Sri. G. Yagnanarayana

1 FAIR

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARSIPATNAM

PRESENT : G.Yagna Narayana,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narsipatnam.

Wednesday, this the 27th day of December, 2017.

O.S.NO.3/2010

Between:

Adapureddy Rajabulli, W/o Rajulu, Aged 54 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

R/o Janakiramapuram, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

. . . . . . . . Plaintif And:

1. Lalam Jogulu, S/o Late Sanyasi, Aged 78 years, Hindu,

Cultivation, R/o Janakiramapuram, Rolugunta Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District.

2. Makireddi Satyavathi, W/o Sreeramamurthy, Aged 40 years, R/o

Janakiramapuram, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3. Makireddi Sree Ramamurthy @ Sree Ramulu, S/o Gouri Naidu,

Aged 58 years, R/o Janakiramapuram, Rolugunta Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District.

. . . . . . . . . Defendants

This case coming before me for final hearing on 19.12.2017 in the presence of Sri P.Narsimham, counsel for the plaintif and of Sri.C.Jagga Raju, counsel for the defendants having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This is the suit filed by the plaintif against the defendants for partition of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties i.e A schedule Item No.1 to 3 Ac 0.10 cents

Survey No.52, Ac 0.50 cents in Survey No.97 Ac 0.17 cents in Survey No.415/3 and plaint ‘B’ schedule Ac 0.50 cents in Survey No.456, Ac 0.40 cents in Survey No.142 and Ac 0.40 cents in Survey No.141 in to three equal shares by metes and bounds and according to good and bad qualities and to allot one such share to the plaintif and for costs and other reliefs.

2)The brief facts of the case of the plaintif is as follows :

The plaintif is the adoptive daughter and 2nd defendant is the natural 2 daughter of 1st defendant, 3rd defendant is the husband of 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant adopted the plaintif as per Hindu rites and caste custom during her childhood at the age of 7 years. The natural parents of the plaintif gave the plaintif in adoption to the 1st defendant and his wife. The 1st defendant and his wife took the plaintif as adopted child in a ceremony arranged by both parties.

Later the 1st defendant executed a registered adoption deed dated 10.04.1974 evidencing the earlier adoption of plaintif by 1st defendant and his wife. The plaintif brought up by 1st defendant and wife and later 2nd defendant was born to them. The 1st defendant performed the marriage of the plaintif. Subsequently the plaintif was deserted by her husband about 40 years back, the plaintif has been living with her father defendant No.1 since then.

3)The plaintif further submitted that the plaintif, 1st defendant and defendants constituted Hindu Mithakshsara joint family and it consists of plaint ‘A’ schedule ancestral lands and some more lands. The 1st defendant is the manager of the family. The plaintif, 1st defendant and 2nd defendant worked very hard in the fields and acquired plaint ‘B’ schedule property under various register sale deeds with the income derived from the ancestral plaint ‘A’ schedule lands. The 1st defendant has no other source of income except agriculture lands.

4)The 1st defendant being the manager of the family, he purchased the plaint ‘B’ schedule property in his name with the income derived from plaint ‘A’ schedule lands, the plaint ‘B’ schedule lands are accretions to plaint ‘A schedule ancestral lands. The plaintif, 1st defendant, 2nd defendant have been enjoying the plaint ‘A and ‘B’ schedule lands. The 1st defendant and 2nd defendant sold Ac 0.60 cents of lands from out of joint family lands with the consent of plaintif for the benefit of family. The plaintif is being daughter entitled to share in plaint schedule properties in view of amendment to provision of Hindu Succession Act 1956. The defendants 1 and 2 are dancing to the tunes of 3rd defendant and they are also acting against the interest of the plaintif. The 3rd defendant high handedly kept the 1st defendant in his wrongful custody and he became tool in the hands of defendants 1 and 2.

3

5)The defendants 1 and 2 in collusion with 3rd defendant are trying to create documents in favour of 3rd defendant in order to cause wrongful loss to the plaintif. As such the plaintif does not want any joint status with defendants 1 and

2. The plaintif demanded the defendants 1 and 2 to come forward for partition of plaint schedule properties in to three equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintif personally and through elders. The defendants 1 and 2 did not pay any heed. The plaintif got issued notice dated 22.12.2009 to the defendants demanding defendants 1 and 2 to cooperate with her for partition of plaint schedule properties into three equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one such share for plaintif. The defendants 1 and 2 refused to take the notice. In view of the negative attitude of the defendants 1 and 2 the plaintif is no longer interested to continue her joint status with the defendants 1 and 2, hence the plaintif constrain to file this suit for partition. The plaintif pray the Court to pass a preliminary decree and judgment in her favour for partition of suit schedule properties in to three equal shares as per good and bad qualities by metes and bounds and to deliver one such share to the plaintif along with standing crops, trees, therein and for ascertaining the future profits from the date of suit till the date of realization by way of separate enquiry under order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. and costs of the suit and other relies in the interest of justice.

6)After receipt of summons the defendants appeared before the court the 1st defendant filed his written statement, the same was got adopted by defendants 2 and 3. The defendants in their written statement denied all the plaint allegations as false. The defendants submits that the 1st defendant never got adopted the plaintif as adoptive daughter as per Hindu rites and customs at her age of 7 years and no ceremony was performed for the alleged adoption of the plaintif. The 1st defendant never intended to execute register document for the alleged adoption of plaintif dated 10.04.1974 and it was never handed over to the plaintif or her parents.

7)The defendants nextly submitted that the 1st defendant and his wife have no children as such they brought the plaintif to their house as a foster 4 daughter with a hope that they will blessed with children if they look after the child.

Afterwards the 1st defendant and his wife blessed with 2nd defendant, after birth of 2nd defendant the parents of plaintif took her to their house. The 1st defendant performed the marriage of plaintif being foster daughter gave Ac 0.30 cents of land. After marriage the plaintif and her husband disputed with each other, on the aspect of adoption of the plaintif and as the husband of the plaintif harassed the plaintif by saying that he married her thinking that she is an adoptive daughter of 1st defendant or otherwise he would have not married her and the quarrels between plaintif and her husband were going on at the intervention of elders, he executed adoption deed dated 10.04.1974 for the sake of the family life of plaintif except that the 1st defendant never got adopted the plaintif and he doesn’t have intention to execute registered adoption deed as alleged by the plaintif.

8)The defendants further submitted that the plaintif’s family and the defendants family never lived together and the defendants family never constituted a Hindu joint family with plaintif herein. The plaintif son-in-law instigated the plaintif to made believe the 1st defendant to look after his welfare thereby the plaintif made believe the 1st defendant and other defendants took the 1st defendant to their house. Later the son-in-law of the plaintif and the plaintif brought the 1st defendant Narsipatnam by made him believe that he was going to be consult Doctor at Narsipatnam, but brought him to Register Office canceled the documents executed by the 1st defendant in favour of son of 3rd defendant later the plaintif got issued legal notice as if the 1st defendant issued notices to the 2nd and 3rd defendants. Then the defendants questioned the mischievous acts of plaintif.

9)The plaintif and defendants never constituted a Hindu joint family at any point of time for which the 1st defendant never acted as Kartha as alleged by the plaintif. The plaintif never worked together with the defendants acquired plaint ‘B’ schedule properties. The properties were acquired by 1st defendant and his son-in-law 3rd defendant, the plaintif no way concerned with the plaint schedule properties, she doesn’t have any manner of right to claim the said properties for partition. The 1st defendant sold away his lands to 3rd defendant under registered 5 sale deed dated 01.01.2010. The plaintif is not an adoptive daughter of 1st defendant she doesn’t have any cause of action to file this suit against the defendants and further the 1st defendant doesn’t have any properties with him for partition, therefore the suit filed by the plaintif is not maintainable either under law or on facts, pray the court to dismiss the suit in the interest of justice.

10)Basing on the above pleadings of both parties and after hearing both parties this court settled the following issues for adjudication :

1. Whether the adoption deed dated 10.04.1974 is true, valid and binding on the defendants ?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for partition of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and for 1/3rd share in it and for future profits as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

11)In order to prove the case of the plaintif, the plaintif herself examined as PW1, filed her chief affidavit wherein she reiterated the entire contents of plaint averments in support of oral evidence, she got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 documents,

Ex.A1 – Adoption deed dated 10.04.1974, Ex.A2 – Legal notice dated 22.12.2009,

Ex.A3 – Unserved cover of 1st defendant, Ex.A4 – Unserved cover of 2nd defendant,

Ex.A5 – Postal acknowledgment, Ex.A6 - Ration card, Ex.A7 – Rectification deed

dated 4.12.2009, Ex.A8 – Rectification deed dated 4.12.2012, Ex.A9 – Registered

sale deed dated 29.8.2009 and Ex.A10 – Registered sale deed dated 20.8.2009.

The plaintif also got examined PW2 to PW6 who are elders and independent witnesses they corroborated the evidence of PW1 in all material aspects. The plaintif pray the Court to pass a decree and judgment in her favour by granting 1/3rd share in plaint schedule properties in the interest of justice.

12)On behalf of defendants, the 3rd defendant himself examined as DW1 he filed his chief affidavit wherein he reiterated the entire contents of their written statement in support of oral evidence got marked Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 documents.

Ex.B1 - Registered sale deed dated 01.01.2011, Ex.B2 – Death certificate of Jogulu.

The defendants also got examined DW2 to DW4 who are elders and independent 6 witnesses who corroborated the evidence of DW1 in all material aspects. The defendants pray the court to dismiss the suit as the plaintif is not adoptive daughter of 1st defendant and his wife and the plaintif doesn’t have any cause of action for filing of the suit.

13)Heard arguments from both sides.

