 11.
As stated supra, PW-7 is the Judicial Magistrate and she recorded 25.
the dying declaration of the deceased immediately after the deceased was admitted in the hospital with burn injuries for treatment. She deposed that on a requisition given by police on 29-12-2016 at about 4:45 p.m, she immediately proceeded to one Sri Balaji Hospital,
Miryalaguda and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased.
Before doing so, she got certification from the duty doctor that
deceased was in conscious and fit state of mind to give her statement.
Further, after got herself satisfaction with the rational answers given by deceased to the preliminary questions posed by her so as to ascertain that she was in conscious and fit state of mind to give her statement, she could start to elicit the facts from the mouth of the deceased to know as to the circumstances which drove her to take such stringent step of commit suicide. As per the said statement given by deceased to 23 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 her, her marriage with the accused was performed at about six years back and out of said marital life, she gave birth to two children.
Deceased further stated to her that from past three years, her husband being suspected her fidelity, has been harassing her physically and mentally and in that regard, though a panchayath was conducted before the elders, accused continued the harassment against her. She also started to her that from past three days prior to take such step of commit suicide, her husband / accused has been beating her in a drunken condition, as such, unbearable with the said harassment, she in the afternoon hours of that day and that too, while her husband was inside the house, she came into the compound of the house and poured kerosene herself on her body and set ablazed herself. She also stated to her that their neighbor ‘Sandhya’ (PW-3) being seen the same, as made hues and cries, her husband / accused came out and put off the fire / flames and brought her to the hospital.
She further specifically stated to her that due to the acts of her husband / accused only, she committed the suicide. Thus, the statement given by deceased unequivocally & unhesitatingly 24 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 incriminates the accused that his harassment only abetted her to commit suicide. However, as this statement given by deceased to PW-7 nowhere alleges against the accused that she was harassed by accused to bring dowry and in connection with the demand of said dowry only, she was constrained to take step to commit suicide, it establishes that it is not at all a dowry death as no presumption contemplated under
Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act can be raised. Besides it, though the PW-8 noted in the Ex.P-9 / Inquest that apparent cause of death of the deceased was demand of dowry and the same only constrained the deceased to pour kerosene herself on her body and set ablazed and with the said burn injuries only, she died, the panch for Inquest panchanama i.e., PW-6 has not deposed these facts. Even, except to depose that he conducted inquest panchanama in the presence of
PW-6 & LW-11 / Kurra Shankar, PW-8 has also not deposed that deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. Thus, there is no evidence on record to establish that soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty contemplated under section 498-A I.P.C in 25 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 connection with the dowry. As such, it has to be seen that whether the evidence of PW-7 warrants the conviction against the accused for any other offences.
The counsel for accused would contend that when PW-1 to 4 26.
deposed that there was no harassment from the side of the accused, it is not appropriate for the court to rely upon the sole hearsay evidence of PW-7 to examine the fact that such evidence becomes the sole basis for the conviction of the accused for any other offences by treating the dying declaration of the deceased as a substantial evidence. He would also contend that no doubt, Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act contemplates the relevancy & admissibility of the hearsay evidence under certain circumstances, but the court must ensure that dying declaration which is one of the exceptions to the hearsay evidence is truthful, free from any tutoring, prompting and imagination and must have been made in a fit state of mind by the declarant. In order to strengthen this contention / argument, he relied upon the judgment of 26 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Irfan @ Naka Vs. State of
Uttarpradesh 1,wherein, it was held that “62. There is no hard and fast rule for determining when a dying declaration should be accepted; the duty of the Court is to decide this question in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and be fully convinced of the truthfulness of the same. Certain factors below reproduced can be considered to determine the same, however, they will only affect the weight of the dying declaration and not its admissibility: -
(i) Whether the person making the statement was in expectation of death?
(ii) Whether the dying declaration was made at the earliest opportunity? “Rule of First Opportunity”
(iii) Whether there is any reasonable suspicion to believe the dying declaration was put in the mouth of the dying person?
(iv) Whether the dying declaration was a product of prompting, tutoring or leading at the instance of police or any interested party?
(v) Whether the statement was not recorded properly?
(vi) Whether, the dying declarant had opportunity to clearly observe the incident?
(vii) Whether, the dying declaration has been consistent throughout?
(viii) Whether, the dying declaration in itself is a manifestation / fiction of the dying person’s imagination of what he thinks transpired?
(ix) Whether, the dying declaration was itself voluntary?
(x) In case of multiple dying declarations, whether, the first one inspires truth and consistent with the other dying declaration?
(xi) Whether, as per the injuries, it would have been impossible for the deceased to make a dying declaration?
63. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the charge against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must always go in favour of the accused. It is true that dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence to be relied on provided it is proved that the same was voluntary and truthful and the victim was in a fit state of mind. It is just not enough for the court to say that the dying declaration is reliable as the accused is named in the dying declaration as the assailant.” 12023 SCC Online SC 1060 27 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019
27.In the present case, as stated supra, the mother and elder sister of deceased i.e., PW-1 & 2 and, even the PW-3 who happened to first see that deceased was in fire, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution as to the cause of death of the deceased and the circumstances of transaction which resulted into her death, as such, oral evidence of PW-7 coupled with the Ex.P-11 / Dying declaration of the deceased recorded by her only becomes the vital evidence.
Admittedly, the precautions taken by PW-7 while recording the dying declaration of the deceased, and the time of recording the same immediately after the incident and admitting the deceased in the hospital, and giving of the declaration by deceased in anticipation of the death and also the circumstances of the transaction which drove her to commit suicide inspires the confidence of this court to rely upon it and believe the same in view of complying of all the safeguards & guidelines narrated by Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the above cited judgment. Further, in order to believe the same, this court also relies upon the above cited judgment, wherein, Hon’ble Supreme court of India referred its own judgments in the cases of ‘Nallapati Sivaiah v.
28 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019
Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh reported in (2007) 15 SCC 465’ and ‘Bhajju alias Karan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2012) 4 SCC 327’, whereunder, the meaning and principles of dying declarations upon which its admissibility is founded had been explained with the following observations: - “20. There is a historical and a literary basis for recognition of dying declaration as an exception to the hearsay rule. Some authorities suggest the rule is of Shakespearian origin. In The Life and Death of King John, Shakespeare had made Lord Melun utter “Have I met hideous death within my view, retaining but a quantity of life, which bleeds away, … lose the use of all deceit” and asked, “Why should I then be false, since it is true that I must die here and live hence by truth?” William Shakespeare, The Life and Death of King John, Act 5, Scene 4, lines 22-29. Xxx xxx xxx
22. It is equally well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that dying declaration can form the sole basis for conviction. But at the same time due care and caution must be exercised in considering weight to be given to dying declaration inasmuch as there could be any number of circumstances which may affect the truth. This Court in more than one decision has cautioned that the courts have always to be on guard to see that the dying declaration was not the result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. It is the duty of the courts to find that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the dying declaration. In order to satisfy itself that the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration, the courts have to look for the medical opinion.
23. It is not difficult to appreciate why dying declarations are admitted in evidence at a trial for murder, as a striking exception to the general rule against hearsay. For example, any sanction of the oath in the case of a living witness is thought to be balanced at least by the final conscience of the dying man. Nobody, it has been said, would wish to die with a lie on his lips. A dying 29 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 declaration has got sanctity and a person giving the dying declaration will be the last to give untruth as he stands before his creator.
24. There is a legal maxim “nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire” meaning, that a man will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth. Woodroffe and Amir Ali, in their Treatise on Evidence Act state:
“when a man is dying, the grave position in which he is placed is held by law to be a sufficient ground for his veracity and therefore the tests of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with”.
25. The court has to consider each case in the circumstances of the case. What value should be given to a dying declaration is left to court, which on assessment of the circumstances and the evidence and materials on record, will come to a conclusion about the truth or otherwise of the version, be it written, oral, verbal or by sign or by gestures.”
28. In the present case, as per the version of prosecution, accused and
PW-4 & LW-7 / Kurra Lingaiah brought the deceased to the hospital immediately after the occurrence of incident at 12-00 noon. Thereafter, after started to provide treatment to the deceased in the I.C.U of the hospital at about 1-00 p.m., as the hospital authorities gave intimation of the same to the police, PW-10 / Sub Inspector of Police, Miryalguda
Rural police station came to the hospital and recorded the statement of deceased under Ex.P-13 at about 3-40 p.m and on the basis of the same only, issued Ex.P-14 / F.I.R at about 4-30 p.m. Thereafter, immediately, he requested the PW-7 to record the dying declaration of 30 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 the deceased, as such, PW-7 came to the hospital by 5-25 p.m. and recorded the Ex.P-11 / dying declaration of the deceased and the same was completed by 6-10 p.m. Thus, there is no delay and scope for tutoring the deceased to give statement covered under the Ex.P-11 to the PW-7. Further, it is not the case of accused that by the time of PW-7 & 10 came to the hospital, parental family members of the deceased including the PW-1 & 2 came to the hospital and they were with the deceased so as to believe that deceased was tutored by them to state against him. As per the Ex.P-9 / Inquest Panchanama, PW-1 & 2 and
LW-4 / Ravula Lingaiah were with the deceased when she was taken to the Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad and there only, and that too, after the death of the deceased, they stated to the PW-8 / Dy.Tahasildar while conducting the Ex.P-9 / Inquest panchanama that as the accused harassed the deceased for dowry, deceased committed suicide in connection with the demand of such dowry. Further, nothing is elicited in the evidence of PW-7 during the cross examination to believe that deceased was tutored by her family members to state against the accused. In these circumstances, as there is consistency and coherence 31 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 between the oral evidence of PW-7 & 10 who are the instrumentals in recording the Ex.P-11 / Dying declaration of deceased and Ex.P-13 / statement of the deceased & Ex.P-14 / F.I.R and among these documentary evidence, as there is no scope for preparing and recording the same at after thought with due deliberations, this court has no hesitation to hold that all the requirements contemplated under Rule 33 of Criminal Rules of Practice which deals with the manner and precautions to be taken by a Magistrate while recording the dying declaration are satisfactioing complied with. Further, it satisfies the guidelines enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the above cited judgment.