The learned counsel for plaintif contended that the case of the plaintif has been proved from the evidence of PW1 to PW6 and from the material on record. The counsel contended that from the evidence of PW1 to PW6 it is proved that the plaintif is adoptive daughter of the 1st defendant she was adopted by him at her age of 7 years, later the said adoption was got registered by the 1st defendant on 10.04.1974. It is also proved from the evidence of PW1 to PW6 and from the material on record the plaintif, defendants 1 and 2 constituted Hindu

Mithaakhara joint family, the said family is having plaint ‘A’ schedule ancestral property, from the income of ‘A’ schedule property and from the earnings of plaintif, defendants 1 and 2 purchased ‘B’ schedule property thereby plaintif could prove that the plaint schedule property is ancestral and joint family property. The counsel also contended the plaintif also could prove that the defendants 1 and 2 at the instigation of 3rd defendant by colluding each other trying to create documents in favour of 3rd defendant with regard to suit schedule property to cause wrongful loss to the plaintif and wrongful gain to the 2nd and 3rd defendant, though mediations made before elders but in vain, therefore got issued legal notice by the plaintif for partition of suit schedule property in to three equal shares, but in vain, hence the plaintif constrain to file this suit for partition of plaint schedule properties among themselves. The counsel further contended that as the 1st defendant died during the pendency of the suit his share will be felt to both plaintif and 2nd defendant equally, therefore both plaintif and 2nd defendant entitled for ½ share in plaint schedule property, the case of the plaintif has been proved conclusively, pray the court to pass a preliminary decree and judgment accordingly in the interest of justice.

14)Whereas the counsel for defendants contended that the case of the 7 plaintif has not been proved either from the evidence of PW1 to PW6 or from the material on record. The plaintif is not adoptive daughter of the 1st defendant she is foster daughter and no adoptive ceremonies were taken place as alleged by the plaintif and the document Ex.A1 adoption deed dated 10.04.1974 is a nominal document it was brought in to existence as the husband of plaintif harassed the plaintif for her status as adoptive daughter to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant out of love and afection towards his foster daughter for the sake of family relation between plaintif and her husband he executed the said Ex.A1 adoption deed at the age of 23 years of plaintif that to after her marriage, therefore under the said adoption deed the plaintif did not get any status of adoptive daughter she is nothing but a foster daughter to the 1st defendant. Further the 1st defendant performed the marriage of plaintif gave Ac 0.30 cents of land later she never lived together with the 1st defendant family, the plaintif no way concerned with the family of defendants, she doesn’t have any rights over the plaint schedule property claiming for partition. Further the plaint schedule property was sold to 3rd defendant vide registered sale deed dated 01.01.2011 by the 1st defendant, therefore there is no plaint schedule property in the hands of 1st defendant as well 2nd defendant liable for partition as claimed by the plaintif. The suit filed by the plaintif is not maintainable either under law or on facts, pray the court to dismiss the suit in the interest of justice.

15)Adverting to the above said contentions of both parties and after careful going through the material on record and evidence of both parties, the issue No.1 is taken up for adjudication :

Issue No.1 : Whether the adoption deed dated 10.04.1974 is true, valid and binding on the defendants ?

16)In view of above said issue for adjudication on careful perusal the material on record and evidence of both parties this court found following :

It is the case of the plaintif, PW1 to PW6 also deposed before the

Court, the 1st defendant got adopted the plaintif at her age of 7 years as per Hindu rites and customs, subsequently the 1st defendant executed adoption deed dated 8 10.04.1974, later the plaintif lead life as daughter of 1st defendant at his house

Janakirampuram village of Rolugunta Mandalam. While so after 5 years the 1st defendant was blessed with 2nd defendant. They also deposed that subsequently the 1st defendant performed the marriage of plaintif, after marriage due to disputes with her husband, the plaintif came to 1st defendant lived with him till his death, they also deposed that the plaintif is no other then adoptive daughter of 1st defendant.

17)Though the 1st defendant denied that he never got adopted the plaintif and he looked after her as foster daughter, but the evidence of PW1 to

PW6 and the material on record i.e Ex.A1 adoption deed and Ex.A6 ration card reveals that the plaintif was got adopted by 1st defendant as adoptive daughter at her age of 7 years and the said adoptive daughter/plaintif is found lead life with the plaintif family till her marriage and the said marriage was performed by 1st defendant herein, the said fact was admitted by 1st defendant in his pleadings but he is denying the relation as adoptive daughter by saying that she is his foster daughter. However on careful perusal the Ex.A1 adoption deed, this court found that as per the contents of Ex.A1 deed the 1st defendant got adopted the plaintif 10 years prior to date of its execution by performing adoptive ceremony and received the plaintif from her natural parents, therefore the above said evidence of

PW1 to PW6 and the material record reveals that the plaintif is an adoptive daughter of 1st defendant.

18)It is also nextly found by this court though the 1st defendant contended that the plaintif is his foster daughter not adoptive daughter but in pursuance of the said contention the 1st defendant failed to adduce any positive evidence, though he examined DW1 to DW4 to prove his relation with plaintif as foster daughter but the said witnesses are found no other than his son-in-law i.e. 3rd defendant and his relatives who are found an interested witnesses. As per admissions of DW1/3rd defendant by saying that “It is true I do not have personal knowledge about things taken place prior to Ex.A1 adoption deed between both 9 parties in the year 1974, I was aged about 15 years by that time. (The adoption document Ex.A1 prepared in the year 1974).”

19)The other witnesses DW2 also admitted in his evidence by saying that “I do not know whether there is adoption register deed that

Jogulu adopted Rajabulli. I did not attest the adoption deed and I am not the witness and I do not know what was written in the adoption deed.”

20)He also deposed in chief examination itself by saying that “The 1st defendant informed me that he never took the plaintif as his adoptive daughter.”

Therefore, the knowledge of both DW1 and DW2 about adoption of plaintif by the 1st defendant is found hear say knowledge basing on their evidence it cannot be said that the plaintif is not an adoptive daughter and she is foster daughter. Further as per admission of DW1 by the date of Ex.A1 adoption deed he was aged about 15 years, therefore it cannot be said that the marriage of DW1/3rd defendant took place with Rajubulli plaintif and this defendant/son-in-law of 1st defendant harassed the plaintif for status of the plaintif as adoptive daughter, hence the Ex.A1 Adoption deed was got executed by the 1st defendant as contended by him.

21)The other witness on record are DW3 and DW4 their evidence is also found only with regard to selling of the plaint schedule land by 1st defendant to the 3rd defendant vide Ex.B1 sale deed dated 01.01.2010. Therefore the evidence on record with regard to status of the plaintif adduced by defendants is the evidence of 3rd defendant/DW1 and DW2 only, but the same is found in-sufficient to prove the contention of the 1st defendant to say that the plaintif is foster daughter not adoptive daughter. Further the evidence of PW1 to PW6 and the material on record

Ex.A1 and Ex.A6 documents categorically reveals that the plaintif is no other then adoptive daughter of 1st defendant rather than foster daughter as contended by 10 the 1st defendant. If really the plaintif is foster daughter the 1st defendant would have not executed Ex.A1 registered adoption deed by confirming the adoption taken place before elders at his house prior to 1974. Though the 1st defendant contended that he executed the said Ex.A1 adoption deed for the sake of cordial relation between the plaintif and her husband but the said contention is found no merits the very marriage of plaintif with her husband/3rd defendant is found not performed by the year 1974, therefore it cannot be said that Ex.A1 adoption deed was executed due to disputes between plaintif and her husband for adoptive status of plaintif with defendants family the defendants failed to adduce any positive evidence to prove the said contention. Though the defendants examined

DW3 and DW4 their evidence is found no way relevant to the factum of relation of the plaintif with 1st defendant and his family, whether she is adoptive daughter or foster daughter to the 1st defendant family.

22)Therefore the above said facts and circumstance of this case, evidence of PW1 to PW6 and the material on record and also admissions of DW1 and DW2 categorically reveals that the plaintif is no other than adoptive daughter of the 1st defendant she was adopted by the 1st defendant at her age of 7 years as per

Hindu rites and custom and the said adoptive daughter/plaintif after adoption lead life with the 1st defendant family and her marriage was performed by 1st defendant itself and after the marriage the plaintif lead marital life with her husband, subsequently due to disputes she separated from her husband lead life with the 1st defendant itself till the death of 1st defendant. Therefore the plaintif is found no other than adoptive daughter of the 1st defendant, hence this issue is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

23)Issue No. 2 : Whether the plaintif is entitled for partition of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and for 1/3rd share in it and for future profits as prayed for ?

24)With regard to this issue on careful perusal the material on record and evidence of both parties this court found following :

As per the case of the plaintif and evidence of PW1 to PW6 the plaint 11 ‘A’ schedule property Item No.1 to 3 are ancestral properties whereas plaint ‘B’ schedule property Item No.1 to 3 developed by the 1st defendant, plaintif and the 2nd defendant herein with the income derived from ‘A’ schedule property and from their earnings. Therefore the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties are found ancestral as well as joint family properties in the hands of defendants family.

25)Though the defendants contended that the plaint schedule property is not an ancestral property it is self acquired property of 1st defendant, but the averments in Ex.B1 registered sale deed itself reveals that the said property derived by the 1st defendant by way of inheritance as well as self acquired.

Admittedly the 1st defendant doesn’t have any avocation except agriculture work, therefore the earnings from the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and development of plaint ‘B’ schedule property is found a property developed by the 1st defendant is nothing but an ancestral and joint family property and admittedly the said properties are not yet partitioned among the family members of defendants and plaintif, hence the said property is found liable for partition.

26)It is also nextly found by this court as the plaintif is found adoptive daughter of 1st defendant at issue No.1 and the 2nd defendant is found natural daughter, both are found entitled for share in the plaint schedule properties of 1st defendant 1/3rd share each along with 1st defendant. However admittedly as 1st defendant died during the pendency of this suit on 10.10.2012 his share will devolve upon both plaintif and 2nd defendant equally as both are found daughters and Class I legal heirs of 1st defendant, therefore the plaintif and 2nd defendant are found entitled for ½ share in the plaint schedule property.

27)Though the defendants contended that the plaint schedule properties were sold away to the 3rd defendant in order to discharge the debts of 1st defendant, but in order to prove that 1st defendant indebted to 3rd parties, thereby sold away plaint schedule property to the 3rd defendant, there is no positive evidence on record to say that the 1st defendant indebted to 3rd parties thereby he sold away the plaint schedule properties and further to meet his medical expenses.

The above said contention of defendants is found nothing but a mere contention 12 for the purpose of this case to evade the share to the plaintif in plaint schedule property, the sale transaction alleged to have been taken place between 1st defendant and 3rd defendant is found sham and nominal and it was taken place after filing of the suit. The plaintif filed the suit on 21.1.2010 the sale transaction of plaint schedule property took place vide Ex.B1 sale deed dated 1.1.2011 i.e after 1 year of the filing of the suit by the plaintif. Further the 1st defendant is found doesn’t have any exclusive rights to sell away the plaint schedule properties to the 3rd defendant under Ex.B1 registered sale deed. Therefore the plaint schedule property is found liable for partition between plaintif and the 2nd defendant equally among themselves and both will get ½ share in plaint schedule properties (as the 1st defendant died while the suit is pending), accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

28)Issue No.3 : To what relief ?

In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed without costs for partition of plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties in to two equal shares among plaintif and 2nd defendant and to allot one such share to the plaintif by metes and bounds in to consideration.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of December, 2017.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSIPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF :

PW1 : Adapureddy Rajabulli-Plaintif.

PW2 : Sabbavarapu Lakshmana Murthy-3rd party

PW3 : Rajana Rajababu-3rd party.

PW4 : Sabbavarapu Bennamma -3rd party.

PW5 : Medapureddi Ramamurthy-3rd party.

PW6 : Chenchulada Krishnam Raju-3rd party.

DEFENDANT :

DW1 : Makireddy Sreeramamurthy-3rd defendant.

DW2 : Bantu Satyanarayana -3rd party.

13 DW3 : Lagudu Ramana -3rd party.

DW4 : Animireddy Bulli babu-3rd party.

No. of documents marked for PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/10.04.1974Certified copy of registered adoption deed.

Ex.A2/22.12.2009Office copy of legal notice.

Ex.A3/Unserved cover of 1st defendant.

Ex.A4/Unserved cover of 2nd defendant.

Ex.A5/Postal acknowledgment of defendant No.3.

Ex.A6/Ration card.

Ex.A7/04.12.2009Registration extract of ratification deed.

Ex.A8/04.12.2012Registration extract of ratification deed.

Ex.A9/29.08.2009Registration extract of sale deed.

Ex.A10/20.08.2009Registration extract of sale deed.

DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1/01.01.2011Registered sale deed.

Ex.B2/Death certificate of Jogulu.

P.J.C.J., NRPM.

1

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARSIPATNAM

PRESENT : G.Yagna Narayana,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narsipatnam.

Thursday, this is the 23rd day of February, 2018.

O.S.NO.249/2008

Between:

Maddapu Appalaraju, W/o Atchiyyanaidu, Aged 60 years,

Hindu, Housewife, R/o Gairampeta, Lingampeta

Panchayathi, Golugonda Mandal. . . . . . . . . Plaintifs And:

1. Masta Veerabulli @ Veeramma, W/o Ramunaidu, Aged 65 years, Hindu, Housewife and Cultivation, R/o Sarabahavaram,

Near Vaddipa, Rolugunta Mandalam.

2. Tokala Gourinaidu, S/o name not know to the plaintif, Aged 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Lingampeta, Chodyam post,

Golugonda Mandalam.

3. Masta Ramanamma, W/o Late Ramana, Age 28 years, R/o

Lingampeta, Chodyam post, Golugonda Mandalam.

4. Chandragiri Siva, W/o Apparao, Age 24 years, Hindu,

Housewife and Cultivation, R/o Sarabhavaram, Near Vaddipa,

Rolugunta Mandalam.

5. Chandragiri Jyothi, W/o Apparao, Age 24 years, Housewife and

Cultivation, R/o Vedullavalasa (Kovuru), Rolugunta Mandalam.

6. Vangala Lova, W/o Satyanarayana, Age 22 years, Hindu,

Housewife and Cultivation, R/o Lingampeta, Chodyam post,

Golugonda Mandalam.

7. Busala Ratnam, W/o Nukaraju, Aged 46 years, Hindu,

Housewife and Cultivation, R/o Sarabhavaram, Near Vaddipa,

Rolugunta Mandalam.

8. Paravada Somaraju, W/o Parasuramudu, Aged 44 years,

Hindu, Housewife and Cultivation, R/o Kanchugummala,

Rolugunta Mandalam.

9. Masta Nagakumari, W/o Late Ramana, Age 22 years, R/o

Kanchugummala, Rolugunta Mandalam.

10.Patti Nukaratnam, W/o Pothinaidu, Aged 40 years, Hindu,

Housewife and Cultivation, R/o Sarabhavaram, Near Vaddipa, 2

Rolugunta Mandalam.

11.Patti Nanaji, S/o Pothinaidu, Age 23 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

R/o Sarabhavaram, Near Vaddipa, Rolugunta Mandalam.

12.Kasireddi Satyavathi, W/o Sathibabu, Aged 38 years, R/o

Sarabhavaram, Near Vaddipa, Rolugunta Mandalam.

13.Kesireddi Gopi, S/o Sathibabu, Age 20 years, R/o

Sarabhavaram, Near Vaddipa, Rolugunta Mandalam.

. . . . . . . . . Defendants

This case coming before me for final hearing on 16.02.2018 in the presence of Sri M.Prabhakar, counsel for the plaintif and of Sri M.B.Krishanarao, counsel for the defendants 2 and 3 and other defendants became exparte having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This is the suit filed by the plaintif against the defendants for partition of suit schedule properties Item No.1 an extent of Ac 0.95 cents in

Survey No.71, Item No.2 an extent of Ac 1.95 cents in Survey No.73, Item No.3 an extent of Ac 2.74½ cents in Survey No’s.31/3 and 31/5 and Item No.4 Two titled houses situated in Survey No.20 an extent of Ac 0.20 cents at

V.Sarabhavaram Village, Rolugunta Mandalam into eight equal shares among the plaintif and defendants and to allot one such share to the plaintif and also to direct the defendants to pay mesne profits over the suit schedule properties from the date of this suit and till the date recovery of possession and for costs of the suit and other reliefs.

2)The brief facts of the case of the plaintif is as follows :

The plaintif submits that one Matsa Ramunaidu used to possess the suit schedule properties. The said Ramunaidu married one Kamaraju and begot the plaintif through her. Subsequently the wife of Ramunaidu died leaving the plaintif as her legal heir. Subsequent to the death of his 1st wife, the said Ramu

Naidu married Veerabulli @ Veeramma and through her begot five daughters

Panthulamma, Ratnam (7th defendant), Somaraju (8th defendant), Nukaratnam (10th defendant), Satyavathi (12th defendant) and son Ramana. Out of whom 3

Panthulamma and Ramana, the only son of Ramunaidu died leaving behind them the defendants 2 to 6 and 9 as their legal heirs. The defendants 11 and 13 are the sons of defendants 10 and 12.

3)The father of the plaintif Ramu Naidu performed the marriages of all his daughters and died intestate about eight years ago. The plaintif was given in marriage to one Maddapu Atchiyanaidu of Lingampeta of Gavirampeta

Panchayathi of Golugonda Mandalam and owing to her marriage the plaintif is living with her husband and her family at Lingampeta. The father of the plaintif used to posses the suit schedule properties which devolved on him from his father and the said properties are the ancestral and joint family properties among the plaintif, her father Ramunaidu and the defendants. The plaintif’s father Ramunaidu used to manage the properties and used to cultivate paddy and dry crops in the suit land. The plaintifs father during his life time used to send the plaintif her share in the joint family properties as and when he chooses. After the death of plaintif’s father Ramunaidu, the suit schedule properties devolved on the plaintif and the defendants 1, 7, 8, 10, 12 jointly and they are all in joint possession and enjoyment of all the joint family properties.

4)While thing stand so even during the life time of the father of the plaintif, the 1st defendant took the reigns of management of the family in to her hands and used to manage the family. She continued the same after the death of the plaintif’s father. The 1st defendant after the death of Ramunaidu took all the properties in to her hands and she also continued to send the plaintif’s share in the joint family properties as and when she chooses. However the 1st defendant used to show bias towards the plaintif as she is the step daughter of 1st defendant. Due to the biased nature of the 1st defendant, the plaintif demanded the defendants to come forward for partition of the suit schedule properties and for an amicable settlement among the family members. But the defendants used to postpone the same on one pretext or the other. While things stand so the plaintif came to learn that due to the steep rise in prices of land the defendants entertained an evil idea to grab the share of the plaintif.

4

Therefore the defendants are clandestinely attempting to concoct and create documents in favour of the defendants 11 and 13 and are attempting to alienate the lands to 3rd parties detrimental to the interest of the plaintif. The defendants have no right or reason to do so. Having come to learn about the evil intention of the defendants the plaintif got issued a legal notice to the defendants 1 to 8 and 10 to 13 on 19.10.2008 requesting them to come forward for partition of the joint family properties. All the defendants received the notices but they did not give any reply and did not come forward for partition.

The plaintif submits that she came to learn that the 9th defendant is also enjoying a part of the plaint schedule property and as such she is added as necessary party. All the defendants are proclaiming in the village that they will not give the plaintif her legitimate share and challenged the plaintif to do whatever she can do. As the defendants are acting detrimental to the interest of the plaintif, the plaintif is no longer interested to continue as a joint family with the defendants. Therefore the plaintif pray the court to pass a decree and judgment in her favour by partitioning the suit schedule properties into eight equal shares and to deliver one such share to the plaintif and also pray the

Court to direct the defendants to pay mesne profits over the plaint schedule property from the date of the suit till recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit and other reliefs.