29.The perusal of the Ex.P-11 / Dying declaration of the deceased clearly shows that immediately prior to the committing of suicide also, accused came to the house in a drunken condition and abused the deceased in filthy language by attributing the unchastity to her character and he also physically abused her by beating her with his hands, as such, untolerated with the said harassment, she committed suicide. It is also pertinent to see that while recording the dying 32 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 declaration of the deceased, PW-7 / Judicial Magistrate has taken every care that it was recorded in the absence of presence of any interested person of the deceased. In the cross examination, PW-7 deposed that except the doctor, no other person were present near the deceased at the time of recording the statement of the deceased. Though PW-7 deposed that duty doctor did not supply the medical record of the patient before she commenced the recording of her statement,
Ex.P.10/ Requisition given by PW-10 / Investigating officer to her is supported by M.L.C issued by hospital, wherein, it is shown that 50% of burn injuries are received by deceased at her face, neck, chest and abdomen etc.. . Thus, it inspires the confidence of this court that while recording the statement of deceased, she was in conscious and fit statement of mind to give her statement to the PW-7. Further, PW-7 herself got satisfaction that deceased was in fit state of mind to give her statement. Besides it, doctor who was present through out the recording of the statement of the deceased certified in the Ex.P-11 /
Dying declaration that deceased was in conscious, coherent and in fit state of mind to give her statement as well as through out the 33 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 recording of statement. Even, on perusal of the record, it appears that when the PW-10 for the first time visited the hospital and taken her statement under Ex.P.13 and basing on which only, Ex.P.14 / F.I.R was issued, the parental family members of the deceased were not with the deceased, as such, he could not record their statements, but could record the statements of PW-3, 4 & LW-7 – Kurra Lingaiah on the same date of offence. The statements of PW-1 & 2 could only be recorded after the death of the deceased which took place after the three days of the incident, wherein only, they alleged that accused harassed the deceased for dowry till soon before her death and in connection with the demand of dowry only, deceased committed suicide. As such, had really deceased intends to falsely implicate the accused, she would have stated to the PW-7 that accused harassed her for additional dowry as stated by PW-1 & 2 to the PW-8, 9 & 11 and to the judicial
Magistrate of First Class under Section 164 Cr.P.C, but she stated that
accused used to harass her by suspecting her fidelity and thereby, caused physical and mental abuse to her on the date of incident also and the same only drove her to take step of committing suicide. It is 34 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 pertinent to mention that deceased has two small children, as such, viewing from this angle also, it appears that she narrated whatever the actual harassment caused by accused to her to the PW-7 only. In these circumstances, this court has no hesitation to hold that deceased gave her dying declaration voluntarily to the PW-7 and it is without any inducement and also free from any tutoring, prompting and imagination. Hence, this court has no hesitation to hold that said sole dying declaration of the deceased becomes the basis for convicting the accused.
30.In these circumstances, the learned Counsel for the accused further argued that even if the Dying Declaration is taken into consideration, mere harassing the wife by suspecting her character, would not amount to cruelty and that wife / deceased is alone responsible for her death, as such, accused cannot be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A & 306 I.P.C.
35 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019
31. InS.S Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another 2 ,Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India made some remarkable observations on law pertaining to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of I.P.C. as follows:
1. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
2. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
3. There has to be a clear means rea to commit the offence.
4. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
32. Further, it is settled principle of law that, instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of Instigation, though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequences, yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out.
33. In the present case, Ex.P-11 / dying declaration of deceased is establishing that the accused had by his acts and by a continued 2(2010) 12 SCC 190 36 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 course of conduct of beating & abusing the deceased by way of suspecting her fidelity, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The deceased also specifically stated in Ex.P.11 that she poured kerosene against herself and set ablaze herself as she could not bear the harassment of accused. Therefore, this Court holds that instigation may have been inferred in this case by the acts of accused resulting the deceased committed suicide. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ofS.S
Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another (stated supra) was pleased to held that an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that she committed suicide, will attract the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. Thus, prosecution could able to establish beyond all reasons doubt that accused subjected the deceased to cruelty and also abetted her to commit suicide by continuous harassment, and the same drove the deceased to commit suicide.
37 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019
34. Now, the question is whether this court in the absence of framing a charge u/Section 306 I.P.C., can convict the accused for the said charge ?. In this connection, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of K.Prema S.Rao & Another vs Yadla Srinivasa Rao & others 3becomes relevant, wherein, it was held that
Mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable the Criminal Court from convicting the accused for the offence which is found to have been proved on the evidence on record. The Code of Criminal procedure has ample provisions to meet a situation like the one before us. From the Statement of Charge framed under Section 304B and in the alternative Section 498A , IPC (as quoted above) it is clear that all facts and ingredients for framing charge for offence under Section 306 , IPC existed in the case. The mere omission on the part of the trial Judge to mention of Section 306 , IPC with 498A, IPC does not preclude the Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. In the alternate charge framed under Section 498A of IPC, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused subjected the deceased to such cruelty and harassment as to drive her to commit suicide. The provisions of Section 221 of Cr.P.C. take care of such a situation and safeguard the powers of the criminal court to convict an accused for an offence with which he is not charged although on facts found in evidence, he could have been charged for such offence.
x x x x
Section 215 allows criminal court to ignore any error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, if the accused was not, in fact, misled by such error or omission in framing the charge and it has not occasioned a failure of justice.
x x x x 3(2003) 1 SCC 217 38 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019
As provided in Section 215 of Cr.P.C. commission to frame charge under Section 306 IPC has not resulted in any failure of justice. We find no necessity to remit the matter to the trial court for framing charge under Section 306 IPC and direct a retrial for that charge. The accused cannot legitimately complain of any want of opportunity to defend the charge under Section 306 , IPC and a consequent failure of justice. The same facts found in evidence, which justify conviction of the appellant under Section 498A for cruel treatment of his wife, make out a case against him under Section 306 IPC of having abetted commission of suicide by the wife. The appellant was charged for an offence of higher degree causing "dowry death" under Section 304B which is punishable with minimum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and maximum for life. Presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act could also be raised against him on same facts constituting offence of cruelty under Section 498A , IPC. No further opportunity of defence is required to be granted to the appellant when he had ample opportunity to meet the charge under Section 498A , IPC.
In the present case also, accused got opportunity to cross examine all the material witnesses and even to pose questions as to no cruelty contemplated under section 498-A I.P.C is meted out to deceased. Thus, no prejudice would cause to him and also does not result into failure of justice even if he is convicted under section 306 I.P.C. Thus, prosecution could able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 306 of Indian
Penal Code. Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of prosecution against the accused.
39 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019
In the result: Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A & 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal procedure for the said charge.
Typed by Stenographer (Gr.I) on Dictation being given and after made correction,
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16 th day of February, 2024.
V- Additional Sessions Judge
Miryalaguda
Heard the accused on quantum of sentence contemplated under Sections 498-A I.P.C & 306 I.P.C vide separate Questionnaire.
Accused submits that he did not commit the alleged offence and that false case is foisted against him. He also submits that old aged parents and children are depending on him, hence, he may be sentenced with lesser punishment. The learned counsel for the accused also requested to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence against the accused. In these circumstances, having regard to the nature of offences alleged and proved against the accused and the circumstances under which, he committed the alleged offence and also having regard to the above submissions of the accused and his Advocate, this court is of the view that if some lenient view is taken in imposing the sentence against the 40 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 accused instead of imposing the maximum sentence prescribed for the offences proved, it would meet the ends of justice.
In the result: Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of
Three (3) years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 306 I.P.C, and in default of payment of such fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of six months. He is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of Three (3) years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and in default of payment of such fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of six months. Both these two sentences shall run concurrently. Total fine is Rs.2,000/-. The remand period of accused from 23-02-2017 to 28-03-2017 (34 days) shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
The Case property MO-1 to 5 deposited vide C.P.No.130 of 2018 ( C.P.No.19/2022 ) shall be destroyed after the expiry of Appeal time.
Accused is appraised about his right to file Appeal against this Judgment.
A free copy of this Judgment is also handed over to the accused under due acknowledgment.
41 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019
A copy of this Judgment is ordered to be submitted to Hon’ble Chairman,
District Legal Services Committee, Nalgonda under Section 357A(3) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, recommending for grant of Compensation to dependants of victim woman in terms of Telangana Victim Compensation
Scheme, 2015 as Notified vide, G.O.Ms.No.9, Dated 07.03.2015 and
Additional Chapter, called, The Compensation Scheme for Woman
Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes-2018, and as per the
Schedule appended there with.
Dictation given is typed by the Stenographer (Gr.I), corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 16 th day of February, 2024.
V- Additional Sessions Judge
Miryalaguda
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses Examined
On behalf of the prosecution:
PW.1LW.2Avuladoddi Yellamma / Mother of the deceased.
PW.2LW.3Avuladoddi Gangamma / Elder sister of deceased.
PW.3LW.5Gandham Sandhya / Firstly seen the deceased with fire.
PW.4LW.6Gujjari Kiran / Shifted the deceased to hospital.
PW.5LW.8Patakoti Venkataiah / Panch for scene of offence & seizure.
PW.6LW.10Goti Jayamma / Panch for inquest.
PW.7LW.12M. Padmaja / Judicial Magistrate (Recorded the dying 42 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019 declaration of the deceased).
PW.8LW.13K.Srinivas / Tahsildar (conducted inquest).
PW.9LW.14Dr.K.V.Ramana Murthy / Conducted autopsy.
PW.10LW.17K.Srikanth / First Investigating officer & issued F.I.R.
PW.11LW.18S.Ramgopal Rao / Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Investigating officer & filed charge-sheet.
On behalf of the accused: -None-
Exhibits marked
On behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1
Ex.P2164 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1
Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2
Ex.P4164 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2
Ex.P5161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3
Ex.P6164 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3
Ex.P7Scene of offence panchanam
Ex.P8 Rough sketch of the scene
Ex.P9 Inquest panchanama
Ex.P10 Requisition to record dying declaration
Ex.P11Dying declaration
Ex.P12Postmortem Examination Report
Ex.P13Statement of the deceased
Ex.P14First Information Report
Ex.P15Alteration Memo for adding section of 304-B I.P.C
Ex.P16Requisition to record 164 Cr.P.C statements of PW-1, 2 & LW-4 43 of 43 S.C.No.157 of 2019
On behalf of the accused: NIL
Material Objects Marked
MO.15 liters capacity empty plastic container
MO.2Burnt nylon nuptial thread & puste
MO.3Burnt match sticks
MO.4Broken yellow colour bangle pieces
MO.5Burnt cloth pieces
V - Additional Sessions Judge
Miryalaguda
1 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023
IN THE COURT OF V - ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
AT: MIRYALAGUDA, NALGONDA DISTRICT
Tuesday, the 13 th day of February, 2024
Present: Mr. Gajawada Venu, V-Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda.
S.C. No. 66 of 20 23
1Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through the Circle Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda Rural circle.
2Name of the accusedOmprakash Gupta, S/o. Pramod Sah, Age: 26 years, Occ: Helper, R/o.Indwell Labour Colony, YTPS, Veerlapale Village, N/o.Nawadih Village, Rohtas District, Bihar State.
3Offences complained ofUnder Section 302 I.P.C 4Crime No. & Name of the PS83 of 2023 of P.S. Wadapally 5Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 6Finding of the CourtFound guilty 7Sentence or orderAccused is found guilty for the charge framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Therefore, he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal procedure for the said charge and sentenced to imprisonment for LIFE and pay a fine of Rs.5,00/-, and in default of payment of such fine, undergo simple imprisonment of six months. MOs 1 to 5 deposited vide C.P.No.114 of 2023 ( C.P.No.5/2023 ) shall be destroyed after the expiry of Appeal time. The accused is in jail in this case since 29.04.2023.