5)After receipt of summons the defendants appeared before the Court, the defendants 2, 3 and 7 filed their written statement whereas other defendants became exparte. The 3rd defendant filed her written statement and the same was got adopted by the 2nd defendant wherein they denied all the plaint allegations as false except their relationship with the plaintif with other defendants. The 3rd defendant submitted that she is the legally wedded wife of

Masta Ramana who is the only son of 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the son-in-law of 1st defendant i.e elder daughter’s husband and he is the father of this 3rd defendant. After the marriage with Ramana this defendant and her husband both lived together at Sarabhavaram along with 1st defendant in the 5 plaint schedule house Item No.4. During their wedlock this defendant gave birth to a female child by name Vijaya Lakshmi, presently she is 11 years old. When this defendant is in pregnancy the parents of this defendant brought the defendant to their village Lingampeta for delivery. After the delivery, when the child was at 11 months age the husband of this defendant Masta Ramana died intestate, In the mean while when the defendant staying at her parents house for delivery the 1st defendant with a ulterior motive she with a planing that this defendant might have taken away the share of his only son Ramana if it is so the property will be divided upon this conclusion, the 1st defendant wantonly with a view to safe guard the joint properties she got performed the second marriage of

Ramana with her Grand daughter i.e. 9th defendant who is the daughter of 8th defendant here in. The said marriage was held secretly without the knowledge of village people including this defendant and her family members. One year after to the said marriage the husband of this defendant was died, without any issues with 9th defendant.

6)After the death of her husband the village elders of Sarabhavaram advised the 1st defendant to give some land to this defendant for her and her daughter as a settlement, because the defendant is a rightful owner and legal heir of Ramana’s share in the joint family property. Upon the advise of the elders the 1st defendant decided to give some property to this defendant as per her Will and also willing of the other defendants i.e daughters of 1st defendant viz defendants 7, 8, 10 and 12 including plaintif (Maddapu Appalaraju) come forward and together executed a Khararunama Agreement (unregistered) in favour of this defendant and her daughter on 20.08.1997 in the presence of village elders, they settled the following property for her life time enjoyment the property is in Survey No.73 of Sarabhavaram Village, which is in an extent of Ac 1.70 cents in two Items the Item No.1 an extent of Ac 1.00 cents bounded by

East – Masta Atchayyanaidu land, South “ Masta Atchayyanaidu, West : Gedda,

North : Matsa Bulli Appalanaidu land. Item No.II an extent of Ac 0.70 cents bounded by East : Land of Matsa Raja Rao, South : Matsa Atchayyanaidu, West :

6

Land of Vuta Ramabau land. North : Gaviramma Cheruvu and also gave Ac 0.25 cents of land, Item No.II in Survey No.71 of same village, but boundaries are not mentioned. Immediately after the said agreement this defendant was put in possession of the above property she has been enjoying the same without interruption.

7)Afterwards this defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the said property, 1st defendant without any right or possession, she herself thinking that she is the manager of the family on that she executed a register sale deed on 17.12.1999 in favour of Issarapu Nookaraju, S/o Nookalamma of Chodyam

Village of Golugonda Mandal in an extent of Ac 1.90 cents in Survey No.71 and 73 of Khararunama agreement property which is also shown in plaint schedule with a view to alienation. After the said sale deed the said vendee Issarapu

Nookaraju, again sold away some extent in Survey No.73 of Sarabhavaram land to one Boosala Kannabau, S/o Nookaraju of Sarabahavaram and also some extent of one Paravada Some Raju, W/o Parasuramudu of Kanchugummala (8th defendant herein) both sale deeds are registered on 08.05.2001 and on 08.05.2001. Even the sale deeds are in existence the properties mentioned in the sale deeds are in possession and enjoyment of this defendant. Once the property devolved on this defendant by way Khararunama Agreement under the willing of the plaintif and 1st defendant and others. The plaintif is no right to demand for partition the same. Moreover the plaintif having knowledge about the Khararunama Agreement and also the sale deeds dated 17.12.1999, 08.05.2001 and 08.05.2001 and the plaintif filed this suit after completion of three years period of execution of sale deeds by others regarding to the suit schedule Item No.1 and 2 for partition is barred by Limitation. On the other hand this defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule Item

No.1 and 2 more than 12 years within the knowledge of this plaintif and defendants 1, 14 to 13 she perfected her title over the Item No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule by way of adverse possession, for which the plaintif is es-toped to claim partition over the Item No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule. In Item No.4 of plaint 7 schedule house this defendant has been residing in one room situated on eastern side corner.

8)This defendant further submits that the suit of the plaintif is collusive suit. This plaintifs and other defendants 1, 7 to 13 colluded together and got filed this suit in order to dispossess this defendant from the possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule Item No.1 and 2 properties and also dispossess this defendant from the room situated in the eastern corner the plaintif suppressed the facts and filed this suit with ulterior motive as this suit is not maintainable under law and it is to be dismissed inlimini and there is no cause of action for the suit.

9)Therefore, this defendants prays the Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs. This defendants further submits that if the Hon’ble

Court any cost declare claim of the plaintif may be pleased to order give a finding with regard to the possession of this defendant over the properties mentioned in Khararaunam agreement dated 20.08.1997 i.e suit schedule property Item No.1 and 2 and 4.

10)The 7th defendant filed her written statement wherein she submitted that she has no objection for partition of the properties. She submits that her husband late Nookaraju was brought into the family as an illatom son-in-law by the father-in-law an understanding he will be given a share in the family properties and with that understanding the husband of this defendant was also enjoying the properties in his capacity as the illatom son-in-law who died in course of time leaving this defendant as his legal heir. Hence this defendant is entitled for an additional share of her husband due to him as the illatom son-in- law. Hence the suit may be decreed with an additional share of her husband.

The properties are the joint enjoyment and management of 1st defendant hence the suit may be decreed with an additional share due to her husband. This defendant reserves her right to file additional written statement as and when necessity arise.

8

11)Basing on the above pleadings of both parties and after hearing both parties this court settled the following issues for adjudication :

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for the partition of the suit schedule property, if so to what share ?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for the mesne profits as prayed for ?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

4. Whether the defendants have perfected their right and title over the suit schedule properties by way of adverse possession ?

5. To what relief ?

12)In order to prove the case of the plaintif, the plaintif herself examined as PW1, filed her chief affidavit wherein she reiterated the entire contents of her plaint averments in support of his oral evidence, she got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 documents, Ex.A1 – legal notice dated 9.10.08, Ex.A2 – unserved postal cover, Ex.A3 – five acknowledgments. The plaintif also got examined

PW2 an independent eye witnesses/elder who corroborated the evidence of PW1 all material aspects. The plaintif pray the court to pass a decree and judgment in her favour by partitioning the plaint schedule property into eight equal shares and to allot one such share to her and for other reliefs in the interest of justice.

13)On behalf of the defendants, the 3rd defendant herself examined as

DW1, she filed her chief affidavit wherein she reiterated the entire contents of written statement, but subsequently the said defendant failed to appear before the Court for marking of documents and cross examination inspite of repeated adjournments for about one year and even after conditional order, therefore the evidence of DW1 was eschewed, hence there is no evidence on record on behalf of the defendants either oral or documentary.

14)Heard arguments from both sides.

15)The learned counsel for the plaintif contended that the case of the plaintif has been proved from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and from the 9 material on record. He nextly contended PW1 and PW2 categorically deposed that the plaint schedule property is joint family property of Ramunaidu, the said property is not yet partitioned among the family members. The plaintif/PW1 and her witnesses PW2 also categorically deposed about the plaint schedule properties are in the hands of the 1st defendant, she is acting against the interest of plaintif and also further plaintif could prove that she demanded the defendants for partition of plaint schedule land through elders and by issuing

Ex.A1 legal notice but in vain and further proved that the defendants for the above said notice did not give any reply, they tried to alienate the properties to the 3rd parties to defeat the rights of the plaintif, therefore the plaintif constrained to file this suit for partition of plaint schedule properties among themselves she proved her case conclusively, she is entitled for 1/8th share in the plaint schedule property, hence pray the court to pass a preliminary decree and judgment against the defendants as prayed for.

16)Whereas the counsel for defendants 1, 3 and 7 reported no instructions however as per the pleadings of the above said defendants in their written statement the plaint schedule property was already partition and Item

No.1 and 2 were given to 3rd defendant for her maintenance on 20.08.1997 i.e after death of her husband Masta Ramana by executing Khararunama since then the 3rd defendant is in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule Item No.1 and 2 and also western side portion of the house property shown in plaint schedule, but the plaintif filed false suit with false allegations as if the plaint schedule property is ancestral and joint family properties not yet partitioned among themselves. The suit filed by the plaintif is barred by limitation, the defendants is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since 1997 thereby she got right, title over the plaint schedule property by adverse possession, therefore the suit filed by the plaintif is not maintainable either under law or on facts, pray the court to dismiss the suit with costs in the interest of justice.

17)Adverting to the above said contentions of both parties on careful 10 perusal the material on record and evidence of both parties this court found the

Issue No.1 to 4 are inter-related in nature hence they are being taken up together for adjudication :

Issue No.1 to 4 :

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for the partition of the suit schedule property, if so to what share ?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for the mesne profits as prayed for ?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

4. Whether the defendants have perfected their right and title over the suit schedule properties by way of adverse possession ?

19)Adverting to the above said Issue No.1 to 4 for adjudication on further scrutiny the material on record and evidence of both parties and also their respective pleadings this court found following :

A)As rightly contended by the counsel for the plaintif as per evidence of

PW1/plaintif and PW2 it is proved that the plaint schedule property Item

No.1 to 4 are joint family properties of Ramunaidu, they were not yet partitioned among the family members of the Ramunaidu between plaintif and defendants. Though the 3rd defendant contended that she was given Item No.1 and 2 property and also house property shown in

Item No.4 she is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the said property was given to her as maintenance after death of her husband Ramana by executing Kharauannama agreement on 20.09.1997 by all the defendants including the plaintif but in order to prove the said fact the 3rd defendant failed to adduce any evidence except her pleadings in written statement.

B)It is also nextly found by this court as rightly contended by the counsel for plaintif though the 3rd defendant contended that the suit is barred by limitation, hence she got right and title over the plaint schedule property 11 by way of adverse possession, but the said plea of 3rd defendant cannot be taken in to consideration as the plaint schedule property is found ancestral and joint family properties, the question of limitation for filing of the suit by the plaintif and the question right and title over the property by way of adverse possession does not arise, therefore the contention of the 3rd defendant is found no merits.

C)It is also nextly found by this court as rightly contended by the counsel for plaintif though the defendants 2, 3 and 7 filed their written statement by denying the case of the plaintif, but in order to prove their contentions the defendants did not take any steps to adduce any evidence and further they failed to elicit anything in cross examination of

PW1 in pursuance of their contentions.

20)All the above said facts and circumstance of this case, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the material on record categorically reveals that the case of the plaintif has been proved conclusively, therefore the Issue No.1 to 4 are answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

21)Issue No.5 : To what relief ?

In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif for partition of suit schedule properties Item No.1 an extent of Ac 0.95 cents in Survey No.71, Item No.2 an extent of Ac 1.95 cents in Survey

No.73, Item No.3 an extent of Ac 2.74½ cents in Survey No’s.31/3 and 31/5 and

Item No.4 Two titled houses situated in Survey No.20 an extent of Ac 0.20 cents at V.Sarabhavaram Village, Rolugunta Mandalam into eight equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintif by metes and bounds in to consideration.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day January, 2018.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSIPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

12

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF :

PW1 : Maddapu Appalaraju-Plaintif. PW2 : Matsa Swamynaidu-3rd party

DEFENDANTS :Nil

No. of documents marked for PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/09.10.2008Legal notice. Ex.A2/Four unserved postal cover. Ex.A3/Five acknowledgments.

DEFENDANT: Nil

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSIPATNAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

NARSIPATNAM

Present: Sri G.Yagnanarayana, Addl. Junior Civil Judge.

Wednesday, this the 26 th day of September, 2018

CALENDAR CASE NO: 686/2008

Between: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nathavaram Police Station.

...Complainant

And: Adigarla Srinivasarao, s/o yerakayya, 21 years, Lingampeta village, h/o Manyapuratla, Nathavaram mandal.

...Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 26-09-2018 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and of Sri M.P.R Advocate for the accused, having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)The Charge stands against the accused for the offence u/sec.498-A IPC

2)The Sub Inspector of police, Nathavaram P.S filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/sec.498-A IPC in Cr.No.55/2006.

3) The brief facts of the case of prosecution is as follows:

The accused Adigarla Srinivasarao is resident of Lingampeta village of ,

Nathavaram mandal. This offence took place at Valasampeta village,

Nathavaram mandal, which comes under the jurisdiction of this court.

The Defacto complainant/LW-1 Adigarla Nagalakshmi married one Gali

Pydiraju of Chettupalli village, Narsipatnam mandal, the said marriage was dissolved on 10-06-2003 before Lok-Adalat Narsipatnam vide L.A.No.09/2003 in O.P.23/2002 since then LW-1 was residing at her parents house valasampeta village with her parents LW-2 Allu Rambabu , LW-3 Allu Gangayamma.

The accused Adigarla Srinivasarao has got intimacy with LW-1 Adigarla

Nagalakshmi, even prior to her marriage with Gali pydiraju, he continued the 2 said relation, later the accused proposed to marry LW-1 Adigarla Naga

Lakshmi,but her parents as well as parents of accused did not give their consent.

Then the accused Adigarla Srinivasarao, and LW-1 Adigarla Nagalakshmi left their houses without any intimation to the parents, married at a temple in

Kakinada in the presence of LW-9 Nandisetti Srirammurthy and LW-10 Palli

Satyavathi on 22-04-2006. The marriage of Adigarla Srinivasarao and

Nagalakshmi was registered at Marriage Registrar office, Kakinada on 15-05- 2006, later they came to parents house of Lw-1 Nagalakshmi, at Valasampeta village lead marital life by conviencing the parents and family members of LW- 1 Adigarla Nagalakshmi. Later, LW-1 Adigarla NagaLakshmi conceived pregnancy, two months after conceiving pregnancy, the accused abstained to come to house and further did not take LW-1 Nagalakshmi to the matrimonial house and did not lead conjugal life with LW-1 Nagalakshmi, thereby caused harassment against Nagalakshmi both mentally and physically.

4)On the report of LW-1 Adigarla Nagalakshmi, the SHO, Nathavaram P.S registered this case in Cr.No.55/2006 u/sec.498-A IPC took up investigation examined witnesses LW-1 to LW-12 namely Adigarla Nagalakshmi, Allu

Rambabu, Allu Gangayamma, Allu Srinivasarao, Gurrala Chakramma, Gurrala

Mahalakshmi, Surla Rambabu and others and also Joint Registrar Kakinada, (who registered their marriage) recorded their statements. The S.H.O arrested the accused on 25-08-2006 sent him for judicial remand, after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

5)This case was taken on file for the offence u/sec. 498-A IPC on appearance of accused case documents were furnished. Later the accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C in which he denied the charge u/sec.498-A IPC claim to be tried.

6)In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PW1 3 to 11, got marked Ex.P1 to P5 documents and on behalf defence EX:D-1 to D-3 marked. PW-1 defacto complainant/victim, PW-2 to 4 are parents and family members, PW-5 to 9 are neighbours and elders, PW-10 Sub-Registrar, PW-11

Investigation officer of this case. EX:p-1 report of PW-1, EX:P-2 is Requisition of S.H.O to the Sub-Registrar , EX:P-3 is the certificate of Marriage, EX:P-4 is

F.I.R, Ex:P-5 Sketch. EX:D-1 to D-4 portions of 161 statement of PW-09.

PW-1/defacto-complainant/victim deposed before the court her marriage with accused took place on 22-04-2006 at a temple in Kakinada, later the said marriage was registered on 15-05-2006 in Kakinada Sub Registrar office. After marriage, the accused took her to her parents house at valasampeta village lead marital life for about one month, the accused also promised to take her to his house situated at Lingampeta village, Nathavaram mandal, but subsequently abstained to come to her parents house, therefore she made phone calls and also made mediation through elders and parents, then accused gave negative reply by denying the very marital relation with him, therefore she gave report to police. She further deposed that the parents of the accused stated that they would perform second marriage to the accused, therefore she filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights obtained order against the accused, after her giving report to the police, she was examined by the police.

PW-2 to 4 are parents and family members and also PW-5 to 9 elders and neighbours corroborated the evidence of PW-1 in all material aspects. PW-10

Sub-Registrar Kakinada deposed about his registering of marriage of PW-1 and accused on 15-05-2006 issuance of EX:P-3 marriage certificate, later he was examined by the police and police obtained marriage certificates from his office. PW-11 investigation officer deposed that on 11-08-2006 on the report of

PW-1 he registered this case in Cr.No.55/2006 u/sec.498-A IPC, investigated into, after completion of investigation filing of chargesheet against the accused.

7)After closure of case of prosecution the accused was examined u/sec.

4 313 Cr.P.C in which he denied the evidence of Pw.1 to 11 as false reported no defence evidence.

8)Heard arguments from both sides.

9)Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec.498-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not ? As per section 498-A IPC, Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty; whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation : For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the women; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. The prosecution must porve that

(i) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment;

(ii)such cruelty or harassment was show neither by the husband of the woman or by the relative of the husband;

(iii) such cruelty was (1) with a view to drive her (a) to commit suicide; or (b) to cause grave ;injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical ; or

(iv) such harassment was (1) with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security; or (2)on account of failure by such woman or any person related to her to meet such unlawful demand.

10) The learned APP contended that prosecution could prove this case against the accused for the offence u/sec.498-A IPC from the evidence of Pw.1 to 11 and from material on record. She nextly contended that Pw.1 to 11 deposed cogent and clinching evidence their evidence is very much 5 corresponding with material on record and also corroborating to each other, though they were cross examined at length by counsel for accused nothing was elicited to deny the case of prosecution. The case against the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/sec.498-A IPC, pray the court to convict the accused according to law.

(The Ld.A.P.P submitted written arguments with a decision reported in

Crl.A.No.1457/1995 of Hon'ble Supreme court

Judgment dated 25-10-2002 between

Yedla Srinivasarao and others

and

K.Prema S.Rao and another

Wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in rural indian society where married women, who are unable to muster courage to fight against cruelty and harassment meted out to them by their spouses and family members, find no escape other than ending their own life and also further held the legislature has by amending the penal code and Evidence Act made penal Law more strident for dealing with and punishing offences against married women., Such strident laws would have a deterrent effect on the offenders only if they are so stringently implemented by the lalw courts to achieve the legislative intent.

In this case the Hon'ble Supreme court had taken decision though there is no charge u/sec.306 IPC in trial court as per facts and circumstances of the case convicted the accused for the offence u/sec.306 IPC also along with 6 the charge u/sec.498-A IPC.

The Ld.A.P.P by relying upon the above said decision pray the court to convict the accused for the offence u/sec.498-A IPC in the interest of Justice.

whereas counsel for accused contended that prosecution failed to prove this case against accused for the offence u/sec.498-A IPC either from the evidence of PW-1 to 11 or from the material on record. He nextly contended that all the witnesses are planted and intrested witness, they do not have any personal knowledge about alleged offence against the accused. Further

PW-1/Defacto complainant never stated either in EX:P-1 report or in evidence

before the court any harassment by the accused either for dowry or additional

dowry and also in any other manner to prove this offence u/sec.498-A IPC against the accused. He further contended there is no marriage between PW-1 and the accused and they never lead marital life at any point of time. PW-1 gave false report against the accused inorder to get monetary benefits from the accused family and to lead luxurious life in the family of accused. On the false report of PW-1, the police made table investigation, filed false case against the accused, the evidence and admissions of PW-1 to 11 and the material on record reveals that it is a false case filed against the accused as stated above, the case against the accused has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts, pray the court to acquit the accused in the interest of justice.