2 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023
This Sessions Case is coming before me on 05.2.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Mr. M.Manohar Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Mr. S.R.K.Prabhakar, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
:: JUDGMENT ::
1. The Circle Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda Rural filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.83 of 2023 of Wadapally Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and the allegations made in the said charge sheet are as follows:
2. The deceased – Raghunandan Ram belongs to Besrampur village in
Jharkand State. PW-7 / Contractor engaged him to do labour carpenter work in one BEKEM Company which has taken up the work of constructing Ash Plant in Yadadri Thermal Power Station (YTPS) at outskirts of Veerlapalem village in Damercherla mandal. Deceased attended the carpentry work as usual on 23-04-2023 also and obtained the wages and was in the A.H.P. labour colony of YTPS Plant till the morning of next day i.e., 24-04-2023, but thereafter, as he was found missing and thus, not attended the work, the Labour Supervisor of the said BEKEM Company i.e., PW-2 and the near relative of the deceased 3 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 i.e., PW-3 who hails from the same village of the deceased, informed the same to the PW-1 / General Manager of the BEKEM company and searched for the deceased. While so, on 26-04-2023 at about 11:00 a.m., while PW-4 & LW-5 / Ramavath Janu who work in the same BEKEM company were coming to the YTPS Plant through a short cut way from the back side of the Petrol Bunk in the outskirts of Saath thanda village to attend their work as usual, they noticed one dead body near the precast compound wall at southern side of the said YTPS Plant and informed the same to PW-1. In turn, PW-1 along with the PW-2 came to the said place and when verified, identified the dead body as that of deceased – Raghunandan Ram. Later, as PW-1 gave Ex.P.1 / Report to the police, PW-11 / H.C.828 being the Station House Officer of
Wadapally Police Station, registered it by issuing Ex.P-6 / First
Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.83 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C and handed over the Case Diary to the PW-12 / Circle Inspector of Police, Miryalguda Rural for further investigation. During the course of investigation, PW-12 visited the place of offence and after examined and recorded the statements of 4 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023
PW-1 to PW-4 & LW-5 Ramavath Janu, secured the presence of two panchas i.e., PW-9 & LW-10 Kodupuganti Vamshi Krishna and conducted Ex.P-3 / Scene Observation Panchanama and also prepared rough sketch of the scene in their presence and seized M.O.1 / Blood stained boulders and M.O.2 / Pair of foot wear from the said place in their presence. He also held Ex.P.4 / Inquest over the dead body of the deceased and referred the dead body to Government Area Hospital,
Miryalaguda for conducting autopsy. Meanwhile, he also got photographs of the said dead body of the deceased and place of offence and seized the M.O.3 / Wearing apparel (cloths) of the deceased. While so, on 29-04-2023 at about 7:00 a.m., PW-5 / Security
Officer, INDWELL Construction Private Limited Company at YTPS Plant surrendered the accused before PW-12 by stating that accused came to him and confessed to have committed the murder of the deceased.
As such, PW-12 examined and recorded the statement of PW-5 and secured the presence of two panchas i.e., PW-10 & LW-11 – Gotti
Suresh Kumar and recorded the confession panchanama of the accused in their presence and seized M.O.4 / Mobile phone from the 5 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 possession of the accused. Further, as the accused also confessed that he had concealed his blood stained cloths to avoid suspicion on him, they proceeded nearer to the place of offence where he concealed the same at his instance and recovered the same under a cover of panchanama. Thereafter, PW-12 arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody and after the completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.
3. The learned 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Miryalaguda took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and registered the case as P.R.C.No.20 of 2023 and committed the same under Section 209(a) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to the Sessions Division, Nalgonda vide order
dated 05-09-2023. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, registered
the case as S.C.No.66 of 2023 and made over the same to this court for trial and disposal as per law.
6 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023
4. Upon production of the accused from District Jail, Nalgonda before this
Court and consideration of material available on record and also, after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal
Aid Counsel for the accused, this Court framed the Charge under
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, read over and explained the same to him, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, got examined PWs.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-10 and M.Os.1 to 6.
After the closure of prosecution side evidence, when accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the incriminating circumstances & material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same. He did not choose to adduce any defense evidence on his behalf.
6. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal
Aid Counsel for accused.
7 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023
7. Now, the point that arises for determination is:
Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C with which he is charged, beyond reasonable doubt ?
8. In order to decide the above point, following facts in issues emerge for consideration:
1. Whether death of the deceased is homicide or not ?
2. Whether the accused murdered the deceased or not ?
Point:-
9. In order to prove that death of the deceased is a homicide, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW-1 to 4, PW-7 to 9 and PW-11 & 12. PW-1 is the de-facto complainant. He deposed that he is working as a
General Manager in BEKEM Constructions Private Limited Company and looking after the civil works of it in constructing the Ash Handling
Plant (AHP) in Yadadri Thermal Power Station (YTPS). Deceased was working as a carpenter in their company in doing the said construction work. While so, on 24 & 25-04-2023, when he verified the muster rolls, he noticed that deceased – Raghunandan Ram was absent on those days. Later, on 26-04-2023, as the PW-4 & LW-5 – Ramavath Janu informed him that they found one dead body at Sylo area near the 8 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 precast compound wall at southern side of the YTPS Plant, in order to verify the same, he along with the PW-2 / Labour Supervisor and PW-3 proceeded to the said place and identified the said dead body as that of deceased – Raghunandan Ram. He also deposed that they noticed three boulders with blood stain (MO-1) near the dead body and also bleeding head injury to the deceased. As such, he informed the same to the Wadapally Police and in turn, as the said police came to the place of offence, he lodged Ex.P.1 / Report. In the cross examination, except to elicit a fact that he has not specifically stated to the police that he noticed three blood stained boulders near the dead body, nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence as to the death of the deceased and said death was taken place other than in normal circumstances. Thus, his oral evidence coupled with the Ex.P.1 establishes that death of the deceased is a homicide.
10.PW-2 is the Labour Supervisor in BEKEM Company and working under the PW-1. He deposed that on 23-04-2023 i.e., Sunday, as usual, he paid the wages of Rs.1,000/- to the deceased. Later, on the next days 9 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 i.e., on 24 & 25-04-2023, as the deceased was absent from attending his duty, he informed the same to the PW-3 who is the near relative of the deceased to enquire the absence of the deceased. He also deposed that even after he made a phone call to the deceased also, as no response was received from the deceased for those two days, himself and PW-3 informed the same to the PW-1 on 26-04-2023. While so, on the same day at about 11:00 a.m., as the PW-1 called him and PW-3 and informed that he received an information that one dead body was found near the southern side of the labour colony in the YTPS Plant, he along with the PW-3 and others accompanied him to go to the said place and when verified, it is found that said dead body is that of deceased – Raghunandan Ram. He also deposed that deceased was dead as he was beaten by boulders available at that place. In the cross examination, except to elicit a fact that by turning the dead body from prone position to supine position, they could identify it as that of deceased – Raghunandan Ram, nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence to the extent of death of deceased is homicide.
10 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023
11.PW-3 deposed that deceased – Raghunandan Ram is his near relative and belongs to their village. He also deposed that on 24-04-2023, as the deceased was absent in attending the duty, PW-2 enquired him about him, as such, when he verified on that day, he noticed that deceased was in a drunken condition in the room. Later, on 25-04- 2023, after the completion of his work, when he came back to the room, as the deceased did not come to the room, he was under an impression that deceased might have gone to out side and would come back, but on 26-04-2023, as usual, when he went to attend the duty, PW-1 informed him that he received information that a dead body was found near the precast compound wall at the southern side of the YTPS Plant. As such, he along with the PW-1 & PW-2, proceeded to the said place and identified the said dead body as that of deceased – Raghunandan Ram. He further deposed that on verification of the dead body, he noticed that there is a bleeding injury on the back side of the head and appears that deceased was killed with the M.O.1 /
Boulders at that place. Thus, his evidence also establishes that death of the deceased is a homicide.
11 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023
12.PW-4 deposed that on 26-04-2023 at about 11:00 a.m, while he along with the LW-5 / Ramavath Janu were coming to the YTPS Plant to attend their duty, on the way, adjacent to the precast compound wall near one petrol bunk, they noticed one dead body in prone position with bleeding head injury, hence, they informed the same to the PW-1 who along with the Labour Supervisor of BEKEM Company came there and verified the same. Thus, his evidence also corroborates the evidence of
PW-1 to 3 in establishing that death of deceased is a homicide.
13.PW-7 deposed that he is a labour contractor and engaged many laborers in BEKEM Company to attend the labour works of different nature for the construction of the YTPS Plant. In the said process, he also engaged the deceased – Raghunandan Ram to work as a carpenter. On 26-04-2023, he came to know through PW-1 that they noticed the dead body of the deceased in YTPS Plant, as such, he visited the place of offence and verified the death of the deceased.
Thus, his evidence also establishes that death of the deceased is a homicide.
12 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023
14.PW-9 deposed that he is working as Assistant Engineer, TS GENCO,
YTPS. On 26-04-2023, as it came to know that a murder was taken place at Sylo area near the precast compound wall at southern side of the YTPS Plant, on the instructions of Executive Engineer, himself and
LW-10 – Vamshi Krishna visited the said place of death. After reaching there, on the request of Circle Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda Rural, they acted as panchas for conducting scene observation panchanama by the said police, wherein, they noticed that there were bleeding injuries on the head of the dead body. They also noticed that there were blood stained boulders nearby dead body. As they also found that there was a pair of chappals (foot wear) near the dead body, said
Circle Inspector of Police seized the said material objects in their presence under a cover of Ex.P.3 / Scene observation-cum-Seizure
Panchanama. He further deposed that said police held Ex.P.4 / Inquest panchanama over the said dead body, wherein, they opined that death was taken place for the injuries caused with the M.O.1 / Boulders on the head of the dead body. Thus, his evidence coupled with the Ex.P.3 & P.4 establishes that death of the deceased was taken place for the 13 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 injuries sustained by him with the M.O.1/ Boulders at the place of offence.
15.PW-8 is the doctor and he deposed that on 27-04-2023 at 12:00 noon, on the request of Circle Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda Rural, he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased – Raghunandan Ram and issued Ex.P.2 / Postmortem
Examination Report, wherein, noted the various lacerated injuries found by him on left parietal region and also right frontal region with hematoma over the occipital region caused by blunt object. He further deposed that in the said report, he opined that death of the deceased was taken place due to severe head injury followed by exanguination and unconsciousness in the mud. Though the counsel for the accused elicited certain facts in the cross examination that by the time the postmortem examination was started, left eye of the deceased was opened, whereas right eye was closed and also mouth was opened and further, rigor mortis was started & completed, it would not cast doubt on coming to a conclusion as to the death of the deceased as 14 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 homicide. Thus, his evidence coupled with the Ex.P.2 establishes that death of the deceased is a homicide and the injuries appearing on the dead body of the deceased were caused by blunt object like MO-1 /
Boulders.
16.PW-11 & 12 are the Investigating officers and they deposed their part of investigation in this case. Thus, their oral evidence coupled with the
Ex.P.6 / First Information Report supported by Ex.P.9 & 10 / Forensic
Science Laboratory Reports is consistent and corroborated by the evidence of PW-1 to 4 and 7 to 9. Accordingly, it clinchingly establishes that death of the deceased is a homicide and the same was taken place on the alleged date & time and place of offence only for the injuries sustained by the deceased with the MO-1 / Boulders. As such, this fact in issue is decided in favour of the prosecution.