Inpursuance of the above said contentions the counsel for the accused relied upon decisions reported in LAWS(SC)2017,

Supreme court of India , dated 05-09-2017

Criminal Appeal No.1565 of 2017 (Arisiang from SLP(Crl)No.5458/2016) 7

Between

VARALA BHARATH KUMAR AND ORS

Vs

STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS.

Wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme court and observed the following in the said case u/sec.498-A and 406

IPC Marriage between the first appellant and the second respondent (complainant) was solemnized at Hyderabad as per

Hindu rites and rituals. They lived together for about 20 days in matrimonial house. Thereafter, the first appellant left India and went to Australia, where he is working as an engineer. It is alleged by the second respondent, that during her stay t the matrimonial house for the period of afore -mentioned 20 days, the first appellant did not come close to the complainant and he was not even willing to talk freely with the complainant, despite her sincere efforts to come close to her husband -

There is nothing on record to show that there was a demand of dowry by the appellants or any of their relatives, either prior to the marriage, during the marriage or after the marriage, the record also does not disclose anywhere that the husband of the complainant acted, with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security. The allegations made in the first Information

Report as well as the material collected during the investigation even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their 8 entirety, do not primafacie constitute the offences punishable u/sec.498-A of the IPC against the accused/appellants

By relying upon the above said decision of Hon'ble Supreme court, the counsel for accused contended that the facts and circumstances of this case is also one and the same, accused never married PW-1 and never lead marital life with her and never harassed her either for dowry or additional dowry or in any other manner to attract the ingredients of the offence u/sec.498-A IPC, the prosecution failed to prove the above said ingredients of the offence by adducing any positive evidence, hence pray the court to acquit the accused in the interest of Justice.

11)Adverting to the above said contention of both parties on careful scrutiny the material on record and evidence of Pw.1 to 11 this court found that as rightly contended by A.P.P, the evidence of PW-1 to 11 is found very much corresponding with material on record and also corroborating to each other.

However, basing on the above said contention of counsel for accused on further scrutiny the material on record and evidence of PW-1 to 11, this court found following;

(a) Though the counsel for accused contended that there is no marriage between PW-1 and accused, and accused never married PW-1 as per Hindu rites and customs, PW-1/defacto complainant and her parents family members i.e, PW-2 to 4 fabricated false documents and filed false case against the accused. There is no marital relation between both parties and there is no leading conjugal life by both parties, filing of this case against accused without any marital relation is not maintainable either under law or on facts, on that mere ground the case of prosecution is liable for dismissal.

But, the above said contention of counsel for accused is found mere 9 contention without eliciting anything from the evidence of PW-1 to 11 or adducing any evidence in support of the said contention. Further on scruitny the evidence of PW-1 to 10 it categorically reveals that the accused married

PW-1 at Kakinada on 22-04-2006 at Sri Balatripurasundari temple, later the said marriage was got registered at Marriage Registrar office, Kakinada on 15- 05-2006. It is also nextly found by this court the evidence of PW-1 to 10 also reveals that prior to marriage and after the marriage,both PW-1 and accused lead marital life at Kakinada as well as in Valasampeta village for about 2 months . Though the prosecution failed to prove that the marriage between both parties was taken place by following Sapthapadi and other rituals, but inview of facts and circumstances of this case and the evidence of PW-1 to 11 and the material on record it can be said that accused married PW-1 on 22-04- 2006 at Sri Balatripurasundaridevi temple Kakinada, thereafter lead marital life as wife and husband and their marriage was conjumated. Therefore PW-1 is found legally wedded wife of accused, and she lead marital life with the accused for about 2 months as alleged by the prosecution .

(b) However, as rightly contended by counsel for accused though prosecution alleged that the accused committed this offence against PW-1 by leaving her at her parents house and he abstained to come to PW-1 to lead marital life, thereby harassed PW-1 and further alleged that the accused tried to get second marriage with another woman and further alleged that he denied his very marital relation with PW-1 in the presence of elders and confessed that he enjoyed PW-1 for his lust thereby committed this offence u/sec.498-A IPC.

But the evidence of PW-1/defacto complainant and EX:P-1 report contents not disclosing any harassment by the accused against PW-1 either for dowry or additional dowry. And further there is no evidence on record that accused acted with a view to coerce PW-1 or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security. The allegation 10 made in EX:P-1 report, as well as the material on record and the evidence of

PW-1 to 11 not disclosing any material against the accused to prove the offence u/sec.498-A IPC as alleged by the prosecution. Further the very allegations stated above against the accused are also found no nexus with the alleged offence.

Further as rightly contended by counsel for accused, as per admissions of PW-1/Defacto-complainant by saying " I gave report to the police for restitution of conjugal rights with accused " she also admitted that " I do not know the contents of EX:P-1 Report " She nextly admitted that " It is true after filing of this case the accused did not marry anybody ".

The above said admission of PW-1/Defactocomplainant also categorically reveals that she doesn't have any intention to give report to the police to punish the accused for the offence u/sec.498-A IPC and further reveals that she doesn't have any knowledge about the contents of EX:P-1 report and also reveals that the accused never intended to get second marriage as alleged by the prosecution.

(c)It is also nextly found by this court as rightly contended by counsel for accused though PW-2 to PW-4 the parents and family members of PW-1 deposed evidence that accused denied the very marriage and he confessed

before elders , he fulfilled his lust by spending with PW-1 for about one month,

except that he doesn't have any intention to lead marital life, but the said evidence of Pw-2 to 4 was not corroborated by any elder, who alleged to have made mediations with accused before PW-2 to 4. In the absence of evidence of elders, who alleged to have made mediations, the mere evidence of PW-2 to 4 is found nothing but hearsay evidence, therefore it can not be taken in to consideration to say that accused lead life with PW-1 to fulfill his sexual lust as alleged.

(d) It is also nextly found by this court as rightly contended by counsel for 11 accused, though prosecution examined PW-5 to 8 witnesses who alleged to have witnessed the alleged offence committed by the accused, but the said witness never deposed about accused harassed PW-1 either for dowry or

additional dowry or in any other manner, except with regard to factum of

leading marital life by accused with PW-1 at the house of PW-2 & 3 at

Valasampeta village.

(e)It is also nextly found by this court as rightly contended by counsel for accused it is an admitted fact by Investigating officer as per EX:P-1 Report, there is no demand of dowry or additional dowry and as per EX:P-1 Report,

PW-1 requested for restitution of her conjugal rights. Though the accused denied about his very marital relation but it is an admitted fact that PW-1 obtained orders in H.M.O.P before Senior Civil Judge court, Narsipatnam for

Restitution of conjugal rights.

12) All the above said facts and circumstances of this case, evidence and admissions of PW-1 to 11 and the suggestions given by the accused during the course of cross examination and material on record categorically reveals that the first marriage of PW-1 with her first husband was dissolved before Lok-

Adalat, thereafter accused married PW-1 on 22-04-2006, later the said marriage was registered on 15-05-2006, thereafter they lead marital life and their marriage was consumated. But, the above said facts and circumstances and evidence on record reveals that the marriage of both parties performed against to the consent of parents of both parties and without any intimation to the parents and relatives, the said marriage was performed. Later both lead marital life for about 2 months, later they are living separately for the reasons best known to them. The prosecution failed to prove that accused intentionally avoided the conjugal life with PW-1 harassed her for dowry or additional dowry and also for any property or valuable security from the persons related to PW-1 to prove the ingredient of offence u/sec.498-A IPC, thereby prosecution failed 12 to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec.498-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubts, hence accused is given benefit of doubt.

13) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/sec.

498-A IPC hence he is acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 26 th

day of September, 2018.

Sd/- G.Yagnanarayana

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARSIPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence: None PW1Adigarla Nagalakshmi PW2Allu Rambabu PW3Allu Srinivasarao PW4Gurrala Chakramma PW-5Gurrala Mahalakshmi PW-6Surla Rambabu PW-7Surla Rambabu PW-8Podugu Pandamma PW-9Namisetti Srirammurthy PW-10 K.Nageswararao PW-11 L.Ramanababu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1/Report of PW-1 dated 11-08-2006 Ex.P2/requisition of S.H.O, Narsipatnam to the Sub Registrar Ex.P3/copy of Marriage certificate dated 15-05-2006 Ex.P4/F.I.R dated 11-08-2006 Ex.P5/Rough sketch dated 11-08-2006

For Defence: EX:D-1 to D-4 are portion of 161 statement of PW-09

dated 23-08-2006

Material Objects - NIL –

Sd/- G.Yagnanarayana

AJCJ/NRPM

//True copy attested//

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam.

13

Calendar and Judgment District: Visakhapatnam

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

NARSIPATNAM

CALENDAR CASE NO:686/2008

Date of offence: 11-08-2006

Report or complaint: 11-08-2006

Apprehension: 25-08-2006

Release on bail : on bail

Commencement of trial: 17-02-2014

Close of trial : 13-12-2017

Sentence or order : 26-09-2018

Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the Complainant: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nathavaram Police Station.

Name of the Accused: Adigarla Srinivasarao, s/o yerakayya, 21 years, Lingampeta village, h/o Manyapuratla, Nathavaram mandal.

Offence : U/Sec.498-A IPC

Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/sec. 498-A IPC hence he is acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Sd/- G.Yagnanarayana

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARSIPATNAM

//True copy attested//

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

NARSIPATNAM

Present: Sri G.Yagnanarayana, Addl. Junior Civil Judge.

Thursday, this the 02nd day of January, 2020

CALENDAR CASE NO:834/2019

Between: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsipatnam Town Police Station.

...Complainant

And: Gondi Sairam Kiran @ Sai, s/o Late Kondababu, aged about 19 years, SC Mala, SC colony, Narsipatnam Town and Mandal.

...Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 30-12-2019 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri V.D.V.Murthy Legal Aid counsel for the accused having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)The charge stands against the accused for the offence U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC.

2) The Sub Inspector of Police, Narsipatnam Town police station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC in Cr. No.358/19.

3)The brief facts of the case of prosecution is as follows:

The accused Gondi Sairam Kiran @ Sai is resident of SC colony of

Narsipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. This offence took place at

Area hospital, Narsipatnam which comes under the Jurisdiction of this court.

4) The defacto complainant/LW1 Gali Sravan Kumar is resident of

Nindugonda village of Rolugunta Mandal. On 12-08-2019 LW2 Gali

Sriramamurthy who is father of LW1 was suffering from ill health then both came to Govt. Hospital, Narsipatnam admitted into hospital. While so on 13-08-2019 during night hours some unknown offenders gained 2 entrance into the patient room of Gali Srirama Murthy committed theft of

Motorola cell phone worth of Rs.10,000/- of LW1 Gali Sravan Kumar. The theft was noticed by LW 1 and 2 at early hours searched for the cell phone verified the CC camera footage, later gave report to SHO,

Narsipatnam Town PS for necessary action.

5) On the report of LW1 Gali Sravan Kumar the SHO Narsipatnam

Town PS registered this case in Cr. No.358/19 for the offence U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC took up investigation examined witnesses LW 1 to 3 namely

Gali Sravan Kumar, Gali Srirama Murthy and M.Y.S.Harsha recorded their statements. The SHO also visited place of offence prepared sketch. On 14-08-2019 secured the mediators LW4 Setti Venkata Rajarao and LW5

Gorle Srinivas arrested the accused at Govt. Hospital, Narsipatnam recovered this case property Motorola Cell phone under cover of mediator report sent the accused for Judicial remand. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

6) This case was taken on file for the offence U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC on appearance of accused case documents were furnished later he was examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charge U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC claim to be tried.

7) In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PW 1 to 3, got marked EX P1 to P4 and MO1. PW1 defacto complainant, PW2 mediator and PW3 Investigation officer of this case.

EX P1 report of PW1, EX P2 mediator report, EX P3 FIR, EX P4 sketch.

MO1 Motorola Cell Phone.

PW1 defacto complainant deposed before the court on 12-08-2019 as his father Srirama Murthy was suffering from ill health got admitted into Govt. Hospital, Narsipatnam while they were sleeping in the hospital 3 room during night hours some unknown offenders committed theft of his cell phone MO1, therefore he gave report to police, he was examined by police. PW2 arrest mediator deposed before the court on 14-08-2019 at 10:00 AM the police arrested the accused in his presence at Govt.

Hospital, Narsipatnam recovered MO1 cell phone under cover of EX P2 report. PW3 Investigation officer deposed about his registering of this case on 14-08-2019 on the report of PW1 as case in Cr. No.358/19 for the offence U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC investigated into after completion of investigation filing of charge sheet against the accused.

8) After closure of case of prosecution the accused was examined u/sec 313 Cr.P.C in which he denied the evidence of PW 1 to 3 as false reported no defence evidence.

9) Heard arguments from both sides.

10) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not ? As per Sec. 379 IPC: Punishment for theft - whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. The ingredients are as under:

i) intending to take dishonestly, ii) any movable property, iii) out of the possession of any person, iv) without the (express of implied) consent of that person or of any person having for that purpose(expressed or implied) authority,

v) moves that property in order to such taking is said to commit theft. And as per Sec.411 IPC: Dishonestly receiving stolen property - whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. The ingredients are as follows:

4

i) The property was stolen. ii) it was received and retained by the accused, and iii)The accused knew or had reason to believe the property to be stolen. It is immaterial whether the receiver knows or not who stole it.

11) The learned APP contended that prosecution could prove this case against the accused for the offence U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC from the evidence of PW 1 to 3 and from material on record. She nextly contended that PW 1 to 3 deposed cogent and clinching evidence, their evidence is very much corresponding with material on record and also corroborating to each other, though they were cross examined at length, nothing was elicited by the counsel for the accused to deny the case of prosecution. Therefore, the case against the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts, pray the court to convict the accused according to law.

12) Whereas counsel for accused contended that prosecution failed to prove this case against the accused for the offence U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC either from the evidence of PW 1 to 3 or from the material on record. He nextly contended that PW 1 to 3 deposed contradictory evidence their evidence is not corresponding with material on record. There is no evidence of eye witness on record to prove the alleged offence against the accused U/sec. 379 IPC and also there is no evidence of mediators on record to prove the offence U/sec.411 IPC i.e., for the arrest of accused and seizure of case property from his possession. The MO1 Motorola Cell

Phone is planted material object and this is a false case filed against the accused for statistical purpose. The case against the accused has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt pray the court to acquit the accused in the interest of justice.

13) Adverting to the above said contention of both parties on careful 5 perusal the material on record and evidence of PW 1 to 3 this court found following. As rightly contended by APP the evidence of PW 1 to 3 is very much corresponding with material on record and also corroborating to each other.

14) However, in view of above said contention of counsel for accused on further scrutiny the material on record and evidence of PW 1 to 3 this court found following:

a) Though the counsel for accused contended that PW1 gave false report for wrongful gains but admittedly the case property is being

Motorola Cell Phone purchased by PW1 this court has not found any falsity in filing of EX P1 complaint by PW1, he is found as lost his cell phone he constrained to give EX P1 complaint to police for necessary action on 14-08-2019. Therefore it cannot be said that the complaint filed by PW1 is false complaint for illegal gains. Moreover the defacto complaint does have purchase bill with him vide invoice dated 16-02- 2018, hence this contention of counsel for accused is found no merits to consider.

b) It is also nextly found by this court though the counsel for accused further contended that PW2 arrest mediator is no other than villager of

PW1 except the said mediator no other independent mediator was secured for the alleged arrest of the accused and seizure of this case property. EX P2 mediator report prepared at PS with the help of mediators PW2 and others filed false case against the accused. But this contention of counsel for accused is also found no merits as per evidence of PW2 at request of police, Narsipatnam on 14-08-2019 at 10:00 AM he acted as mediator police arrested the accused at Govt.

Hospital, Narsipatnam seized MO1 Motorola Cell Phone in his presence 6 under cover of EX P2. Though PW2 belongs to villager of PW1 i.e., Nidigal village, as seen from case record the other mediator LW5 namely Gorle

Srinivas is found resident of Ayyanna Colony, Narsipatnam, therefore it cannot be said that the police with the help of interested persons prepared EX P2 report filed false case as contended. Moreover this court has not found any animosity between PW 1, 2 and accused to file false case as contended. Therefore the evidence of PW2/mediator is categorically revealing that accused was arrested on 14-08-2019 in his presence recovered MO1 from his possession as it being stolen property.

c) It is also nextly found by this court though the counsel for accused further contended that there is no evidence of independent eye witness on record to say that accused was the person who committed theft of

MO1 from possession of PW1. But the evidence of PW 1 to 3 and the material on record categorically reveals that on 13-08-2019 during night hours the accused gained entrance into the hospital room of PW 1 and 2 committed theft of MO1 cell phone. The evidence of PW 1 and 3 also reveals that the accused was found in CC camera footages of Govt.

Hospital, Narsipatnam where this offence was taken place. Therefore this court found the evidence of PW 1 to 3 and the material on record found quite sufficient to prove the alleged offences against the accused, hence this court found no merits in the contention of counsel for accused to consider.

14) All the above said facts and circumstances of this case evidence of PW 1 to 3 and the material on record categorically reveals that PW1 lost his cell phone on 13-08-2019 at Govt. Hospital, Narsipatnam on his report this case was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation PW3 arrested the accused in the presence of PW2 on 14- 08-2019 recovered MO1 stolen property under cover of EX P2. The 7 accused is found dishonestly retain the stolen property MO1 cell phone having reason to believe the MO1 is stolen property and it is belongs to

PW1, therefore the accused is found liable for punishment for the alternative charge of 411 IPC, hence he is convicted U/sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C.

15) In the result the accused is found guilty for the offence

U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC hence he is convicted U/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.

16) When accused is questioned about quantum of sentence for the offence U/sec. 411 IPC he represented that he is having old aged parents who are depending upon him if he is sentenced to imprisonment they will suffer a lot pray the court to take lenient view.

17) In view of nature of offence and facts and circumstances of this case this court don’t want take any lenient view and don’t want apply any benevolent provisions of P.O.Act and benefit U/sec.360 Cr.P.C, thereby punished the accused by sentencing him to simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of fine S.I for 3 (Three) months. The MO1 Motorola Cell Phone was returned to defacto complainant/PW1 vide Crl.M.P /19 vide order

dated 21-10-2019 is found stands good.

18) The remand period of accused from 14-08-2019 to 02-02-2020 i.e., 4 months 19 days shall be set off U/sec.428 Cr.P.C.

19) The accused is informed about his right of appeal against this

Judgment before Hon’ble District Court, Visakhapatnam when he questioned about his means to prefer an appeal against this Judgment he reported no means, hence legal aid counsel is intimated.

Typed to Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 02nd day of January, 2020.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARSIPATNAM

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence: None PW1Gali Sravan Kumar PW2Setti Venkata Rajarao, mediator PW3K. Lakshmana Rao, SI of Police, Narsipatnam Town PS

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nill Ex.P1Report of PW1 dated 14-08-2019 Ex.P2Mediator report dated 14-08-2019 Ex.P3FIR dated 14-08-2019 Ex.P4Sketch dated 14-08-2019

Material Objects MO1 Motorola Cell Phone

AJCJ/NRPM 9

Calendar and Judgment District: Visakhapatnam

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NARSIPATNAM

CALENDAR CASE NO:834/2019

Date of offence: 13-08-2019

Report or complaint: 14-08-2019

Apprehension: 14-08-2019

Release on bail : ----------------

Commencement of trial : 21-10-2019

Close of trial : 22-10-2019

Sentence or order : 02-01-2020

Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution. Name of the Complainant: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsipatnam Town Police Station. Name of the Accused: Gondi Sairam Kiran @ Sai, s/o Late Kondababu, aged about 19 years, SC Mala, SC colony, Narsipatnam Town and Mandal.