17.Now, in order to prove that accused only murdered the deceased, prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW-5, 6, & 10 to 12.
Admittedly, these witnesses are not the eye witnesses to the murder of 15 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 the deceased, as such, prosecution completely relied upon the circumstantial evidence as well as the extrajudicial confession made by accused to the PW-5 to prove the guilt of the accused. In this connection, the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence to be remembered is that every person like accused with which he is charged shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty. As such, in the light of rival contentions advanced by prosecution and defence, it is quite important to have a glance of settled legal propositions enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme court of India on appreciation of circumstantial evidence available on record as well as extra judicial confession of accused to decide the case in accordance with the said proposition of law:
Case of Circumstantial Evidence :
In Krishnan v. State represented by Inspector of Police 1 ,Hon’ble
Supreme court of India held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
1(2008) 15 SCC 430 16 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023
1. the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
2. those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
3. the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that with all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
4. the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra 2,while dealing with circumstantial evidence, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also held that ‘the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea’.
Case of Extra Judicial Confession of Accused:-
In ‘Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar 3’ Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India held that “As far as extra judicial confession is concerned, the law is well settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extrajudicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who 2AIR 1984 SC 1622 32023 SCC Online SC 259 17 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extrajudicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility.”
18.In the present case, as per the version of prosecution, as the accused himself came to PW-5 and confessed before him to have committed this offence and accordingly, requested him to help him, PW-5 surrendered the accused before the police, as such, PW-12 recorded the confession panchanama of accused before the two panchas i.e.,
PW-10 and LW-11 / Gotti Suresh Kumar. The other important circumstance to connect the accused with the deceased is that though they work in different companies which have taken up the work of construction of YTPS plant, both used to consume the alcohol and were absent from attending their respective duties from the last date of work on which also, due wages were paid to them to the date of death of the deceased and arrest of the accused. In order to prove the same, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW-2 & 3. In the cross examination, PW-2 deposed that he had seen the deceased in a drunken condition at his room on 24 & 25-4-2023 at morning hours.
18 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023
PW-3 deposed that on 24-4-2023, as the deceased did not attend the duty, PW-2 enquired him about the deceased, as such, when he verified, he noticed that deceased was in a drunken condition in the room. He also deposed that on the said day at about 12:30 noon, he observed that deceased talked with his family members over the phone. As these witnesses have not stated these facts in 161 Cr.P.C statements given to the PW-12 and the same is also confirmed by PW- 12 in his evidence during the cross examination, legal aid counsel for the accused would contend that in the absence of this much of material contradiction and omission, it is unsafe to rely upon the evidence of these two witnesses to believe that deceased used to consume alcohol and accordingly, on 24 & 25-4-2023 also, consumed the alcohol. Besides it, as no documentary evidence of muster rolls showing the absence of deceased from attending the duty on 24 & 25- 04-2023 is filed, he would contend that prosecution failed to establish the fact of meeting between the accused & deceased near the place of offence out of their alleged habit of consuming alcohol only.
19 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023
19. Admittedly, it is not the case of accused that deceased never worked as carpenter in BEKEM Company to work in YTPS Plant. Even, it is not the case of accused that PW-1 to 3 are not working in BEKEM Company.
Hence, as no necessity arises to them to depose falsehood as to the habit of the deceased to consume alcohol usually, this Court is of the view that the elicited contradictions & omissions do not become fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, no suggestions and questions were posed to the PW-1 to 3 during the cross examination that deceased attended the duty on 24 & 25-04-2023 and even, he has no habit of consuming the alcohol. As such, the elicited facts in the evidence of PW-1 to 3 do not become fatal to the case of the prosecution to arrive a conclusion that deceased and accused did not meet each other on 25-04-2023 at the place of offence out of their habit of consuming alcohol.
20.PW-6 deposed that he is working as a Supervisor in INDWELL Company for the work of YTPS Plant. He also deposed that accused along with his brother – Saptharanjan Sah approached him to work in their 20 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 company, as such, accused was engaged as a Helper to work under the
Welder. While so, on 23-04-2023 i.e., Sunday, he gave Rs.1,500/- to the accused towards his wages and after receiving the same, accused did not attend the duty on the next day. As he noticed that accused was also not coming to the labour colony of their company where he resides, but hiding himself in the labour colony of other company in the YTPS Plant, he got suspicion over him. Besides it, as the lunch box of the accused along with the lunch box of the other were found near the place of offence & dead body in YTPS Plant, police suspected that accused might have killed the deceased. He also deposed that as the police had enquired him about the particulars of the accused, he furnished the same to them and accordingly, they recorded his statement.
21.Admittedly, it is not a disputed fact that PW-6 is not working as
Supervisor in INDWELL company and did not engage the accused to work as a Helper in the said company. As this witness also deposed that he had seen the accused on 27-4-2023 at morning hours near the 21 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 main gate of the YTPS plant i.e., after the death of the deceased in the
YTPS plant, and he also came to know that accused used to consume alcohol, it infers that the vice of consuming alcohol, connected the accused with the deceased at the relevant time of death of the deceased.
22.As per the version of prosecution, on 25-4-2023, when the accused went to one belt shop (liquor selling shop) at Veerlapalem Saath thanda road to purchase the liquor so as to consume the same, deceased was also happened to be there and the same lead to move together and take a sleep under a Neem tree and thereafter, after woke up from the sleep, an altercation was taken place between them with abusive language and the same enraged the accused to beat the deceased with the boulders which resulted into the death of the deceased. As such, it has to be seen that whether this version of the prosecution is proved or not by consistent, cogent and believable evidence adduced by prosecution.
22 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023
23.PW-5 deposed that he is working as a Safety Officer in INDWEL
Constructions Private Limited Company which is working for the construction of YTPS Plant. He further deposed that PW-6 is working as a Supervisor in their company. Further, he knows the accused as he worked as a Helper in their company in YTPS Plant. He further deposed that accused and his brother came to PW-6 to work in their company, as such, PW-6 engaged the accused to work in their company. While so, on 29-04-2023 at about 8:30 a.m., accused came to him to the work place and confessed that himself and one Raghunanan Ram (deceased) consumed the liquor on 25-04-2023 at about 12:00 noon, and at that time, when he asked the said Ranghunandan Ram to give kaini to him, said Raghunandan Ram abused him in filthy language, as such, unbearable with the said vulgar words, being annoyed & enraged, he beat him with the boulders on the back side of his head at Sylo place near the precast compound wall at the southern side of the YTPS Plant, due to which, deceased fell unconscious and died. Thereafter, he came back to his room and consumed alcohol, but being apprehended that police may arrest him for causing the death of Raghunandan Ram, he 23 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 came to him and requested to help & save him. As such, he brought the accused to the police station and surrendered him before the police. In the cross examination, it is elicited that he surrendered the accused before the police at 10-00 a.m., and after got surrendering him only, police examined and recorded his statement. He further deposed that accused confessed to him that initially, he beat the deceased with the boulder from the backside of his head and after fell unconscious also, he beat him with the boulder. Relying upon this much of inconsistent & discrepant elicited facts, counsel for the accused would contend that it is unsafe to rely upon the sole extrajudicial confession of the accused to this witness (PW-5) to warrant a conviction against the accused as the said confession is a weak evidence.In order to strengthen this contention, he relied upon the above cited judgement of Hon’ble supreme court of India in the case of ‘Pawan Kumar
Chourasia vs. State of Bihar’.
24.No doubt, the legal proposition enunciated in the above judgement is opt one in the given circumstances of a said particular case, but in the 24 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 present case, the facts in issue are different, as such, it has to be seen that how far this court can rely upon the evidence of PW-5. Admittedly, it is not a disputed fact that PW-5 is not the Safety officer in the
INDWELL company. It is also not a disputed fact that his working hours is not 8-00 a.m to 8-00 p.m and his work place is located at one kilometer away from the main gate in the YTPS plant. In these circumstances, as he deposed that accused came to his work place between 8-00 a.m to 8-30 a.m by entering into the YTPS plant through the main gateand thereafter, he handed over the accused to the police at about 10-00 a.m., Legal Aid counsel for the accused would contend that in the absence of any corroborative oral or documentary evidence like entries in the Register showing the incoming of accused into the plant on the said date of 29-4-2023, it shall not be believed that accused made the alleged extra judicial confession to PW-5. He would further contend that when as per the version of prosecution, PW-6 also came to know whatever the accused confessed to the PW-5 by the time
PW-12 recorded his statement i.e., after recording the statement of
PW-5, but as PW-6 deposed that police examined and recorded his 25 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 statement on 29-4-2023 at about 8-00 a.m at Office of Circle Inspector of police only, it also casts doubt on the credibility of the evidence of this witness to connect the accused with the charge framed against him. Further, when PW-6 deposed that brother of the accused i.e.,
Saptharanjan Sah is still working in their company, not approaching of accused to said his brother, but approaching the PW-5 and confessed his guilt before him casts doubt on the credibility of the evidence of
PW-5.
25.In the above circumstances, in order to believe that whatever the accused confessed to PW-5 is true and correct and the same was made voluntarily, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW-10 and 12 also.
PW-10 deposed that he is working as a Supervisor in BEKEM Company.
On 29-04-2023, on the instructions of their company manager, himself and LW-11 / Gotti Suresh Kumar went to the office of Circle Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda Rural police station and there, they found the presence of the accused at about 8:00 a.m. Later, at the request of
Circle Inspector of Police, when they enquired the accused, he 26 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 confessed that he along with the Ranghunandan Ram went to liquor shop on 25-04-2023 and consumed the liquor and came nearer to one Sylo area in the YTPS Plant and took sleep under a Neem tree (vepachettu) and after woke up, when he asked the Ranghunandan Ram to give kaini to him, as the Ranghunandan Ram refused and also abused him in filthy language, he being enaraged for such unbearable abusive words, beat him with a boulder. Even after such blow also, as the deceased was not died, he again beat him with the boulders, and then only, said
Raghunandan Ram was died. After confirming the same, he went to his room to take sleep and after woke up on the next day, as he could notice that his wearing apparels (cloths) were in blood stain, he removed the said blood stained cloths from his body and concealed the same near the
Neem tree where he along with the deceased had taken sleep. Later, as he came to know that police were searching for the culprit, being afraid for the same, he approached the Safety Officer of their company i.e., PW- 5 and with his help only, surrendered before the police. He also deposed that in pursuance of said confession of the accused, as the accused 27 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 handed over the M.O.4 / Mobile phone in his possession, police seized the same. Thereafter, at the instance of the accused, they proceeded to the place near the Neem tree where he concealed his blood stained cloths and as the accused shown the same to them, police seized his
M.O.5 & 6 / Blood stained cloths.
26.In the cross examination, PW-10 deposed that his duty time is between 8-00 a.m. to 8-00 p.m and on the oral instructions of their company manager only, he along with the LW-11 / Gotti Suresh Kumar went to the office of Circle Inspector of police and reached to the said office by 8-30 a.m. He further deposed that he put his signature in the
Attendance Register of their office at about 7-30 a.m., and their
Manager gave written permission (Out – pass) to them to go to the office of PW-12 i.e., police station and handed over the same at entrance gate of the YTPS plant to go to the police station. He also deposed that by the time they went to the police station, they found the presence of the accused in the custody of the police and before they talked with the Circle Inspector of police, they did not talk with any 28 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 one in the police station and even, Circle Inspector of police did not disclose anything to them about this case prior to record the confession panchanama of the accused. He also deposed that he does not know the family particulars of the accused and even, does not know the educational qualification of the accused’s brother. Though he deposed that deceased belongs to the Jarkhand state, he does not know his native village in the said state. He also deposed that they put seven to eight signatures on two papers in the police station. He further deposed that LW-11 / Gotti Suresh knows Hindi and he only translated the confession of accused stated in Hindi into the Telugu, as such, police recorded the confession of accused in Telugu language. He also deposed that at the instance of accused, they proceeded to the place of concealed blood stained cloths of him at about 11-30 a.m., and the preparation of seizure panchanama for the seizure of MO-5 & 6 / cloths was completed by 1-00 noon and they put their signature on one paper only at that place. He also deposed that either surrounding to the Neem tree or under the Neem tree, there were no thorny bushes. On relying upon these elicited facts, counsel for the accused 29 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 would contend that this witness belongs to the BEKEM company wherein, the deceased worked as carpenter, as such, as he is the interested witness and accordingly, deposed at the instance of police as per the tutoring, his evidence shall not be relied upon to incriminate the accused for the death of the deceased. Further, as the alleged confession of the accused given to this witness is made in police custody, it is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, as such, it is not admissible in evidence. In these circumstances, it has to be seen that how far the evidence of Investigating Officer rule out all the doubtful & suspicious circumstances raised by counsel for the accused.
27.PW-12 being the Investigating officer, deposed his part of investigation.
He deposed that he recorded the statement of PW-5 between 8-00 a.m to 8-30 a.m on 29-4-2023. He also deposed that after recording the statement of PW-5, he examined an recorded the statements of PW-6 & 7 at a time, but he has not mentioned the time of such recording on the 161 Cr.P.C statements. He further deposed that around the Neem tree, there were thorny bushes and at the instance of accused, when 30 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 they went to the said Neem tree, they noticed that there was a mat, but he did not seize the same.
28. As per the confession of accused under Ex.P.7 / Panchanama, after got confirming that deceased was dead, he had taken away the mobile phone of the deceased and after removing the Sim card of the deceased from it, he sold away the said mobile phone to the stranger @ Rs.300/- and spent the said amount also for purchasing and consuming the liquor. As per his further confession, he inserted the said removed Sim card of the accused into his mobile phone and using the same, as such, police seized his MO-4 / Mobile phone in pursuance of his confession. Admittedly, PW-12 has not mentioned in the 161
Cr.P.C statements of PW-2 & 3 that he collected the mobile phone number of deceased from PW-2 & 3. On the basis of this factual aspect,
Legal Aid Counsel for the accused would contend that when PW-2 & 3 stated that they tried to approach the deceased over the phone on being absent of the deceased to the duty on 24 & 25-4-2023, it is the prosecution to establish that accused used the Sim Card of the 31 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 deceased by inserting the same in M.O.4 / Phone after the death of the deceased. Admittedly, on perusal of the record, it appears that no evidence is collected by PW-12 to ascertain that in whose name, Sim card in the seized MO-4 / Mobile phone was obtained. Further, PW-12 has not examined and recorded the statement of brother of accused i.e., Saptaranjan Sah. Relying upon the absence of this evidence, Legal aid counsel for the accused would contend that in the absence of collecting such evidence, alleged extra judicial confession made by accused to the PW-5 becomes weak evidence and the same does not inspire the confidence of the court to believe that it is truthful & made voluntarily to the PW-5.
29.Admittedly, as per the suggestion given to the PW-6 in the cross examination, brother of the accused i.e., Saptaranjan Sah is not working under him, but working at Chattisgarh. Thus, even as per the version of accused, when his brother is not available, examine and record his statement by PW-12 to ascertain that whether the accused also confessed to him as confessed to the PW-5 is correct or not does 32 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 not arise. Besides it, Legal Aid Counsel has not posed any question to the PW-12 as to the recovery of M.O.4 / Mobile phone having the Sim
Card of the deceased. Even, he has not suggested that alleged Sim
Card is not belonging to the deceased. Thus, when there is no dispute on this aspect, raising contention by legal aid counsel for the accused that absence of collecting scientific evidence to establish that Sim Card in M.O.4 / Mobile phone belongs to the deceased only entails the accused to get benefit of doubt does not become fatal to the case of the prosecution in incriminating the accused to the death of the deceased. Further, Legal Aid Counsel has not pleaded any animosity between the accused and PW-5 and accordingly, nothing is suggested to PW-5 during the cross examination, hence, false implication of accused in this case by PW-5 at the instance of police does not arise.
Further, evidence of PW-6 that police found the lunch box of the accused with another lunch box at the place of offence and that as the accused was hiding himself in the labour colony of the other company by not coming to their company’s labour colony, it lead the police to suspect the accused as the killer of the deceased is plausible. Though 33 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 the PW-12 has not recovered the said lunch boxes from the place of offence to incriminate the accused, it would not thrown out the credibility of the oral evidence of PW-6. In these circumstances, the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that when there is credible witness in the shape of PW-5 to whom, accused confessed the guilt voluntarily and the same is unequivocally pointing him to be the guilty, non producing any evidence connecting the the seizure of
MO-4 / Mobile phone having the Sim Card with the deceased does not become fatal to the case of the prosecution appears to be probable and the same can be accepted. Further, in the natural course of human conduct, as it is probable that any person like accused approaches the known person to him like PW-5 in the given circumstances to seek help, evidence of PW-5 becomes more creditworthy to rely upon it so as to incriminate the accused as the murderer of the deceased. Besides it, admittedly, in the cross examination of PW-12, nothing is suggested that M.O.5 & 6 / Wearing apparels of the accused are not recovered at the instance of the accused. Further, as per Ex.P.9 / FSL Report, blood is detected on M.O.5 & 6. Thus, when M.O.5 & 6 are belonging to the 34 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 accused, it infers that accused only committed the murder of the deceased. Besides it, when the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, he has not offered any explanation for his implicitly by PW- 5 in this case. Thus, all the circumstances, proved by prosecution completes the chain of pointing the accused as guilty. As such, as the acts of accused in beating the deceased with the MO-1 / Boulders have the impact of killing the deceased with the knowledge that such blows would kill him and thereby, it amounts to culpable homicide amounting to murder as contemplated under Section 299 of Indian
Penal Code, this Court has no hesitation to hold that accused is liable for conviction for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 with which he is charged. Accordingly, prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge framed against him.
In the result: Accused is found guilty for the charge framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Therefore, he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal procedure for the said charge.
35 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023
Typed by Stenographer (Gr.I) on Dictation being given and after made correction,
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13 th day of February, 2024.
V-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
MIRYALGUDA
The punishment prescribed for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code is death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. Hence, heard the accused on quantum of sentence contemplated under Section 302 I.P.C. vide separate Questionnaire.
Accused submits that he did not commit the alleged offence and that false case is foisted against him. He also submits that old aged father, wife and daughter aged about 2 years are depending on him, hence, he may be sentenced to lesser punishment. The learned Legal Aid Counsel
for the accused also requested to take a lenient view in imposing the
sentence against the accused.
It is not a rarest of rare case to impose the punishment of death, which is the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence proved. So, having regard to the nature of offence alleged and proved against the accused and the circumstances under which, he committed the alleged offence and also having regard to the above submissions of the accused and his 36 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023
Advocate, this court is of the view that if some lenient view is taken in imposing the sentence against the accused instead of imposing the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence proved, it would meet the ends of justice.
In the result: Accused is convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, and sentenced to imprisonment for LIFE and pay a fine of
Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of such fine, he undergo simple imprisonment of six months.
MOs 1 to 5 deposited vide C.P.No.114 of 2023 ( C.P.No.5/2023 ) shall be destroyed after the expiry of Appeal time.
The accused is in jail in this case since 29.04.2023.
Accused is appraised about his right to file Appeal against this Judgment.
As he submits that he has no means to engage Advocate, Legal Aid
Counsel for the accused submitted to this Court that he would take steps to assist the accused so as to prefer the Appeal against this Judgment from jail itself. However, the office of this Court is directed to bring it to 37 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023 the notice of concerned Legal Services Authority to felicitate the accused in preferring Appeal.
A free copy of this Judgment is handed over to the accused under due acknowledgment.
Typed by Stenographer (Gr.I) on Dictation being given and after made correction,
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13 th day of February, 2024.
V-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
MIRYALGUDA
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses Examined
On behalf of the Prosecution:-
PW.1LW.1Bandaru Ranganadh/De-facto-complainant
PW.2LW.2Mothilal Ram/Circumstantial witness
PW.3LW.3Rajnath Ram/Relative of the deceased-cum- Circumstantial witness
PW.4LW.4Dandagala Ramesh/Circumstantial witness
PW.5LW.6Peddireddy Suresh/Circumstantial witness
PW.6LW.7Ganga Kumar/Circumstantial witness
PW.7LW.8Umashankar Gupta/Circumstantial witness
PW.8LW.13Dr.Divya Reddy/Conducted postmortem examination
PW.9LW.9Chennagani Naresh/Panch for scene of offence-cum- seizure panchanama & inquest panchanama 38 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023
PW.10LW.12Gutta Naresh/Panch for confession & recovery panchanama of Accused
PW.11LW.16Inkesa Ahmed/Issued F.I.R.
PW.12LW.17M.Satyanarayana/Circle Inspector of Police, Miryalagura Rural-cum-Investigating Officer & filed charge sheet.
On behalf of the Accused: -None-
Exhibits marked
On behalf of the Prosecution:-
Ex.P.1Report, dated 26-04-2023 given by PW-1 to the police
Ex.P.2Post Mortem Examination Report
Ex.P.3Scene observation panchanama and seizure panchanama
Ex.P.4Inquest panchanama
Ex.P.5Under line portion of confession panchanama of accused as to the concealing of M.O.5 & 6
Ex.P.6First Information Report
Ex.P.7Confession panchanama
Ex.P.8Seizure panchanama
Ex.P.9FSL Report, dated 27-05-2023
Ex.P.10FSL Report, dated 01-06-2023
On behalf of the accused: NIL
Material Objects Marked
39 / 39SC.No.66 / 2023
On behalf of the Prosecution:-
MO.13 blood stained boulders
MO.2Pair of chappal
MO.3Wearing apparel of the deceased
MO.4 Mobile phone
MO.5Blood stained paint
MO.6Blood stained T-Shirt
On behalf of the accused:- - NIL -
V - ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
MIRYALAGUDA
1 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021
IN THE COURT OF V - ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
AT: MIRYALAGUDA, NALGONDA DISTRICT
Thursday the 15 th day of February, 2024
Present: Mr. Gajawada Venu, V-Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda.
S.C. No. 81 of 20 21
1Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through the Circle Inspector of Police, Miryalguda Rural Circle 2Name of the accused1.Thupakula Raju, S/o.Lingaiah, Age:40 years, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Salkunoor Village, Vemulapally Mandal, 2.Ankepaka Saidulu S/o.Minnaiah, Age:42 years, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Salkunoor Village, Vemulapally Mandal.
3Offences complained ofUnder Sections 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
4Crime No. & Name of the PS64 of 2019 of P.S. Vemulapally 5Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 6Finding of the CourtFound not guilty 7Sentence or orderAccused No.1 & 2 are not found guilty for the charge framed against them for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal procedure for the said charge. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after the expiry of the Appeal time. M.O.1 to 5 deposed vide C.P.No.16 of 2020 shall be destroyed after the expiry of Appeal time.
This Sessions Case is coming before me on 07.2.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Mr. M.Manohar Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Mr. S.R.K.Prabhakar, Advocate, for 2 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021 accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
:: JUDGMENT ::
1. The Circle Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda Rural filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 & 2 in Crime No.64 of 2019 of Vemulapally Police station for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code and the allegations made in the said charge sheet are as follows:
2. On the strength of Ex.P.1 / Report dated 06-06-2019 given by V.R.O.
Salkanoor village that on 06-06-2019 at about 6:30 a.m., on receiving information from the villagers that unknown culprits committed the murder of one Thupakula Srinu (deceased) by hack his neck while taking sleep under a Neem tree opposite to the Grampamchayath office of Salknoor, he went there and verified the same, LW-11 - B.Sunil Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, being the Station House Officer of Vemulapally Police station, issued Ex.P.8 /
F.I.R vide Crime No.64 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 302
I.P.C. Later, as it is a grave offence, PW-9 / Circle Inspector of Police,
Miryalguda Rural received the Case Diary from him and proceeded to the place of offence and conducted Ex.P.2 / Scene observation panchanama and also prepared Ex.P-3 / Rough sketch of the scene in the presence of two 3 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021 panchas PW-7 & LW-7 / Nakka Laxmi Prasad. Further, he got Ex.P.9 /
Photographs of the dead body of the deceased as well as place of offence and also held Ex.P.4 / Inquest over the said dead body in the presence of same panchas and further, seized M.O.1 / Blood stained T-Shirt, M.O.2 /
Blood stained towel and M.O.3 / Pair of chappal belongs to the deceased.
Later, he referred the dead body to PW-8 for conducting autopsy.
Thereafter, during the course of investigation, after recording the statement of PW-5 as to expressing suspicion over the accused No.1, he tried to catch hold him. While so, on 12-06-2019 at about 7:00 a.m., PW-6 informed him that accused No.1 & 2 came to him and confessed that they committed murder of the deceased. Further, as PW-6 brought the accused to the police station and handed over them to him, he secured the presence of same panchas i.e., PW-7 & LW-7 – Nakka Laxmi Prasad and recorded the Ex.P-5 / confession panchanama of accused. Further, at the instance of accused
No.1, they proceeded to the place where the accused No.1 concealed the
M.O.5 / Axe with which, accused hacked the deceased under a cover of Ex.P- 6 / seizure panchanama. Thereafter, he arrested the accused and collected
Ex.P-7 / Postmortem Examination Report from PW-8 and after the completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet.
4 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021
3. The learned 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian
Penal Code and registered the case as P.R.C.No.3 of 2020 and committed the same under Section 209(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the
Sessions Division, Nalgonda vide order dated 23-02-2021. The Hon’ble
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, registered the case as S.C.No.81 of 2021 and
made over the same to this court for trial and disposal as per law.
4. Upon appearance of the accused No.1 & 2 before the Court and consideration of material available on record and after hearing the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, this
Court framed charges under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code, read over and explained the same to them, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, got examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-12 and M.Os.1 to 5. After the closure of prosecution side evidence, when accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the 5 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021 incriminating circumstances & material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same. They did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf.
6. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused.
7. Now, the point that arises for determination is:
Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the Accused
No.1 & 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 I.P.C
with which they are charged, beyond reasonable doubt ?
8. In order to decide the above point, following facts in issues emerge for consideration:
1. Whether death of the deceased is homicide or not ?
2. Whether the accused murdered the deceased ?
Point:-
9. In order to prove that death of the deceased is a homicide, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW-1 to 9. PW-1 is the de-facto complainant. He reiterated contents of Ex.P.1 / Report given by him to the police. PW-2 & PW- 4 deposed that they are the residents of Salknoor village and also know the 6 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021 deceased – Thupakula Srinu. They further deposed that on 06-06-2019 in the morning hours, they along with the villagers found the dead body of deceased – Thupakula Srinu in front of the Grampanchayath office,
Salknoor. PW-3 also deposed in the same lines as that of PW-2 & 4 and further deposed that there were injuries on the body of the deceased. PW-5 is the elder brother of the deceased, but he deposed that he does not know how the deceased was died. PW-7 deposed that on 06-06-2019, at the request of Circle Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda, himself and LW-7 – Laxmi
Prasad acted as panchas for scene observation panchanama and Inquest over the dead body as one person was murdered in front of the
Grampanchayath office, Salknoor village. PW-8 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. As per his evidence, in the Ex.P.7 / Postmortem Examination Report, he opined the death of the deceased was due to cut throat injury involving major blood vessel and the said death was taken place 12 to 24 hours prior to conducting such postmortem examination. PW-9 / Investigating officer deposed his part of investigation, wherein, he obtained the photographs of the deceased dead body at the place of offence and also seized blood stained cloths of the deceased and also held inquest over the said dead body. Thus, though PW-2 7 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021 to 5 did not support the prosecution to establish how the deceased was died, evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.P.1 / Report and also the evidence of
PW-7 coupled with Ex.P.2 / Scene observation panchanama & Ex.P.4 /
Inquest and the oral evidence of PW-8 coupled with Ex.P.7 / Postmortem
Examination Report corroborates the oral evidence of PW-9 coupled with
Ex.P-8 / F.I.R & Ex.P.9 / Photographs and cumulatively, it establishes that deceased was died as someone has hacked his neck with sharp edged weapon i.e., M.O-5 / Axe at the place of offence. Thus, with this evidence, prosecution could establish the fact of death of the deceased as homicide.
10. Now, in order to prove that accused only murdered the deceased, prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW-6, 7 & 9 who are official witnesses. Admittedly, these witnesses are not the eye witnesses to the murder of the deceased, as such, prosecution completely relied upon the circumstantial evidence. In this connection, the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence to be remembered is that every person like accused with which they are charged shall be presumed to be innocent unless they are proved to be guilty. As such, in the light of rival contentions advanced by prosecution and defence, it is quite important to have a glance of settled 8 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021 legal propositions enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme court of India on appreciation of circumstantial evidence available on record to decide the case in accordance with the said proposition of law:
Case of Circumstantial Evidence :
In Krishnan v. State represented by Inspector of Police 1 ,Hon’ble Supreme court of India held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
1. the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
2. those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
3. the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that with all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
4. the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra 2,while dealing with circumstantial evidence, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also held that ‘the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea’.
1(2008) 15 SCC 430 2AIR 1984 SC 1622 9 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021
Motive in cases of Circumstantial Evidence:
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishan Pal & Ors 3 ., Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India examined the importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence and observed:
"....the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to explain what actually promoted or excited them to commit the particular crime. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction’.
11. In the present case, as per the version of prosecution, deceased was habituated to bad vice of consuming alcohol and the said bad vice & other bad vices lead to disputes between him and his wife – Renuka and it also constrained his wife to left away from him. In these circumstances, as he also used to harass his mother, brother i.e., accused No.1 and the wife of accused No.1 for money to consume the 3(2008) 16 SCC 73 10 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021 alcohol and even, in such drunken condition, used to abuse the wife of accused No.1 with a desire to satisfy his lust over her, wife of the accused No.1 lodged a complaint against the deceased in Vemulapally
Police station in the year 2016 and the same resulted into the conviction of the deceased. Even then, deceased did not change his attitude and behavior and further, after released from jail also, he continued to harass the wife of the accused No.1 to satisfy his lust over her. As such, in that connection, a panchanayath was also conducted in the village, wherein, elders and the relatives of the deceased reprimanded him to change his behavior, but the deceased continued the same harassment against the wife of the accused No.1. He also threatened her and the accused No.1 that he would kill them. In these circumstances, having apprehended that he would do away them, accused No.1 decided to kill the deceased. Further, as the deceased also shared his intention to kill the accused No.1 and his wife with the accused No.2, in turn, accused No.2 informed the same to the accused
No.1. Thus, both the accused No.1 & 2 intended to kill the deceased.
Accordingly, taking the advantage of deceased used to take sleep alone 11 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021 in the open place under a Neem tree situated opposed to the
Grampanchayath office, they killed him. In order to prove this version, prosecution examined PW-5 to PW-7, but PW-5 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Whereas, as PW-6 deposed that both accused themselves came to him and confessed to have committed this offence and accordingly, requested him to help them, he surrendered the accused before the police. As such, PW-9 recorded the confession panchanama of accused before the two panchas including the PW-7. Now, it has to be seen that how far the evidence of PW-6, 7 & 9 is admissible in evidence and can be safely relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused.
12.PW-6 deposed that he is working as Revenue Inspector, Vemulapally
Mandal and he knows the accused, but he does not know deceased –
Thupakula Srinu. He also deposed that on 12-06-2019 at about 7:00 a.m, PW-1 / V.R.O. of Salknoor Village informed him over the phone that persons who killed the Thupakula Srinu came to Grampanchayath office of Salknoor. As such, he went there and at that time, both 12 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021 accused stated to him that they killed the deceased – Srinu as he was harassing the wife of accused No.1. They also stated to him that earlier, accused No.1 filed a criminal case against the deceased for harassing his wife and in the said case, deceased / Thupakula Srinu was sent to jail and even, thereafter also, deceased has not changed his behaviour and continued to harass the wife of accused No.1 and therefore, they decided to kill the deceased on the night of 05-06-2019 with an axe, and after murdered him, due to fear that police may arrest them, in order to avoid the same, they went to Suryapet. After hearing the said confession of the accused, he called the Sub-Inspector of Police over the phone, as such, as both S.I of Police & C.I of Police came to said
Grampanchayath office, Salknoor, he handed over the accused No.1 & 2 to the police. As he also deposed that police did not examine and record his statement to this effect, but he gave statement in
Huzurnagar Court, counsel for accused would contend that as this witness is a government employee and if he is shown as a witness for the alleged confession of the accused, he would support the prosecution during the trial in the Court, Investigating officer 13 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021 deliberately cited him as a witness though no such alleged confession made to him. Moreover, in the cross examination of this witness, when he could elicit that 12 Grampanchayaths are under his control to cater the needs of the people as a part of his employment as Revenue
Inspector and by the time he went to Grampanchayath office, already 10 to 15 villagers were present, it infers that Investigating officer deliberately cited the PW-6 as a witness to prove that accused made alleged extra judicial confession to him. He would also contend that as the evidence of this witness is clear that on informing by PW-1 only, he came to Grampanchayath office, Salknoor as by that time accused said to have came there and confessed their guilt to the PW-1 and the villagers who were gathered there, no necessity would arise to the
Investigating officer to cite him only as a witness for the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused and he would have cited the PW-1 and the other villagers as witnesses for it. As such, as the evidence of this witness is giving as scope for suspicious to rely upon the same and also believe it, it is just and necessary to see that whether there is any other evidence available on record to incriminate the accused as the 14 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021 murderers of the deceased. In this connection, judgment of Hon’ble supreme court of India in the case of ‘Pawan Kumar Chourasia vs.
State of Bihar 4 ’, becomes relevant, wherein, it was held that “As far as extra judicial confession is concerned, the law is well settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extrajudicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extrajudicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility.”
13. In the present case, as stated supra, perusal of the record, especially, statement given by PW-5 to the PW-9 / Investigating officer under section 161 Cr.P.C goes to show that whatever the facts disclosed by him to the PW.9 / Investigating Officer are the facts in the shape of alleged extra judicial confession by accused made to PW-6. As such, when there were number of villagers gathered at Grampanchayath office, Salknoor by the time PW-6 came there, instead of citing those 42023 SCC Online SC 259 15 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021 villagers as witnesses which would be a natural one in the normal course of human conduct & events, citing this witness only as a witness, certainly casts doubt on creditworthy of his evidence. Hence, it is a completely weak evidence and can not be relied upon.
14. In the above circumstances, in order to believe that whatever the accused confessed to PW-6 is true and correct and the same was made voluntarily without any inducement, prosecution also relied upon the evidence of PW-7 & 9. PW-7 deposed that he is working as Panchayath
Secretary, Mangapuram village, Vemulapally mandal, whereas LW-7 /
Laxmi Prasad is working as Panchayath Secretary, Salknoor village.
While so, on 06-06-2019, Circle Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda requested them to act as panchas as one person was murdered in front of the house of one Polishetty Narayana at Grampanchayath office, Salknoor, as such, they went there at about 9:00 a.m, and at that time, Circle Inspector of Police conducted scene observation panchanama and inquest over the dead body of the deceased in their presence and thereafter, again on 12-06-2019, as the Vemulapally 16 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021
Police called them to their police station, they went there and by the time they reached there, they found the presence of accused in their custody. Later, at the request of Circle Inspector of Police, when they enquired with the accused, they came to know that because of the family disputes as the deceased was used to harass them and their family members in a drunken condition, unbearable with the said behavior of the deceased, they intended to kill him and accordingly, taking the advantage of deceased alone used to take sleep at the place of offence, they went there and murdered him with an axe by hacking on the right side of his neck. As such, on the strength of said confession of accused, Circle Inspector of Police reduced it into a writing and further, as the accused No.1 also confessed that prior to murdered the deceased, he talked with his wife over the phone as to the going to kill of the deceased, Circle Inspector of Police seized the said phone from the possession of the accused No.1 under a cover of panchanama. He further deposed that as the accused disclosed that they would show the axe with the use of which, they killed the deceased, they proceeded to nearby one house in the said Salknoor 17 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021 village, and there, from nearby bushes, police seized the axe under a cover of panchanama in their presence. Admittedly, evidence of this witness itself is not admissible in evidence to believe the confession of the accused made in the police station in view of hit by Section 25 of
Indian Evidence Act. Further, counsel for the accused would contend that it is unsafe to even rely upon the evidence of this witness for the alleged recovery of axe at the instance of the accused. He would also contend that had really accused confessed to PW-6 that they murdered the deceased, no necessity would arise to the PW-9 / Circle Inspector of
Police to again secure the presence of PW-7 & LW-7 / Laxmi Prasad to act as panchas for the alleged confession of the accused in the police station. Moreover, in the cross examination, this witness stated that by the time they went to the police station, 4 to 5 persons were also available in the said police station premises, hence, it casts doubt on the credibility of evidence of PW-9 / Investigating officer also in citing
PW-7 as a panch witness and also on recovery of MO-1 / Axe at the instance of accused only. Moreover, admittedly, PW-9 / Investigating officer has not collected any documentary evidence to establish the 18 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021 motive of the accused to kill the deceased when as per the version of prosecution, accused used to harass the wife of accused No.1 to satisfy his lust over her and also harass the accused No.1 for money and further, when threatened to kill them. Further, except to seize the MO- 4 / mobile phone from the possession of the accused No.1, he has not made any efforts to use it in what way it becomes relevant to incriminate the accused for the alleged offence. In these circumstances, in the absence of this material evidence, relying upon the highly interested evidence of PW-6, 7 & 9, it is unsafe to convict the accused for the charge framed against them. Accordingly, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
In the result: Accused No.1 & 2 are not found guilty for the charge framed against them for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal procedure for the said charge. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after the expiry of the Appeal time. M.O.1 to 5 19 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021 deposed vide C.P.No.16 of 2020 shall be destroyed after the expiry of
Appeal time.
Typed by Stenographer (Gr.I) on Dictation being given and after made correction,
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15 th day of February, 2024.
V - Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses Examined
On behalf of the prosecution:
PW.1LW.1Gade Venkateshwarlu / Complainant & Circumstantial witness.
PW.2LW.2Bachalakuri Shoban Babu / Villager & first seen the deceased in front of Polishetty Narayana’s house.
PW.3LW.3Thupakula Saidulu / Panch witness.
PW.4LW.4Ankepaka Raju / Circumstantial witness.
PW.5LW.5Thupakula Narsimha / Circumstantial witness & elder brother of deceased
PW.6LW.6Kallepuram Sairam / Confession panchanama of A.1
PW.7LW.8Marepally Naveen Reddy / Panch for inquest, scene of offence, confession of A.1 & A.2 and seizure panchanama.
PW.8LW.9Dr.S.Shekar / Conducted Postmoretem examination & issued PME Report.
PW.9LW.12A.Ramesh Babu / Investigating officer & filed charge- sheet.
On behalf of the accused: None 20 / 20SC.No.81 / 2021
Exhibits marked
On behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P.1Report, dated 06-06-2019
Ex.P.2Scene observation panchanama
Ex.P.3Rough sketch of the scene
Ex.P.4Inquest panchanama
Ex.P.5Confession panchanama of accused Nos.1 & 2
Ex.P.6Recovery panchanama
Ex.P.7Postmortem Examination Report
Ex.P.8First Information Report
Ex.P.9Photographs of the deceased dead body (4 photographs)
Ex.P.10Photographs (2 photographs) while recording confession of A.1 & A.2.
Ex.P.11Photographs (3)
Ex.P.12Forensic Science Laboratory Report.
On behalf of the accused: NIL
Material Objects Marked
MO.1Blood stained T-Shirt
MO.2Blood stained Towel
MO.3One pair of Chappal
MO.4Mobile phone
MO.5Axe
V - Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda.
Order Record 370 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MVOP/41/2019 | Narising Ramulamma vs Ramavath Ravi | 30 Oct 2025 | order | — |
| MVOP/11/2021 | Uggidi Peda Kotamma vs Peram Venkateshwarlu | 27 Oct 2025 | order | — |
| MVOP/13/2019 | Poleboina Lingaiah vs Kuntala sravan | 27 Oct 2025 | order | — |
| MVOP/27/2018 | Challa Mangamma and Others vs Challa Sathish and Others | 27 Oct 2025 | order | — |
| MVOP/90/2022 | Jakkula @ Jakka Hema Latha vs Cheruku Sai Nikhil | 27 Oct 2025 | order | — |
| OP/5/2025 | Yekula Sandesh Kumar vs Yekula Mounika | 23 Oct 2025 | order | — |
| G.W.O.P/3/2025 | Mohammed Mohsin Ali vs Arshia | 23 Oct 2025 | order | — |
| CMA/19/2024 | Katteboina Venkataiah vs Palleboina Shankar | 15 Oct 2025 | judgment | — |
| MVOP/52/2024 | Ancha Basaveshwara Rao vs Danavath Sali | 15 Oct 2025 | order | — |
| CMA/2/2024 | Maligireddy Ram Ranga Reddy vs Maligireddy Venkata Ramana | 14 Oct 2025 | judgment | — |
| OS/100030/2017 | Gambhirapati Anitha vs Alli Peddi Raju | 14 Oct 2025 | judgment | — |
| OS/100055/2017 | Gambhirapati Raju vs Shagam Swathi | 14 Oct 2025 | judgment | — |
| CMA/13/2024 | Karnam Revathi vs Peddi Ravikantha Reddy | 09 Oct 2025 | judgment | — |
| AS/9/2019 | Md. Zaheera Begum and Two others. vs Md. Fasiuddin and one others. | 07 Oct 2025 | judgment | — |
| MVOP/6/2021 | Voggu @ Oggu Laxmamma vs Amaresh Chowdary | 26 Sep 2025 | order | — |
| OS/56/2019 | Gurram Venkateshwar Rao and others vs Kothapaly Meena Reddy and others | 26 Sep 2025 | judgment | — |
| AS/9/2021 | Siruguru Sirigiri Vimalamma vs Mudireddy Sunitha | 23 Sep 2025 | judgment | — |
| OS/14/2019 | Talakola vijay Bhaskar reddy vs Akennapally Durga | 23 Sep 2025 | judgment | — |
| OS/46/2019 | Repala Venkataramana vs M/s. Gayatri Rice Industries | 22 Sep 2025 | judgment | — |
| MVOP/78/2021 | Chintakayala Yadaiah vs Maram Yadagiri Reddy | 19 Sep 2025 | order | — |
| OP/11/2023 | Ittamalla Arun Kumar vs Ittamalla @ Vipparthi Vandana | 18 Sep 2025 | judgment | — |
| AS/30/2019 | Lankela Andalamma vs Lankela Anasurya | 11 Sep 2025 | judgment | — |
| AS/31/2019 | Lankela Andalamma vs Bhanavath Ramulu | 11 Sep 2025 | judgment | — |
| OS/100059/2017 | Katkar Anand vs Kanchanapally Venkatalaxmi | 11 Sep 2025 | judgment | — |
| OS/100039/2015 | Kolluru Karthik vs Daida Padma Reddy | 04 Sep 2025 | judgment | — |
| OP/2/2025 | DHARMARAPU BOLLEPALLI MANASA vs BOLLEPALLI ASHOK | 01 Sep 2025 | order | — |
| MVOP/66/2018 | Pulijala Ramulu vs G Manga Raju | 29 Aug 2025 | order | — |
| CMA/10/2024 | T. Mallikarjuna Rao vs Munavar Leelavathi | 14 Aug 2025 | judgment | — |
| MVOP/63/2018 | Lingam Vignesh vs Modala Badri | 14 Aug 2025 | order | — |
| CMA/7/2023 | Vanam Bixam vs Ambati Mallaiah | 13 Aug 2025 | judgment | — |
| EP/76/2022 | M/s Shriram City Union Finance Ltd, vs Varikuppala Shiva | 13 Aug 2025 | order | — |
| EP/78/2022 | M/s Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., vs Varikuppala Srinivas | 13 Aug 2025 | order | — |
| MVOP/24/2021 | Munagala Ramulamma vs Sigaptla Shanthi | 13 Aug 2025 | order | — |
| SC/119/2024 | STATE OF TELANGANA vs Rupavath Saida | 13 Aug 2025 | judgment | — |
| CMA/12/2021 | Kashimalla Kashaiah vs Valiki Eedaiah | 12 Aug 2025 | judgment | — |
| CRLA/53/2021 | Kondeti Praveen Kumar vs The State of Telangana ref by Public Prosecutor | 12 Aug 2025 | judgment | — |
| CMA/1/2022 | Lella Sathi Reddy vs Marepally Alivelamma | 11 Aug 2025 | judgment | — |
| MVOP/13/2020 | Pilli Narayana vs Mula Rajeshwar Goud | 11 Aug 2025 | order | — |
| SC/3/2023 | STATE OF TELANGANA vs Ramavath Hanuma | 11 Aug 2025 | judgment | — |
| CMA/8/2023 | Yadavelli Srinivas Reddy vs Palreddy Avinash Reddy | 05 Aug 2025 | judgment | — |
| CRLRP/3/2025 | Mylavarapu Jaganmohan Rao vs Gunda Sujatha | 05 Aug 2025 | order | — |
| MVOP/26/2024 | Parina @ Parine Kumari vs Kadiyam Naveen @ Naveen Kumar | 01 Aug 2025 | order | — |
| EP/37/2024 | M/s Five Star Business Finance Limited vs Orsu Venkatamma | 30 Jul 2025 | order | — |
| MVOP/56/2021 | Mandala Edukondalu vs Sd. Aziauddin | 30 Jul 2025 | order | — |
| SC/107/2024 | STATE OF TELANGANA vs Ravirala Chandrmouli | 23 Jul 2025 | judgment | — |
| SC/511/2022 | STATE OF TELANGANA SHO HALIYA vs Vaddegoni Durgamma | 23 Jul 2025 | judgment | — |
| CRLA/60/2022 | Jatavath Mangya Naik vs Jatavath Pandu | 18 Jul 2025 | judgment | — |
| AS/2/2020 | Gottimukkala shiva Lingam vs Koppole Venkat Ramana | 17 Jul 2025 | judgment | — |
| CMA/16/2024 | Vadde Raju vs Vadde Sandhya | 17 Jul 2025 | judgment | — |
| CRLA/3/2023 | Rupavath Chandu vs The State of TS through SHO, Miryalaguda I Town | 17 Jul 2025 | judgment | — |
| SC/171/2021 | STATE OF TELANGANA THROUGH PS MADUGULAPALLY vs Boya Prasad | 16 Jul 2025 | judgment | — |
| G.W.O.P/10/2024 | Nagati @ Katta Geetanjali vs Nagati Ramalingaiah and another | 16 Jul 2025 | order | — |
| OS/100014/2015 | Challa Kalavathi vs Banda Narayana Reddy | 15 Jul 2025 | judgment | — |
| CRLA/24/2021 | Mohammad Attequallah vs Shaik Javeed | 15 Jul 2025 | judgment | — |
| EP/35/2024 | HDB Financial Services Limited vs Kndabolu Nagaraju | 09 Jul 2025 | order | — |
| CMA/15/2024 | Yarra Sukumar Reddy vs Yarra Damodar Reddy | 08 Jul 2025 | judgment | — |
| CMA/11/2023 | Palreddy Venkat Narsimha Reddy vs Palreddy Ramana Reddy @ Palreddy Venkat Ramana Reddy | 07 Jul 2025 | judgment | — |
| MVOP/100010/2018 | Bolligorla Shiva vs Mohd. Abdul Raheem | 04 Jul 2025 | order | — |
| CMA/6/2023 | Kalakoti China Yadaiah vs Bollepally Parijatha | 30 Jun 2025 | judgment | — |
| OS/36/2018 | Chalamalla Sreenivasa Reddy vs Chalamalla Sugunamma | 24 Jun 2025 | judgment | — |
| CMA/1/2024 | Nadaparaju Venkanna vs Chalikanti Varamma | 23 Jun 2025 | judgment | — |
| MVOP/60/2022 | Bhukya Saida vs K. Bhadraiah | 23 Jun 2025 | order | — |
| CRLA/44/2022 | Gogula Shankar vs The State of T.S. through Officer in charge., | 20 Jun 2025 | judgment | — |
| CRLA/6/2020 | Karnati Kiran Kumar vs The state of TS SHO PS Miryalaguda I Town rep by its PP | 19 Jun 2025 | judgment | — |
| G.W.O.P/2/2025 | Anandapu Chandravathi vs To Whom so ever may concern | 13 Jun 2025 | order | — |
| OS/100003/2015 | Vijam Sridhar vs MD Azeemuddin | 12 Jun 2025 | judgment | — |
| EP/41/2023 | M/s Shiram Finance Ltd. vs Maddimadugu Kishore | 11 Jun 2025 | order | — |
| CMA/11/2024 | Gandamalla Venkanna vs Gandamalla Susheela | 09 Jun 2025 | judgment | — |
| OS/4/2020 | Kuntigorla Mounica vs Manchukonda Ashok | 09 Jun 2025 | judgment | — |
| OS/100032/2017 | Sri. Manchukonda Ashok vs Kuntigorla Mounika and 02 Others | 09 Jun 2025 | judgment | — |
| MVOP/100011/2018 | Siginam Narsaiah vs Mohd Abdul Raheem | 06 Jun 2025 | order | — |
| CRLA/5/2020 | Seelam Sathemma vs The State of TS through Office in In-charge PS | 21 May 2025 | judgment | — |
| CRLA/11/2022 | Boddupally Anjaneyulu vs The State of Telangana rep by Public Prosecutor | 21 May 2025 | judgment | — |
| CRLA/42/2022 | Bandi Venkata Krishna Rao vs The State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police | 16 May 2025 | judgment | — |
| CRLA/37/2024 | M. Alivelu vs Jinkala Naga Raju | 15 May 2025 | judgment | — |
| CRLA/57/2022 | Shaik Kareem vs The State of T.S. through S.H.O, P.S. Nidamanoor | 15 May 2025 | judgment | — |
| CRLA/29/2020 | Mudavath Bujja @ Swamy vs The State of TS through Vijayapuri | 14 May 2025 | judgment | — |
| MVOP/100107/2017 | Parvathapu Biksham vs Komishetti Ravi kumar | 13 May 2025 | order | — |
| MVOP/102/2022 | Boya Srinaiah vs Endla Saidulu | 07 May 2025 | order | — |
| CRLA/36/2023 | Vemula Ramulamma and six others vs STATE OF TELANGANA through SHO Miryalaguda-I Town | 07 May 2025 | judgment | — |
| CRLRP/1/2025 | Kodati Shyam Sundar vs Mr Vikas Raj I A S the thes Principal Secretary Panchayath Raj Rural Department | 07 May 2025 | order | — |
| AS/11/2023 | Medipally Sugunamma vs Dasaraju Padma | 02 May 2025 | judgment | — |
| CMA/3/2023 | Yadavelly Nagamma vs Mandali China Lingaiah | 02 May 2025 | judgment | — |
| MVOP/100106/2017 | Parvathapu Laxmi vs Kamishetti RaviKumar | 28 Apr 2025 | order | — |
| MVOP/100108/2017 | Parvathapu Teja Sree vs Kamishetti Ravi Kumar | 28 Apr 2025 | order | — |
| MVOP/100109/2017 | Parvathapu Chandra Teja vs Kamishetti Ravi Kumar | 28 Apr 2025 | order | — |
| SC/213/2019 | SHO PS VEMULAPALLY vs Sriramoju Shivachary | 24 Apr 2025 | judgment | — |
| OP/15/2024 | Bandi Reena @ Kaduru Reena vs Bandi Sheshagiri | 17 Apr 2025 | order | — |
| OS/100044/2017 | Mohammad Magdoom Pasha vs Mohd. Ismail | 17 Apr 2025 | judgment | — |
| SC/507/2022 | STATE OF TELANGANA SHO MIRYALAGUDA-I TOWN vs Gurajala Gopalakrishna and two others | 17 Apr 2025 | judgment | — |
| AS/9/2023 | Atipamula Naga Raja Rao vs Thirunagaru Maruthi Rao | 11 Apr 2025 | judgment | — |
| EP/44/2023 | Manappuram Finance Limited vs Shaik Karimulla | 11 Apr 2025 | order | — |
| EP/3/2023 | M/s Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., vs Thalluri Narsimha Rao | 09 Apr 2025 | order | — |
| A.R.B.O.P/2/2024 | Alampally Parameshwar vs Shriram City Union Finance Limited Rep. by its Manager, Miryalaguda and three others | 09 Apr 2025 | order | — |
| MVOP/14/2021 | Yelamacheruvu Nagamma vs Shaik Rabbani | 08 Apr 2025 | order | — |
| MVOP/40/2019 | Aleti Suvarna and another vs P. Devu | 02 Apr 2025 | order | — |
| MVOP/38/2019 | Kurra @ Korra Muni vs Parameshwar Birader | 27 Mar 2025 | order | — |
| CRLA/38/2023 | Muriki Arun Kumar vs STATE OF TELANGANA Rep. by SI of Police, PS Miryalaguda I Town | 27 Mar 2025 | judgment | — |
| CRLA/39/2023 | Muriki Jayalaxmi vs STATE OF TELANGANA Rep. by SI of Police, PS Miryalaguda I Town | 27 Mar 2025 | judgment | — |
| OS/21/2018 | Pottumuthu Vijayamma vs Pottumuthu Prem sagar | 25 Mar 2025 | judgment | — |
Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)
| Oct 2025 | 14 | |
| Sep 2025 | 12 | |
| Aug 2025 | 16 | |
| Jul 2025 | 16 | |
| Jun 2025 | 13 | |
| May 2025 | 12 | |
| Apr 2025 | 13 | |
| Mar 2025 | 12 | |
| Feb 2025 | 10 | |
| Jan 2025 | 14 | |
| Dec 2024 | 6 | |
| Nov 2024 | 14 |
Log in for full trend data.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Sri G Venu handled?
Sri G Venu has handled 371 court orders since 2019 at Miryalaguda, V ADJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 5 orders per month.
What types of cases does Sri G Venu hear?
Based on available records, Sri G Venu primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Criminal Appeals) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Appeal Suits) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) at Miryalaguda, V ADJ Court Complex.
Where is Sri G Venu currently posted?
Sri G Venu is posted as V Addl Dist and Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda at Miryalaguda, V ADJ Court Complex, Nalgonda, Telangana.
Are judgments by Sri G Venu available online?
Yes. 15 judgments by Sri G Venu are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does Sri G Venu dispose cases?
Sri G Venu disposes approximately 5 cases per month, based on 371 orders handled over their tenure at Miryalaguda, V ADJ Court Complex.
Since when is Sri G Venu serving?
Sri G Venu has been serving at Miryalaguda, V ADJ Court Complex since 2019.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Mar 2024 — Nov 2025V Addl Dist and Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda · 256 orders
-
Nov 2023 — Feb 2024V Addl Dist and Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda · 55 orders
-
Mar 2019 — Nov 2019Junior Civil Judge · 60 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court