Offence : U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC

Finding : Found guilty

Sentence: I n the result the accused is found guilty for the offence U/sec. 379 or 411 IPC hence he is convicted U/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. In view of nature of offence and facts and circumstances of this case this court don’t want take any lenient view and don’t want apply any benevolent provisions of P.O.Act and benefit U/sec.360 Cr.P.C, thereby punished the accused by sentencing him to simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year and imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of fine S.I for 3 (Three) months. The MO1 Motorola Cell Phone was returned to defacto complainant/PW1 vide Crl.M.P /19 vide order dated 21-10- 2019 is found stands good. The remand period of accused from 14-08-2019 to 02-02-2020 i.e., 4 months 19 days shall be set off U/sec.428 Cr.P.C. The accused is informed about his right of appeal against this Judgment before Hon’ble District Court, Visakhapatnam when he questioned about his means to prefer an appeal against thisJudgment he reported no means, hence legal aid counsel is intimated.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARSIPATNAM

1O.S.No.205/2012 PJCJ cum JMFCC, NRPM

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT NARSIPATNAM

Present: Sri G.Yagnanarayana,

Additional Junior Civil Judge cum-

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Narsipatnam. FAC. Principal Junior Civil Judge cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam.

Thursday, this the 12th day of March, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.205/2012

Between:

Kuracha Demudu, S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, K.Velama, Aged 65 years,

Residing at Balighattam Village, Narsipatnam Mandal. . . . . . . Plaintif AND

Lagudu Parvathinaidu, S/o Thathalu, K.Velama, Aged about 50 years, Residing at Balighattam Village, Narsipatnam Mandal.

. . . . . . Defendant

This case coming before me for final hearing on 28.02.2020 in the presence of Sri N.Chalapathi Rao and Smt.S.Vasavadatta, counsels for the plaintif and of Sri Ch.Gangadhara Prabhu, Advocate for the defendant and later the defendant having been called absent, set exparte having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is the suit filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of debt of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) covered under suit promissory note dated 01.03.2009 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % per annum and for recovery of subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

2.The brief facts of the case of the plaintif is as follows:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty 2O.S.No.205/2012 PJCJ cum JMFCC, NRPM thousand only) from the plaintif on 01.03.2009 for his family expenses executed suit promissory note on the even date, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % per annum on demand either to the plaintif or to his order. Subsequently, inspite of several demands made by the plaintif, the defendant made part payment of Rs.600/- towards interest to the plaintif on 10.12.2011 and endorsed the same on suit promissory note. Thereafter, the plaintif demanded several times, but the defendant did not repay the suit promissory note debt. The plaintif claimed interest as per contract rate i.e., 24 % p.a as the defendant is not agriculturist. Therefore, the plaintif constrained to file this suit for recovery of suit debt of Rs.55,260/- (Rupees fifty five thousand two hundred and sixty only) together with interest and costs of the suit.

3.The defendant filed his written statement wherein he denied the plaint averments as false and submitted that the plaintif never made any demands either orally or personally or through anybody else for the suit promissory note amount. The defendant did not make any part payment endorsement of Rs.600/- on the suit promissory note dated 10.12.2011. The defendant did not execute the suit promissory note or the alleged part payment endorsement. The suit promissory note and the part payment endorsement are fabricated by the plaintif to wreak vengeance against the defendant in view of the family disputes. The defendant is an agriculturist and he is not liable to pay interest @ 24 % p.a. on the suit promissory note amount. The defendant did not receive any legal notice prior to filing of the suit. The alleged attestors of the suit promissory note are the henchmen of the plaintif’s family. The suit promissory note sufers from material alterations and it is not maintainable under Law and the suit is liable to be dismissed, as there is no cause of action against the defendant. Therefore, the defendant prays the court to dismiss suit with costs.

3O.S.No.205/2012 PJCJ cum JMFCC, NRPM

4.Basing on the above pleadings of both parties and after hearing both parties this court settled the following issues for adjudication:

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 01.03.2009 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the suit promissory note and part payment endorsement are fabricated by the plaintif as contended by the defendant?

3. Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the entire suit amount from the defendant with subsequent interest and costs as prayed for?

4. To what relief ?

5.In order to prove the case of the plaintifs, the plaintif himself examined as PW1, filed his chief affidavit wherein he reiterated the entire contents of his plaint averments in support of his oral evidence, he got marked

Exs.A1 – Suit Promissory note and Ex.A2 – Part payment endorsment made by the defendant and case is posted for cross examination of PW1 on 02.07.2013.

On 02.07.2013 PW1 did not appear before court. For appearance of PW1 on costs of Rs.50 and case is posted on 10.07.2013. On 10.07.2013 PW1 did not appear before the court and costs not paid, no representation, hence suit is dismissed for default, no costs.

6.The petitioner/plaintif filed I.A.123/2015 to set aside the dismissal order dated 10.07.2013 and the same is allowed, hence, suit is restored. The defendant did not appear before the court to cross examine PW1, inspite of many adjournments given by the court and conditional order passed on 22.11.2019. On 31.01.2020 PW1 present, defendant called absent, no representation, hence he is set exparte. The learned counsel for the plaintif reported no further evidence hence, heard arguments from the counsel for the plaintif.

7.In view of above said contentions of both parties on careful perusal 4O.S.No.205/2012 PJCJ cum JMFCC, NRPM the material on record and Issue No’s.1 to 4 are being found inter-related in nature they are being taken up together for adjudication:

ISSUE NOS.1 TO 3:

8.According to PW1/plaintif and the material on record. The plaintif could prove that on 01.03.2009 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) from the plaintif for his family expenses and executed suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % per annum on demand either to the plaintif or to his order.

Subsequently, inspite of several demands made by the plaintif, the defendant made part payment of Rs.600/- towards interest to the plaintif on 10.12.2011 and endorsed the same on suit promissory note. Thereafter, the plaintif demanded several times, but failed to discharge the said debt inspite of repeated demands. Therefore the plaintif constrained to file this suit for recovery of suit debt of Rs.55,260/- (Rupees fifty five thousand two hundred and sixty only).

9.The defendant made allegations in his written statement that the defendant never executed any promissory note and part payment endorsement in favour of the plaintif and they are fabricated by the plaintif and the suit promissory note is having material alterations and no demand was made or did not receive legal notice prior to filing of this suit by the plaintif.

10.But, the defendant failed to come forward before the court to prove his written statement averments. Hence, this court feels that the defendant has taken the pleas only to evade the payment of the suit debt to the plaintif.

Moreover, the evidence of PW1 on record is found unchallenged evidence, hence, the plaintif by examining himself as PW1 and by marking Exs.A1 and

A2 has proved his case. Hence, it can be said that the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount with interest as prayed for. Accordingly, Issues Nos.1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant.

5O.S.No.205/2012 PJCJ cum JMFCC, NRPM

ISSUE NO.4:

4. To what relief?

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant whereby the defendant is directed to pay an amount of

Rs.55,260/- (Rupees fifty five thousand two hundred and sixty only) together with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of March, 2020.

Additional Junior Civil Judge cum-

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

FAC. Principal Junior Civil Judge cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: Kuracha Demudu -Plaintif

DEFENDANT: Nil No. of documents marked for PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/01.03.2009: Original suit promissory note. Ex.A2/10.12.2011: Part payment endorsement made by the defendant.

DEFENDANT: Nil

Additional Junior Civil Judge cum-

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

FAC. Principal Junior Civil Judge cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam.

Date of presentation: 11.10.2012 Date of filing: 11.10.2012

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT NARSIPATNAM

Present: Sri G.Yagnanarayana,

Additional Junior Civil Judge cum-

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Narsipatnam. FAC. Principal Junior Civil Judge cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam.

Thursday, this the 12th day of March, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.205/2012

Between:

Kuracha Demudu, S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, K.Velama, Aged 65 years,

Residing at Balighattam Village, Narsipatnam Mandal. . . . . . . Plaintif AND

Lagudu Parvathinaidu, S/o Thathalu, K.Velama, Aged about 50 years, Residing at Balighattam Village, Narsipatnam Mandal.

. . . . . . Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintif for recovery of a sum of

Rs.55,260/- from the defendant being the amount of principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 01.03.2009 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.30,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % per annum, recovery of subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

Value of the suit is Rs.55,260/- and court fee of Rs.2,546/- is paid under Sec.20 r/w Art.I (b & c) of Sch.I of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 28.02.2020 in the presence of Sri N.Chalapathi Rao and Smt.S.Vasavadatta, counsels for the plaintif and of Sri Ch.Gangadhara Prabhu, Advocate for the defendant and later the defendant having been called absent, set exparte having stood over till this day for consideration this court doth order; and : : 2: :

O.S.No.205/2012

PJCJ cum JMFC, NRPM

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintif and the defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.55,260/- together with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of the suit i.e. 11.10.2012 till the date of decree and subsequent interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.30,000/-; and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.2,583/- towards institutional costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 12th day of March, 2020.

Additional Junior Civil Judge cum-

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

FAC. Principal Junior Civil Judge cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintif: For Defendant: Nil Rs. Stamps on Vakalat: 2-00 Stamps on Plaint: 2,546-00 Stamps on Process: 35-00 ------------------ Institutional costs allowed: 2,583-00 ------------------

Additional Junior Civil Judge cum-

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

FAC. Principal Junior Civil Judge cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam.