Gannarapu Sudarshan

Spl. Sessions Judge of FTC for POCSO Cases, Jagtial

Jagitial, PDJ Court Complex · Jagitial · Telangana

GANNARAPU SUDARSHAN, Spl. Sessions Judge of FTC for POCSO Cases, Jagtial, is posted at Jagitial, PDJ Court Complex, Jagitial, Telangana, India. 717 court orders on record since 2019. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles MVOP, CRLA, SC cases.

717

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

SC/109/2018 Acquitted

M.Ashok, SI of Police, Metpalli. vs Eleshwaram Venugopal

26 Apr 2022

1 S.C.No.109/2018

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR AT JAGTIAL.

PRESENT: G.SUDARSHAN II-Addl. Sessions Judge,

KARIMNAGAR AT JAGTIAL.

TUESDAY, THE 26th DAY OF APRIL, 2022.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 109 of 2018

(On committal by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpalli vide PRC.No.8 of 2017 order dated 19.02.2018.)

Name of the :The Sub Divisional Police Officer, complainantsJagtial in Cr.No.184 of 2016 of PS Metpalli.

Description of the :Eleshawaram Venugopal, S/o. Sathaiah. Age: 34 years. Goldsmith, accused R/o. Allipoor.

Charges:U/s. 304-B of IPC.

Plea of the accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:N O T G U I L T Y

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.498-A, 304-B IPC and under Section 235(1), Cr.P.C. they are acquitted of the said offence. The accused A1 and A2 shall be set at liberty and their bail bond shall stand cancelled after six months.

Prosecution conducted by:Miss. D.Srivani, Additional Public Prosecutor

Defence conducted by:Sri V. Venugopal, Advocate.

2 S.C.No.109/2018 :: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jagtial has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.184 of 2016 of P.S. Metpalli for the offence punishable

Under Section 304-B I.P.C against the accused.

2. The prosecution case in brief as per the charge sheet is as follows:- On 5.1.2013 the marriage of deceased Nagalaxmi performed with accused. At the time of marriage, the parents of the deceased presented net cash of Rs.5 Lakhs, 100 gms gold, motor cycle worth of

Rs.50,000/- and household articles towards dowry. After the marriage, they look after the deceased well for a period of one month. The accused working as a Cashier in Deccan Grameena Bank, Raikal. Having illegal intimacy with a lady, with an intention to avoid the deceased. The elder brother in law of deceased, her co-sister/Rani, sister-inlaw and on her husband started harassing the deceased physically and mentally demanding to bring Rs,20 Lakhs as additional dowry. The deceased was subjected to harassment physically and mentally for six months, finally they necked out her from the house. As such the deceased came to their house and stayed. The accused and his relatives contacted the deceased over phone several times and harassed her mentally stating that why she is living by 3 S.C.No.109/2018 eating eatables, as she failed to bring additional dowry Rs.20 Lakhs. Due to which she disgusted over her life, as such she fell ill-health. Due to unbearable mental harassment, the deceased fell mental agony and ill- health, she died on 13.8.2016. Basing on the complaint lodged by LW1.

The SHO of PS Metpalli registered vide in Crime no. 184/2016

U/sec. 304-B of IPC. After completion of investigation charge sheet is filed against accused. Hence, the charge.

3. Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpalli took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC against accused, after complying with the requirement of furnishing with copies of relevant documents to the accused under Section 207, Cr.P.C., the said Magistrate committed the case under Section 209(a), Cr.P.C. to the Hon'ble Principal Court of Session, Sessions Division, Karimnagar.

4. The Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar registered the case and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law. After appearance of the accused after hearing both sides this Court framed charge for the offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC against 4 S.C.No.109/2018 accused , read over and explained to him in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In support of prosecution case P.Ws.1 to 14 were got examined and Exhibits P.1 to P.21 and M.Os.1 to 4 were got exhibited on behalf of the prosecution.

6. After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution side evidence. He reported he is having defence evidence. The accused permitted to give evidence as per the orders in Crl.MP No.70 of 2022 dt: 18.2.2022 as

DW1. Ex.D1 to D6 are marked.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The learned prosecutor argued that the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused by the evidence of PWs1 to PWs3 and Pws 10 to 13, hence the accused is liable for conviction.

5 S.C.No.109/2018

9. The learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments and argued that there is no any evidence on record to attract the ingredients of Sec. 304-B IPC. More particularly the death of the deceased is a natural death and all the witnesses admitted the said fact.

He further argued that except the evidence of PWs1 to3 absolutely there is no other material evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The learned counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the allegation raised by Pws 1 to 3 that the accused had illegal intimacy with another women. He also argued that there is an abnormal delay in lodging complaint before the police.

10. The learned counsel argued that on seeing the evidence, it clearly shows that after due deliberations, the complaint was lodged on 14.08.2016 at 4.00 P.M. Whereas the deceased found dead at 6.00 A.M.

That itself shows the defacto complainant intentionally foisted the case against the accused. The learned counsel further argued that the accused already filed a divorce petition against the deceased, which is pending on the file of Sr.Civil Judge, Court, Jagtial vide OP No. 4/2014.

In support of his argument the learned counsel relied on the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sandeept Kumar and others Vs. State of 6 S.C.No.109/2018

Uttarakhand 2) Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of Uttarpradesh and another.

Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

10. On hearing both sides and on the evidence on records the following points are arising for consideration.:

1)Whether the prosecution proved the ingredients for the offences U/sec. 304-B of IPC and 498-A of IPC in the present case ?

2)Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under which the accused charged ?

3) To what result?

11.POINT No.1: & 2- Before discussing on the points it is better to discuses the evidence on record. PW1 is the brother of the deceased, he deposed that the deceased Nagalaxmi died on 14.8.2016. It is his further evidence that his sister Nagalaxmni marriage took placed with the accused on 5.1.2013. At the time of marriage, they have paid Rs.5 Lakhs dowry, 100 gms of gold and Rs.15,000/- for the purpose of motor cycle were paid to the accused. He also stated that they have spend around of

Rs.4 lakhs for the purpose of marriage expenses. It is his further evidence that they have also given furniture worth of Rs.2 Lakhs apart from sarees. After the marriage, the accused and deceased lead marital 7 S.C.No.109/2018 life for month. Thereafter, the accused started harassing his deceased sister. The accused developed illegal intimacy with another woman and started harassing deceased in order to get ride of her. The accused beat the deceased demanding additional dowry of Rs. 20 Lakhs. PW1 further stated that once when he accompanied with his sister to the house of accused to drop her, on seeing them, the accused broken the TV remote by shouting on deceased stating, why she again came to his house, by saying so, he send them out of the house. 10 or 15 days thereafter, her father paid Rs.5 Lakhs to accused, but the accused did not took back his deceased sister. One week or 10 days thereafter, his father took the deceased to the house of accused in order to drop her. On seeing his father and deceased, he shouted by damaging the tourchlight, he shouted stating why she again came to their house, by saying so, he went away. On that her father and deceased returned back.

After some days, her father called a panchayath before the elders, but the accused did not turned up. The accused used to call to her father and deceased, he used to demand additional dowry. Due to harassment of the accused, the deceased fed up on her life, as the accused having illegal contact with another women and harassed her mentally and physically.

8 S.C.No.109/2018

The accused elder brother, sister in law, his elder sister and her husband also used to harass his deceased sister demanding for additional dowry, when his sister was in the house of accused. In the month of July, 2016 his father died in a road accident. Since, the accused is not living with his sister and having illegal contact with other women, as such the deceased used to suffer mentally. Due to mental agony the deceased died on 14.8.2016. He further stated that they have informed about the death of the deceased to the accused and his relatives, but no one turned up. Then

PW1 went to police station lodged Ex.P1 report.

PW2 is the another brother of the deceased , he also celebrated evidence of PW1 regarding the marriage of deceased and payment of dowry to the accused at the time of marriage. He also stated about the harassment of the accused for additional dowry and demand of plot. It is his further evidence about calling the deceased over phone and harassing her for demand of dowry. He also stated that finally the deceased died due to mental agony.

PW3 is the sister of Pws1 to 3 and deceased. She also stated same evidence as PW1 and PW2 regarding the marriage of deceased with 9 S.C.No.109/2018 accused and payment of dowry. She further stated that the deceased was subjected to harassment by the accused for want of additiondal dowry of Rs.20 Lakhs. It is her further evidence that due to harassment and mental agony, the deceased committed suicide on 14.8.2016.

PW4 is the panch witness for the inquest panchanama and scene of offence. He deposed that on 14.8.2016 police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and also stated that about the conducting of scene of panchanama.

PW5 to PW9 are as independent witness, but none of the witness supported the prosecution version.

PW10 is the Civil Asst. Surgeon, he deposed that he conducted Post mortem examination over the dead body. He further stated that during the examination, he found the body of the deceased atrophied (the body was congested) Some of the organs of the deceased were collapsed.

PW11 worked as Tahisldar of Metpalli, he deposed that on 14.8.2016 he received a requisition from SHO, Metpalli to conduct inquest over the 10 S.C.No.109/2018 dead body. Accordingly, he secured PW4 and LW11/Kotagiri Laxmi in their presence, he conducted inquest and issued report. It is his further evidence that the witnesses opined that after the marriage, the deceased was subjected to harassment by her husband and family members for

additional dowry.

PW12 is the SI of Police, he deposed that on 14.8.2016 at 4.00pm the defacto complainant came to the police station and lodged complaint

Ex.P1. He register the said complaint vide in Fir No. 184/2016 U/sec.

304-B of IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P18 is the same. It is his further evidence that since the death of the deceased is below 7 years of marriage, he handed over the CD file to Sub DPO for investigation.

PW13 is the Investigating officer, he deposed that on 14.8.2016 he received CD file and took up further investigation. It is his further evidence that PW12 Tahsildar conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. On his instructions PW12 apprehended the accused on 17.11.2016. He further stated that he examined the material witnesses and after collecting relevant documents and filed charge sheet.

11 S.C.No.109/2018

In defence the accused himself examined as DW1 and got marked

Ex.D1 to D6.

12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in GIRISH SINGH Vs. STATE OF

UTTARAKHAND reported in (2020) 18 SCC 423 in para 35 and 36 held the necessary ingredients required for the offence U/sec. 304-B IPC as follows:-

i)Within seven years of the marriage, they must happen the death of women (the wife).

ii)The death must be caused by any burns or bodily injury or the death must occur otherwise than under normal circumstances.

iii) It must be established that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment.

iv)The Cruelty or harassment may be by her husband or any relative of her husband.

v)The cruelty or harassment by the husband or relative of the husband must be for, or in connect with, any demand for dowry.

36. Section 304-B treats this as a dowry death. Therefore, in such circumstances, it further provides that husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Section 113-B of the Evidence

Act, 1872 provides for presumption as to dowry death. It provides that when the question is whether the dowry death, namely the death contemplated under Section 304 IPC. Has been committed by a person, if it is shown that soon before her death the women was subjected by 12 S.C.No.109/2018 such person to cruelty or harassment, for or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. It is no doubt a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the husband and his relatives to show the absence of the elements of section 304-B”.

13. In the present case, the learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that the death of the deceased is a natural death and she died at her parents house. Further there is no evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death.

14. Having considering the argument made by the counsel for accused now it has to be scrutinized whether the prosecution established the necessary ingredients of the offence of Sec.304-B IPC, or not.

15. Admittedly there is no dispute regarding the death of the deceased. PW10 Medical officer in Ex.P15 final report opined that the cause of death “Cardio respiratory arrest due to multiple organs failure“.

In cross examination PW10 admitted that the death of the deceased is a natural death.

13 S.C.No.109/2018

16. PW1 in his cross examination admitted that the death of the deceased is a natural death. Even PW4 in his cross examination stated that the deceased died naturally. PW12 investigating officer also in his cross examination admitted that the death of the deceased is natural death. Thus the evidence on record clearly established that the death of the deceased is a natural death.

17. In the entire evidence on record, except the evidence of

PWs1 to 3, who are the family members of the deceased no other independent witnesses supported the prosecution version.

18. So far as the subjecting the deceased to harassment for want of additional dowry is concerned. Though PW1 in his evidence stated about the payment of dowry at the time of marriage and subsequent demand of additional dowry by the accused but in the cross examination. He has clearly admitted that he has not mentioned in Ex.P1 and also not stated in his 161 Cr.PC statement.

The said relevant evidence is reproduced hereunder for proper appreciation. I did not mentioned in Ex.P1 as well as in my 161 Cr.PC statement that “ we have spent around Rs.4 Lakhs for the purpose of marriage expenses i.e,., function hall, dinner and other expenses and that we have also given furniture worth of Rs.2 Lakhs apart from sarees. It is true I have not mentioned in Ex.P1 and also not stated in my 161 Cr.PC statement that once when I accompanied with my sister with the house of accused to drop her at their house and that on seeing us the accused broken the TV remote by shouting on the deceased stating that why she again came to his house by 14 S.C.No.109/2018 saying so, he send us out of the house. Similarly I have not mentioned in Ex.P1 and also not stated in my 161 Cr.PC statement that 10 or 15 days thereafter, my father paid Rs. 5 Lakhs to the accused, but the accused did not took back my deceased sister”.

19. On seeing the above produced evidence it shows that it is an improvement made by the witness while giving the evidence. He himself admitted that neither he mentioned in Ex.P1 nor stated in his 161 Cr.PC statement. Similarly PW2 and PW3 also in their cross examination admitted about the improvements made during their evidence regarding the payment of Rs.5 Lakhs subsequent to marriage by their father.

20. PW1 in his cross examination admitted that his deceased sister lead marital life only for three months with the accused , after the marriage and they never lived together till the death of the deceased. He also admitted that since 2 ½ or 3 years prior to her death, his deceased sister residing in their house. PW13 investigated officer in his cross examination admitted that as per Ex.P1 there is matrimonial disputes between accused and deceased within six months of their marriage.

21. The main allegations made against the accused by PWs1 to 3 is that the accused having illegal contact with another women harassed the 15 S.C.No.109/2018 deceased for want of additional dowry. As admitted by PW1 the deceased stayed only for 3 months in the house of accused, later she return to her parents house and till her death, the deceased remained at her parents house.

22. With regarding the illegal intimacy is concerned. None of the witnesses specifically stated with whom the accused had illegal intimacy.

PW1 in his cross examination clearly admitted that he do not know with whom accused having illegal contact. Even the Investigating officer/PW13 in his cross examination stated that he made investigation regarding the illegal intimacy with a lady, but he could not make out the name and identical particulars of the said lady. The admitted evidence of PW1 and the evidence of PW13/IO it is clearly ruled out that the prosecution has not established about the illegal intimacy of the accused with another lady.

23. So far as the subjecting the deceased to harassment is concerned as per the evidence in the cross examination of PWs1 to 3, the deceased stayed at the house of accused only for 3 months. PW1 in his cross examination clearly admitted that the deceased has not filed any 16 S.C.No.109/2018 complaint before the Metpalli Court. He also stated that his father not made any complaint before the police, when the accused demanded dowry through mobile phone. PW3 in his cross examination admitted that from the date of marriage, till the death of deceased her father has not made any complaint before the police or in a Court against the accused about his harassment of additional dowry.

24. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durga Prasad and another Vs.

State of Madhyapradesh reported in (2010)9 SCC 73 in para 17 held

as follows:

17.“ As has been mentioned herein before, in order to hold an accused guilty of offence under Section 304-B IPC it has to be shown that apart from the fact that the women died on account of burn or bodily injury, otherwise than under normal circumstances, with in 7 years of her marriage, it has also to be shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or, in connection with any demand for dowry. Only then would such death be called “dowry death” and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused the death of the women concerned. “.

25. In the case of hand admittedly on the perusal of evidence of

Pws 1 to 3 though they alleged that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty and harassment prior to her death, but however as per the 17 S.C.No.109/2018 admitted evidence of PWs 1 to 3, the deceased resided and lead marital life with the accused only for 3 months, thereafter she left to her parents house. In the cross examination of the witnesses, much less PWs1 to 3 clearly stated that neither the deceased nor her father made any complaint before the Police or filed any complaint before the Court, that the accused subjected to deceased to harassment for additional dowry.

Absolutely, there is no other evidence to prove that the deceased subjected to cruelty and harassment prior to her death. In fact, since 3 years prior to the death of the deceased, she was residing at parents house. It is an admitted fact that the deceased died an a natural death at her parents’ house.

26. It is pertinent note that Sec. 113-B of the Indian evidence

Act deals with presumption as to the dowry death. However, it is a rebuttable presumption. i) In the case on hand, the death of the deceased is a natural death. ii) Soon before the death of the deceased, she was residing at her parents’ house. She has been residing at her parents’ house since 3 months after the marriage. The evidence of PWs1 to 3 does not inspiring to believe their version, that the deceased subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death. Though, Pws 1 18 S.C.No.109/2018 to 3 stated in their evidence that the accused harass the deceased over phone, but the Investigating Officer did not collect any call data record or seized mobile numbers either the accused or the deceased.

27. In fact the accused, who examined as DW1 in his evidence stated that the deceased send messages through her mobile, her fathers mobile and her brothers mobile by abusing the accused. Though in his cross examination he admitted that he has not filed any documents to show that the said mobile numbers belongs to the deceased and her father and brother. However in the cross examination of PW1 has clearly admitted his deceased sister using the mobile number 8019229266. He also admitted his father mobile number as 9440443497 and his brother mobile number as 9494995509. PW1 also admitted the accused mobile number is 9885343922.

28. The prosecution also failed to establish that the cruelty or harassment made against the deceased in connection with demand for dowry. Admittedly, no complaint is lodged against the accused regarding the alleged harassment made against the deceased for want of additional dowry prior to her death. The admitted evidence of Pws 1 to 3 is clearly proving the said fact. If at all the deceased was subjected to 19 S.C.No.109/2018 harassment over phone, and demand for additional dowry. Then the father of the deceased ought to have made complaint before the police.

But no such complaints were made against the accused. In fact, the accused issued a legal notice for restitution of conjugal rights. When the deceased failed to reply to said the notice, the accused filed OP No.4 of 2014 on the file of Sr. Civil Judge, Jagtial for divorce.

29. Thus, by seeing the entire evidence on record none of the ingredients of the Offence Sec.304-B are established by the prosecution. In the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court relied by the

Counsel for accused in Sandeep Kumar and Others Vs. State of

Uttharakhand reported in (2020) SCC online SC 918, held that “ Sec. 113-

B of the evidence of Act rescue of the prosecutor by providing for presumption that person caused dowry death, if, it is shown that soon

before her death, she was subjected by such person for cruelty or

harassment for or in connection with demand for dowry.”

30. In the case on hand already discussed in Supra the prosecution failed to establish the necessary ingredients of Sec. 304-B 20 S.C.No.109/2018

IPC. Even the prosecution failed to establish the harassment made against the deceased over phone prior to her death.

31. It is pertinent to note that none of the witness much less Pws 1 to 3 stated that there was a demand of dowry before or at the time of marriage. Even the Investigating officer / PW13 did not enquire either the neighbors of the accused or collected any material evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of additional dowry during her 3 months period, at the house of accused.

32. On the aforesaid discussion and on scrutinizing evidence on record it clearly established that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients of the offence U/sec. 304-B IPC. Further by the evidence on record the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the point 1 and 2 are held accordingly.

33. POINT NO: 2 On the foregoing discussion this court holds that the prosecution measurably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable Under Section 304-B I.P.C . Therefore the accused is entitled for benefit doubt and he is entitled to acquittal.

21 S.C.No.109/2018

34. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section Under Section 304-B I.P.C and under

Section 235(1), Cr.P.C. he is acquitted of the said offence. The accused shall be set at liberty and their bail bond shall stand cancelled after six months.

Typed to dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of April, 2022.

II-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR AT JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: P.W-1. E. Raj Kumar D.W.1: E. Venugopal P.W-2. E. Shiva Kumar P.W-3. G. Nagalaxmi P.W-4. E.Srinivas P.W-5. M. Ravi P.W-6. M. Narsimhulu P.W-7. K. Harish P.W-8. S. Vajra P.W-9. E. Vijaya P.W-10. T. Narendra P.W-11 Srikanth P.W-12 M. Ashok P.W-13 S. Rajendra Prasad 22 S.C.No.109/2018

EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1Complaint by PW1. Ex.P.2 Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3 Inquest Ex.P.4Crime detailed form. Ex.P.5(3) positive Photos Ex.P.6Marriage CD (2 in No.s) Ex.P.7(4) Positive Photos. Ex.P.8Compact Disk Ex.P.9Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6 Ex.P.10Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7 Ex.P.11 Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW. . Ex.P.12Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.9 Ex.P.13Requisition to PME by PW10 Ex.P.14PME by PW10. Ex.P.15RFSL Report.. Ex.P.16Final Opinion by PW10. Ex.P.17Requisition – Tahsildar by PW11 Ex.P.18FIR Ex.P.19Letter to RFSL by PW13. Ex.P.20Letter of Advise. Ex.P.21Memo of C.No.50/D4/DCRB dtL 22,4,2017

FOR THE DEFENCE :

Ex.D1CC of Legal Notice. Ex.D2CC of Postal acknowledgement Ex.D3CC of Legal Notice. Ex.D4CC of Chief Examination Ex.D5CC of Legal Notice. Ex.D6 CD (Marked subject to objection)

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-- Nil --

II-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR AT JAGTIAL.

OS/32/2016

Salla Pedda Mallaiah vs Vanathadupula Anjaiah

22 Apr 2022

1 O.S.32 OF 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR AT JAGTIAL.

PRESENT: SRI G.SUDARSHAN,

II-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR AT JAGTIAL.

FRIDAY, THE 22nsd DAY OF APRIL, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.32 OF 2016

Between: Salla Pedda Mallaiah, S/o.Sayabu, Age: 65 years, Senior Citizen, Occ: Agril, R/o.Kalloor village of Koratla mandal.

...Plaintiff.

And

Vanathadupula Anjaiah, S/o.Nadipi Gangaram, Age: 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Kalloor village of Koratla mandal.

...Defendant.

Sub:- Suit for specific performance of contract.

This suit is coming on 8.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Bhumeshwar, Advocate for plaintiff; and of Sri B.Raghu, Advocate for Defendant; upon perusing material papers on record, upon hearing argument of plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration this day the Court delivered the following:-

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

1.This suit is filed for specific performance of contract of sale dated 15.4.2014.

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

The defendant is the owner and possessor of land in

Sy.No.109 to an extent of Ac.5-23 guntas and in Sy.No.108 to an 2 O.S.32 OF 2016 extent of Ac.1-32 guntas. Both the lands are located adjacent to each other situated at Kallur village. It is further submitted that the defendant for his personal necessities offered to sell to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas. After negotiations the sale consideration was arived at Rs.20,000/- per gunta. The defendant having agreed sale consideration has entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 15.9.2014. The defendant had agreed to sell

Ac.2-00 guntas land to the plaintiff in Sy.No.108 and 109 situated at Kallur village with the boundaries on East: Smalla stream, West:

Land of Srinivas book sellers, Koratla, North: Land of Somishetty

Nadipi Gangaram and South: Land of defendant. The total sale consideration for the said land was arrived at Rs.16,00,000/-. The defendant having received Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money had executed sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff with an agreement to received the balance sale consideration in two 3 O.S.32 OF 2016 installments @ Rs.10,00,000/- one week after the sale agreement and balance by the end of April, 2014.

The plaintiff further submitted that as per the terms of sale agreement he approached the defendant several times within the stipulated time to pay first installment and requested him to receive Rs.10,00,000/-. But the defendant intentionally evaded it. Some times the plaintiff approached the defendant along with the witnesses and requested him to receive sale consideration as per the terms of sale agreement. But the defendant each and every time had intentionally evaded with a malicious intention to cause loss to the plaintiff and to sell the suit schedule land to some third persons at high rate. Some times defendant demanded the plaintiff to pay Rs.5,00,000/- more than the sale consideration for which when the plaintiff refused to do so the defendant continued his refusal to fulfill his part cf contract and he intentionally violated the terms of sale 4 O.S.32 OF 2016 agreement. It is further submitted that the defendant failed to perform his part of contract of sale as agreed by him. Though the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff came to notice that the defendant is trying to dispose of the suit schedule;e land to some other persons. Upon which the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 2.5.2016 inviting him to complete his part of contract. The defendant having received the legal notice issued a false reply. Hence, the plaintiff filed this suit for the relief of specific performance of contract.

3.The defendant filed written statement. The defendant admitted about his ownership over the land in Sy.No.108 and 109.

The defendant also admitted that he had offered to sell the land to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas to the plaintiff on a sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- per gunta. The defendant also admitted the total consideration for the said land was arrived at 5 O.S.32 OF 2016

Rs.16,00,000/- and the defendant having received one lakh as earnest money had executed the sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff on 15.9.2014. The defendant also agreed to receive the balance sale consideration in two installments, i.e., first installment of Rs.10,00,000/- payable within one week after sale agreement. The defendant denied the balance amount shall be paid at the end of April, 2014. Further submits that the plaintiff entered into agreement of sale on 15.9.2014 as such payment of last remaining balance amount by the end of April, 2014 does not arise.

The defendant denied the plaint averments regarding the approach of the plaintiff to defendant requesting him to receive the installment within stipulated time and also denied that the defendant intentionally evaded to receive the same.

The defendant further submits that the wife of defendant by name Prameela contested as ZPTC in the year April, 6 O.S.32 OF 2016 2013 and the defendant spend huge amounts in the said elections, unfortunately she could not win. Further submitted that the defendant at the time of elections had borrowed huge amounts from the various persons and also obtained hand loan of

Rs.2,00,000/- from one Jumbarthi Ramesh by executing registered mortgage deed vide Document No.1169 of 2014, dated 2.4.2014 in respect of the entire land of Ac.7-15 guntas in suit survey numbers. Further submits that to clear of his debts, left no other alternative remedy except to sell his part of land to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas in suit survey numbers. Accordingly the plaintiff and defendant had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule land with agreed rate of Rs.20,000/- per gunta. The total consideration for Ac.2-00 guntas is at

Rs.16,00,000/-. Further submitted that the the plaintiff on 15.9.2014 entered into the agreement by paying Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant as earnest money. As per the agreement the 7 O.S.32 OF 2016 plaintiff shall pay the part of amount of Rs.10,00,000/- within 8 days from the agreement of sale and remaining balance amount has to pay by the month ending, i.e., September, 2014. Further submitted that the plaintiff failed to pay the agreed amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- to him within agreed time. The defendant in need of money several times approached the plaintiff and requested him to pay the sale consideration but the plaintiff failed to do so.

As such the defendant approached the village elders who are also attested witnesses of agreement of sale. The said elders also by calling the plaintiff asked about payment. At that time the plaintiff stated that he is not having sufficient money to pay the entire sale consideration and expressed his inability. As such the defendant and plaintiff orally cancelled the agreement of sale

dated 15.9.2014 and the advance amount paid by the plaintiff is

forfeited by defendant as compensation for breach of contract.

8 O.S.32 OF 2016

Further submitted that the defendant to clear of his debts left no other alternative remedy sold the suit schedule land to others by name Chapa Kishora and Alladi Praveen and Kommula

Jeevan Reddy. It is submitted that on 12.1.2015 by canceling the earlier registered mortgage deed on the same day had executed

Registered sale deed vide Document No.279 of 2015 in favour of his purchasers with delivery of possession to them. Further submitted that the plaintiff very much having knowledge about the alienation of suit schedule land to third parties again to wrongful gain on 2.5.2016 had issued legal notice to the defendant by demanding him to return the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 25% per annum from the date of agreement of sale, but not for ready to pay the sale consideration and demanding the defendant to receive the same to perform his part of contract. Further submitted that the plaintiff having knowledge of alienation of suit schedule land to third parties as 9 O.S.32 OF 2016 stated above filed this suit and moreover the plaintiff in his legal notice dated 2.5.2016 also admitted about the alienation of suit schedule land and by knowing the same he ahd filed this suit for specific performance without adding the purchasers of defendant and without seeking registered sale deed as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

Further submitted that as per the agreement of sale the plaintiff has to pay the sale consideration on the agreement dates. As per the agreement of sale time is the essence of the contract, as such the plaintiff himself breached the contract by default of payment within time as such the plaintiff is not entitled discretionary relief of Specific Performance. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues settled for trial:- 10 O.S.32 OF 2016

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit relief of specific performance of contract dated 15.9.2014 directing the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration in respect of the suit property situated in Sy.No.108 and 109 of Kallur village of Korutla directing the defendant to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for

Rs.1,00,000/- with interest to be returned to him by the defendant as prayed for as alternative relief?

3. Whether the present is barred by limitation?

4. To what relief?

5.During the trial the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5.

11 O.S.32 OF 2016

6.On behalf of the defendant the defendant himself examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.3.

7.Heard arguments of plaintiff. Defendant filed written arguments.

8.Before adverting on issues it is better to note the admitted and undisputed facts. There is no dispute regarding the ownership and possession of the defendant over the land in

Sy.No.108 and 109 an extent of Ac.7-15 guntas having compact area situated at Kallur village of Koratla mandal. The defendant admitted about the entering into agreement of sale with the plaintiff in respect of land. The defendant further admitted that he received one lakh as earnest money and executed agreement of sale on 15.9.2014. The defendant also admitted as per the terms of agreement the plaintiff shall pay the part of amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- within 8 days from the agreement of sale and remaining balance amount has to pay by the end of the month, i.e., 12 O.S.32 OF 2016

September, 2014. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 2.5.2016. It is also an undisputed fact that the defendant also issued reply notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff in his legal notice Ex.A.4 failed to make averment of his readiness and willing ness to perform his part of contract which is essential under Section 16(c) of Specific

Performance Act., 1963. He further submitted that when the time is essence for performance of contract the said contract shall be performed as per specified time. But the plaintiff failed to pay the amount. He further argued that the plaintiff has not examined any witness to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. Moreover the plaintiff issued legal notice by demanding the defendant to return advance amount with interest but not for specific performance of agreement of sale.

He further argued that the plaintiff has not made any alternative relief of compensation as required under Section 21 of Specific 13 O.S.32 OF 2016

Relief Act as such the plaintiff is not entitled for alternative relief of compensation. The learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on a Judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Dhanraj (died) per LRs and others Vs. Saleh reported in 2016 (4) ALD 1 and also relied on another Judgment of Hon'ble High Court in

Daparthi Seetharamayya and others Vs. Kurukuri Chinna Satyam @

Chinna Sathi Raju and another reported in 2014 (1) ALD 762 (DB).

Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

9.ISSUE NO.1:-To prove the case of the plaintiff regarding his readiness and willingness the plaintiff is required to prove his having readiness so as to enable him to claim specific performance of contract.

10.The relief of the plaintiff in the suit is for specific performance of contract of sale dated 15.9.2014 directing the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and to 14 O.S.32 OF 2016 execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for a valid transfer of suit schedule property Ac.2-00 guntas to the plaintiff in Sy.No.108 and 109 situated at Kallur village of Korutla revenue mandal. The plaintiff being examined as P.W.1 filed his chief affidavit reiterating the plaint averments in toto.

11.In contra though the defendant agreed about the entering into agreement of sale with the plaintiff and execution of

Ex.A.1 agreement of sale dated 15.9.2014 having received money

Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money. The defendant has denied the entire plea of the plaintiff for the relief of specific performance of contract.

12.The plaintiff in his pleadings and also in his evidence as

PW.1 pleaded that several times he approached the defendants within stipulated time to pay the first installment of 15 O.S.32 OF 2016

Rs.10,00,000/- but the defendant evaded to receive the said amount.

13.PW.1 though he submitted in his chief affidavit that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, in his cross-examination PW.1 admitted that he has not mentioned inhis suit plaint that when he approached the defendant and with whom to pay the balance sale consideration. He also stated that he did not issue any notice demanding the defendant to received the balance sale consideration. In the same cross-examination PW.1 admitted that in Ex.A.1 recited that the balance sale consideration has to be paid by the end of September, 2014. In the suit plaint it is mentioned that the defendant for his personal necessities had offered to sell his land. Even in cross-examination

PW.1 admitted that the defendant wife contested for ZPTC elections in the year 2013 and she lost said election. Further stated that he do not know whether the defendant was indebted 16 O.S.32 OF 2016 to loan for the contest of wife as ZPTC member. But the plaintiff in his evidence mentioned that the defendant offered to sell his land for his personal necessities. In the recitals of Ex.A.1 also mentioned that the plaintiff shall pay Rs.10,00,000/- within a period of 8 days from the date of execution of Ex.A.1 and the remaining balance sale consideration shall pay by the end of the month and to get registered sale deed.

14.For filing the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale is governed by Section 16(c) of Specific Relief

Act, 1963 read with Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation

Act, 1963. Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix 'A' to the code of Civil

Procedure 198 describe the format of plaint for said suit.

15.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukbir Singh Vs. Brijpal

Singh reported in 1997 (2) SCC 200 the Hon'ble Apex Court held in Para No.5 as follows:- 17 O.S.32 OF 2016 “Law is not in doubt and it is not a condition that the respondents should have ready cash with them. The fact that they attended the Sub Registrar's office to have the sale deed executed and waited for the petitioners to attend the office of the Sub- Registrar is a positive fact to prove that they had necessary funds to pass on consideration and had with them the needed money with them for payment at the time of registration. It is sufficient for the respondents to establish that they had the capacity to pay the sale consideration. It is not necessary to pay the sale consideration. It is not necessary that they should always carry the money with them from the date of the suit till the date of the decree. It would, therefor,e be clear that the courts below have appropriately exercised their discretion for granting the relief of specific performance to the respondents on sound principles of law.”

16.Now in the case on hand it has to be scrutinized whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract as required under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963?

17.The defendant did not dispute the execution of agreement of sale Ex.A.1 with the plaintiff and receiving of 18 O.S.32 OF 2016 advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 15.9.2014. As already discussed in supra the plaintiff himself admitted in his cross- examination that the balance sale consideration has to be paid by end of September, 2014. Though he stated that he was ready to pay the balance sale consideration but he himself admitted that he did not mention in the plaint that when he approached the defendant. The entire pleadings of the plaint and evidence of plaintiff it is not mentioned when he approached the defendant and before whom he expressed his willingness or readiness to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- within a period of 8 days and the remaining balance sale consideration by the end of

September, 2014. The plaintiff issued Ex.A.4 legal notice in the month of April, 2016 wherein it is mentioned that on 20.9.2014 the plaintiff informed to the defendant to receive the part of sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- in the presence of the witnesses who present at the time of agreement of sale.

19 O.S.32 OF 2016

Admittedly the plaintiff has not examined none of the witnesses who signed on Ex.A.1 to substantiate his contention. Moreover,

PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that he has not issued any notice demanding the defendant to receive balance sale consideration.

18.The plaintiff has not produced any evidence to prove that he demanded the defendant to receive the entire balance sale consideration and to execute registered sale deed. Though

Ex.A.4 notice was issued but the same was issued in the month of

April, 2016, i.e., after a period of 20 months from the date of execution of Ex.A.1. Even in Ex.A.4 he did not demand the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute registered sale deed. In stead he demanded the defendant to return the sale consideration amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-. The demand made by the plaintiff in Ex.A.4 for return of advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

20 O.S.32 OF 2016

19.That itself shows that the plaintiff is not ready and willing to pay the entire balance sale consideration and to get registered sale deed. Therefore, by the pleadings of the plaintiff and the evidence on record coupled with Ex.A.4 notice issued by the plaintiff clearly establishing that the plaintiff is not ready and willing to get the registered sale deed by paying balance sale consideration amount to the defendant. The evidence on record establishing the failure of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract as prayed for. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

20.ISSUE No.2 and 3:- The plaintiff claimed to return the advance amount of Rs.1 lakh. The defendant in rebuttal denying the claim of the plaintiff stating that due to the failure of the plaintiff in performing his part of contract to pay the balance sale consideration within stipulated period as agreed under Ex.A.1.

21 O.S.32 OF 2016

Though the defendant is denying to return the advance amount but even the defendant did not demanded the plaintiff to payt he balance amount. In the cross-examination D.W.1 admitted that he has not issued any legal notice to the plaintiff informing him that on default of payment of balance sale consideration the agreement of sale dated 15.9.2014 will be cancelled and the advance amount will be forfeited. Further DW.1 in his cross-examination specifically deposed that he has not cancelled Ex.A.1 and agreed to pay the advance amount. Said relevant evidence is as follows:- “I did not send any notice by cancelling agreement of sale Ex.A.1. It is true I have not returned advance amount to the plaintiff. It is true I have forfeited the advance amount of Rs.1 lakh. It is true I have not mentioned in Ex.A.5 that I will repay the advance amount of Rs.1 lakh along with interest. It is true in Ex.A.1 it is not mentioned that the event of breach of contract, I can sell the suit schedule property to any third party.”

21.It is an admitted fact that the defendant has sold the suit schedule property to third parties. Even in his reply notice

Ex.A.5 the defendant agreed about the alienation of suit schedule 22 O.S.32 OF 2016 property to third parties. Further stated he never agreed to repy the advance amount with interest. The defendant himself admitted that he has neither cancelled Ex.A.1 nor forfeited the advance amount by informing to the plaintiff by issuing any legal notice. Though it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff has not paid the balance sale consideration. As per the condition of Ex.A.1 but the defendant already sold away the suit schedule land to third parties and there is no intimation to the plaintiff regarding the same till issuing of Ex.A.5 reply notice to the legal notice of plaintiff Ex.A.4.

22.Therefore, by taking into consideration of the above facts the defendant is liable to return the advance amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-.

23.The plaintiff entered into agreement of sale under

Ex.A.1 on 15.9.2014. Though there is a condition stipulated in

Ex.A.1 regarding the payment of balance sale consideration and to 23 O.S.32 OF 2016 get the registered sale deed. However, the plaintiff issued Ex.A.4 legal notice in the month of April, 2016. After receipt of the same the defendant issued Ex.A.5 reply notice on 6.6.2016 denying the contention of the plaintiff and refusing to return the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

24.Article 54 of the Limitation Act stipulates that the limitation for filing the suit for specific performance of the contract is three years from the date fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has endorsed that performance is refused.

25.In the instant case as already discussed above the defendant has refused to perform his part of contract by issuing reply notice Ex.A.5, after receipt of Ex.A.5, the plaintiff filed this suit within a period of limitation. Therefore, it is clear that the present suit is covered by part (ii) of Article 54 of the

Limitation Act, i.e., time begins to run when the plaintiff has 24 O.S.32 OF 2016 noticed that the performance is refused by the defendant.

Hence, issues No.2 and 3 are answered accordingly.

26.ISSUE NO.4:- In view of the findings given to the issues

No.1 to 3 the suit of the plaintiff can be dismissed with a direction to the defendant to return the advance amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

27.In the result, this suit of the plaintiff is dismissed without costs. However, the defendant is directed to return the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff within one month from today together with interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed as per law.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of April, 2022.

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

Karimnagar, at Jagtial.

25 O.S.32 OF 2016

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For the plaintiff:For defendants: P.W.1: Salla Pedda MallaiahNIL. P.W.2: Vanthadupula Anjaiah

Exhibits marked

For the plaintiff: Ex.A.1 Agreement of sale Ex.A.2Meeseva Pahani Fasli 1425 Ex.A.3Mee seva Pahani Fasli 1426 Ex.A.4Office copy of legal notice Ex.A.5 Office copy of reply notice FOR DEFENDANT: Ex.B.1: Cancellation of Registered deed Ex.B.2: Registered sale deed Ex.B.3: Mortgage deed

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

Karimnagar, at Jagtial.

OS/27/2014

Muthkela Buchi Raju vs Mittapally Gangavva

19 Apr 2022

1 O.S.27 OF 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR AT JAGTIAL.

PRESENT: SRI G.SUDARSHAN,

II-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR AT JAGTIAL.

TUESDAY, THE 19th DAY OF APRIL, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.27 OF 2014

Between: Muthkela Buchi Raju, W/o.Devaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Potharam village of Mallial mandal.

...Plaintiff.

And

Mittapally Gangavva, D/o.Ramaiah, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Potharam village of Mallial mandal.

...Defendant.

Sub:- Suit for perpetual injunction.

This suit is coming on 8.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Venugopal, Advocate for plaintiff; and of Sri A.Ramachandram, Advocate for Defendant; upon perusing material papers on record, upon hearing argument of plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration this day the Court delivered the following:-

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

1.This suit is filed for perpetual injunction against the defendant.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- The plaintiff is the exclusive owner and possessor of the agriculture 2 O.S.27 OF 2014 land to an extent of Ac.2-13 guntas compact area out of

Sy.No.231/u, 232/A1 and 232/A4 situated at Rajaram village of

Mallial mandal which is described in schedule.

3.The plaintiff has purchased agricultural land of Ac.1-00 guntas in Sy.No.231/U situated at Rajaram village of Mallial mandal from its original owners Muske Rajam and Muske Chinna

Venkati through registered sale deed No.286/2011 dated 2.2.2011.

Subsequently the plaintiff again has purchased agricultural land of

Ac.0-26 ½ guntas in Sy.No.232/A1 and Ac.0-26 ½ guntas in

Sy.No.232/A4 from its original owners Godishela Narsaiah and

Godishela Shankar through registered sale deed No.2422/2013

dated 25.6.2013 which is located towards eastern side of her

first purchased land. Thereby the plaintiff has become exclusive owner and possessor of total suit schedule land in compact area of

Ac.2-13 guntas. Since the date of her purchase the plaintiff has been in peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession and 3 O.S.27 OF 2014 enjoyment over the suit schedule land. The name of the plaintiff is also mutated as pattedar and possessor in the revenue records and pahani records in respect of suit land.

4.The plaintiff further averred that the defendant has got her own agricultural land towards eastern side to the suit schedule land who developed coveted eye against the plaintiff and designed a plan to grab the suit land by illegal means. With such ill-intention she demanded the plaintiff to sell the suit land to her for meager market value. The plaintiff has refused to sell the same. Therefore, the defendant with the help of unsocial elements started to cause illegal interference to the possession and enjoyment and agricultural affairs of the plaintiff over her suit schedule land. The defendant bent upon to cause illegal interference in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over her suit schedule land in spite of the protest made by the plaintiff and finally on 24.8.2014 the defendant continued her illegal acts 4 O.S.27 OF 2014 and occupied part of suit schedule land. However, the plaintiff has resisted the illegal acts of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land.

5.The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments. The defendant submits that she is exclusive and absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of lands in Sy.No.231/ఇ admeasuring Ac.3-28 guntas and in Sy.No.231/ఈadmeasuring

Ac.0-12 ½ guntas total land admeasuring Ac.4-12 ½ guntas with compact area situated at Rajaram village. The same is bounded by on East: land of Bandi Anjaiah and Railway tract, West: Land of

Boga Chinna Narsaiah and Muske Lacham, North: Land of Meenugu

Swamy and others, South : Land of Junna Mallaiah and Chittimalla

Uma. Originally the brother of defendant by name Bandi Anjaiah was the owner and possessor of the lands and he succeeded the 5 O.S.27 OF 2014 same from his father. He being the owner and possessor of the said land he gifted the same to defendant through registered gift settlement deed document bearing No.2896/2010 dated 30.8.2010 by delivery of possession to her in Sy.No.231/ఇ admeasuring Ac.3-28 guntas out of Ac.4-38 guntas and in

Sy.No.231/ఈadmeasuring Ac.0-12 ½ guntas out of Ac.1-00 guntas, total admeasuring Ac.4-12 ½ guntas with compact area. Ever since the defendant is in exclusive possession over the same. The name of the defendant is also mutated in the revenue records.

6.The defendant further submits that the plaintiff is having land towards Western side after the land of one Muske

Lacham. She developed coveted eye over the lands of defendant and requested to sell but the defendant refused the same. On 5.4.2014 by threatening the defendant and demanded forcibly to come for terms and execution of agreement of sale in her favour and tried to interfere the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 6 O.S.27 OF 2014 the land of the plaintiff. But the defendant resisted the same and approached the Court and filed a suit for perpetual injunction and also obtained temporary injunction order vide order in

I.A.No.209 of 2014 in OS.33 of 2014 and the same is pending for trial. Further submitted that with an intention to cause loss to defendant and to grab the land of defendant by showing wrong boundaries and suppressing the pending of the above suit and real facts, having no land in Sy.No.231 the plaintiff filed the instant suit with an intention to grab the land of the defendant. There is no iota of truth made in her claim.

7.The defendant further submitted that the plaintiff did not disclose the above facts before the Court and obtained temporary injunction order and under the shadow of ex parte order the plaintiff is trying to occupy the lands of defendant. The defendant gave a representation to Tahsildar Mallial to survey the suit survey numbers. As per the orders of the Tahsildar the 7 O.S.27 OF 2014

Mandal Surveyor surveyed the suit land and gave a report that the vendors of the plaintiff have no title or possession in Sy.No.231 and the suit sy.No.232 is far away to the land of defendant.

Further submits that the verndors of the plaintiff are owners and possessors of lands in Sy.No.232 not in the location in Sy.No.231.

As such the plaintiff has not in physical possession o suit schedule land in compact area of Ac.2-13 guntas as such the plaintiff cannot seek relief of permanent injunction order. The plaintiff who is claiming a discretionary relief under the provision of specific Act has not come to the Court with clean hands and he is guilty of suppression of material facts. Therefore, the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

8.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:- 8 O.S.27 OF 2014

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendant in respect of the suit property as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

9.To prove the case of the plaintiff the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. The plaintiff also examined PW.2 on her behalf.

10.On behalf of the defendant no evidence adduced and no documents are marked.

11.Heard arguments on both sides.

12.Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the plaintiff has proved her right and possession over the suit schedule property and the defendant failed to rebut the same. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.

9 O.S.27 OF 2014

13.Learned counsel for defendant reported his arguments on merits.

14.ISSUE NO.1:- The plaintiff reiterated her plaint averments in her chief evidence. The plaintiff stated that she is the owner and possessor of suit schedule agricultural land of Ac.1-00 guntas in Sy.No.231/u and Ac.0-26 ½ guntas in Sy.No.232/A1 and Ac.0-26 ½ guntas in Sy.No232/A1. The total compact area of Ac.2-13 guntas situated in Rajaram village of Mallial mandal. It is her further case that the above said land was purchased from its original owners through a registered sale deed document

No.286/2011, i.e., Ex.A.1 and the document bearing No.2422/2013, i.e., Ex.A.2. Ever since the date of her purchase the plaintiff has been in peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of suit schedule land.

15.In contra to the case of the plaintiff, the defendant has specifically pleaded that the suit schedule land is not a 10 O.S.27 OF 2014 compact area. The mandal surveyor who surveyed the suit land and reported that the vendors of the plaintiff have no title or possession in Sy.No.231 and the Sy.No.232 is far away to the land of defendant. The vendors of the plaintiff have no land in the location of Sy.No.231 and they are the owners and possessors of land in Sy.No.232 and not in the location in Sy.No.231 as such the plaintiff has not in physical possession of suit schedule land in compact area of Ac.2-13 guntas. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of permanent injunction order.

16.It is the further contention of the defendant that the defendant is the exclusive and absolute owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.231/ఇadmeasuring Ac.3-28 guntas and in

Sy.No.231/ఈadmeasuring Ac.0-12 ½ guntas, total admeasuring

Ac.4-12 ½ guntas with compact area situated at Rajaram village.

The same is bounded by on East: land of Bandi Anjaiah and Railway track, West: Land of Boga Chinna Narsaiah and Muske Lacham, 11 O.S.27 OF 2014

North: Land of Meenugu Swamy and others, South : Land of Junna

Mallaiah and Chittimalla Uma, which was gifted by her brother through the registered gift settlement deed bearing document

No.2896/2010 dated 30.8.2010 by delivery of possession. It is her further contention that when the plaintiff is having land towards western side of defendant after the land of one Muske

Lacham she developed coveted eye on the land of defendant and demanded to sell the same to her. When the defendant refused then the plaintiff demanded and threatened and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of land of defendant. On that the defendant filed a suit in OS.33 of 2014 and also obtained temporary injunction order vide order in

I.A.No.209 of 2014 which is is pending on the file of Prl. Junior

Civil Judge Court, Jagtial.

17.On the contrary to the claim of the defendant now the plaintiff shall establish her case and burden of proof is on her to 12 O.S.27 OF 2014 prove her lawful possession and enjoyment and also establish her title over the plaint schedule property. Since the defendant specifically denying the right and ownership of the vendor of plaintiff over the land in Sy.No.231, the defendant also disputing the area of the suit schedule land covering the Sy.No.231 and 232.

18.In the cross-examination Pw.1 stated that she has not filed any Patta documents of her vendor and she also stated that she do not know whether her vendor of Ex.A.2 obtained pattedar pass book and title books from Tahsildar or not. In the same cross-examination PW.1 admitted that the land gifted to the defendant is their ancestral land and she also stated that the land of defendant is adjacent land towards upper side.

19.The defendant along with her written statement filed a sketch map wherein the Sy.No.231 was shown after the land of

Minugu Swamy and others and the other land of plaintiff an

extent of Ac.0-20 guntas in Sy.No.231 shown after the land 13 O.S.27 OF 2014 of Muske Lacham. Thus none of the boundary of the suit schedule land showing the land of defendant.

20.Admittedly the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule land under Ex.A.1 and A.2. Under Ex.A.1 the plaintiff purchased

Ac.1-00 guntas land in Sy.No.231/u which is bounded as East:

Godishala Narsaiah agriculturalland; West: N.Janardhan

Agricultural land; North: Muske Swamy agricultural land and

South: Boga Chinna Narsaiah agricultural land. Whereas the land purchased under Ex.A.2 is an extent of Ac.1-13 guntas from two vendors in Sy.No.232. The same is bounded as follows:- East:

Bandari Anjaiah agricultural land, West: Plaintiff land, North:

Muske swamy agricultural land and South: Bandari Anjaiah land.

21.In the suit schedule the boundaries to the suit schedule land, i.e., Ac.2-13 guntas bounded as East: Land of defendant, West: Land of Nagulapalli Janardhan, North: Meenugu 14 O.S.27 OF 2014

Swamy, South : Land of Boga Chinna Narsaiah and Anjaiah. The boundaries mentioned in Ex.A.1 and A.2 are not tallying with the boundaries shown in the suit schedule. Further the plaintiff did not clarify how much land purchased under Ex.A.1 and A.2 in compact area when their boundaries are totally different. None of the boundary mentioned in Ex.A.1 and A.2 showing the land of defendant. Whereas in the suit schedule the defendand land was shown on the Eastern side.

22.It is pertinent to note that the defendant has specifically denying the right and possession of vendor of the plaintiff over the land in Sy.No.231. Though the plaintiff filed

Ex.A.3 to A.5 pahanis showing the name of the plaintiff to

the land in Sy.No.231/u, 232/a and 232/a4.

23.In spite of the specific dispute raised regarding the title and possession of the plaintiff's vendor the plaintiff did not 15 O.S.27 OF 2014 choose to produce evidence to prove or to show the title and possession of her vendors over the land in Sy.No.231/u and 232.

24.Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down general principles in

Ananthula Sudhakar vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. And

others reported in (2008) AIR SC 2003 as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction is lie as to when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration the possession and for injunction as a consequential relief. He also relied on the observations of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the said Judgment in Para No.13.1, 13.2, 13.3.

13. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly. 13.1) Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simplicitor will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.

13.2)Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit 16 O.S.27 OF 2014 for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.

13.3)Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.

25.In the present case as already discussed above the defendant specifically denying the title of the plaintiff's vendors over the land in Sy.No.231. Further the defendant disputing the right and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land being in a compact area.

26.In spite of the cloud raised over the plaintiff's title stating that the plaintiff does not have possession over the suit 17 O.S.27 OF 2014 schedule land. The plaintiff did not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate to identify the suit schedule in a compact area. The plaintiff further failed to produce any documentary proof regarding the title and possession of her vendor over the land in Sy.No.231/u and 232/A1 and 232/A4.

27.That apart the defendant pleaded that when the plaintiff trying to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land of the defendant she filed the suit in

OS.33 of 2014 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Jagtial

and obtained temporary injunction order vide order in I.A.209 of 2014.

28.PW.1 in her cross-examination admitted about filing of suit in OS.33 of 2014 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial against the plaintiff. Pending the above suit in stead of contesting the said suit having the right of filing a counter claim in the said 18 O.S.27 OF 2014 suit the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant when already defendant filed a suit for permanent injunction. When the title of the plaintiff challenged by the defendant or a cloud was raised over the plaintiff title the plaintiff in stead of filing the suit for declaration to remove cloud on the title over the suit schedule property the plaintiff filed only simple suit for perpetual injunction.

29.It is a settled principle of law, when the plaintiff approached the Court for relief of perpetual injunction the only burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by adducing positive evidence.

30.In view of the provisions of Section 37 and 38 of

Specific Relief Act, the Court may grant injunction as a substantive relief without any prayer for declaration. Although in 19 O.S.27 OF 2014 many such cases the declaration may be requested in the grant perpetual injunction. The fact that the question of title also might have to be incidentally gone into in deciding whether the injunction can be given or not, is not any justification for holding that the suit is to be treated as one for declaration of title and injunction.

There can be no objection to the maintainability of the suit only for injunction. Where title is denying a suit for bare injunction is maintainable, though it is not coupled with a prayer for declaration of title, for the relief of injunction necessarily involves a declaration of title.

31.It is a well settled by catena of Judgments of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in each and every case where the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff it is not necessary that in all those cases plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration. A suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud 20 O.S.27 OF 2014 over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction.

32.In the case on hand, the defendant raises a serious dispute regarding the title and possession of the vendor of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff over the suit schedule property much less the land in Sy.No.231. It is an admitted fact that the defendant already filed a suit for injunction against the plaintiff herein vide OS.33 of 2014 which is pending on the file of Junior

Civil Judge, Jagtial for perpetual injunction to restrain the

plaintiff herein, from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land of defendant. In spite of having contesting the said suit filed by the defendant herein the plaintiff again filed this suit for a simple relief of perpetual injunction.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot maintain a simple suit for bare injunction. Hence, the issue is answered accordingly.

21 O.S.27 OF 2014

33.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of April, 2022.

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

Karimnagar, at Jagtial.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For the plaintiff:For defendants: P.W.1: Muthkela Buchi RajuNIL. P.W.2: Meenugu Dinesh (Eschewed) P.W.3: Muthkala Venkatesh

Exhibits marked For the plaintiff: Ex.A.1 02/02/11Sale deed Ex.A.225.6.2013Sale deed Ex.A.326.3.2014Adangal Ex.A.413.6.2014CC of Adangal Ex.A.5 13.6.2014CC of Adangal Ex.A.6Pattedar Pass book

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

Karimnagar, at Jagtial.

SC/379/2018 Acquitted

Sub Divisional Police Officer, Metpalli vs Koppula Rajesham

25 Apr 2022

1 S.C.No.379/2018

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR AT JAGTIAL.

PRESENT: G.SUDARSHAN II-Addl. Sessions Judge,

KARIMNAGAR AT JAGTIAL.

MONDAY, THE 25th DAY OF APRIL, 2022.

SESSIONS CASE NO.379 of 2018

(On committal by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Korutla vide PRC.No.26 of 2017 order dated 12.10.2018.) Nameofthe: The Sub Divisional Police Officer, complainantsMetpalli in Cr.No.25 of 2017 of PS Medipalli.

Description of the: A1: Koppula Rajesham, S/o. Poshaiah, accusedAge: 42 Years, Tenugu, R/o. Pasunoor village of Medipalli mandal of district.

A2: Koppula Rajamani, S/o. Devaiah, Age: 40 Years, Tenugu, R/o. Pasunoor village of Medipalli mandal of district.

Charges: U/s.498-A, 304-B r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 D.P Act.

Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding of the Court: N O T G U I L T Y

Sentence or order: In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.498-A, 304-B r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 D.P Act. and under Section 235(1), Cr.P.C. they are acquitted of the said offence. The accused A1 and A2 shall be set at liberty and their bail bond shall stand cancelled after six months. M.O.1 to M.O.4 shall be destroyed after appeal time or after disposal of appeal if any.

Prosecution conducted: Miss. D.Srivani, Additional Public byProsecutor

Defence conducted by: Sri K. Chandramohan, Advocate.

2 S.C.No.379/2018 :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Circle Inspector of Police, Medipalli has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.25 of 2017 of P.S. Medipalli for the offence punishable Under Section 498-A, 304-B r/w 34 I.P.C and Sec. 3 & 4

D.P Act against accused A1 and A2.

2.The prosecution case in brief as per the charge sheet is as follows:- on 16.2.2017 at 10-00 hours the complainant Boini

Devamma lodged complaint stating that she performed marriage of her daughter Latha with A1 as second wife to him about three years back. At the time of marriage, they presented Rs.2 Lakhs and four tulas gold as dowry. Even though, the accused harassed her for additional dowry. So many times they admonished him, but he did not changed his attitude and used to harass the complainant to bring additional dowry so many times. Later he went to Gulf with her daughter and returned back in February, again he quarreled with the deceased. As the accused A1 and A2 harassed her deceased daughter Koppula Latha, physically and mentally demanding her to bring additional dowry. Due to the harassment of the accused the deceased vexed on her life and committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and set-fire in their house. Due to which, she sustained severe born injuries on her entire body and died on the spot.

3 S.C.No.379/2018

On the basis of said complaint the case was registered vide in Crime no. 25/2017 U/sec. 498-A, 304-B, r/w 34 IPC and Sec.

3 & 4 DP Act. by the Police Mediaplli Police Station and investigated into. After completion of investigation charge sheet is filed against A1 and A2. Hence, the charge.

3.Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpalli took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 304-B, r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 DP Act against accused A1 and A2, after complying with the requirement of furnishing with copies of relevant documents to the accused under Section 207, Cr.P.C., the said Magistrate committed the case under Section 209(a), Cr.P.C.

to the Hon'ble Principal Court of Session, Sessions Division,

Karimnagar.

4.The Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar registered the case and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law. After appearance of the accused after hearing both sides this Court framed charge for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 304-B, r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 DP Act. against accused

A1 and A2, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 S.C.No.379/2018

5.In support of prosecution case P.Ws.1 to 14 were got examined and Exhibits P.1 to P.21 and M.Os.1 to 4 were got exhibited on behalf of the prosecution.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution side evidence. They reported no witnesses in defence .

7.Heard both sides.

8.The learned prosecutor argued that the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused for the evidence of PWs10 to

PWs14, hence the accused A1 and A2 are liable for conviction.

9.The learned counsel for the accused A1 and A2 argued that except the police officials PWs13 and PW14 none of the witnesses supported the prosecution version him proving the guilt of the accused. All the material witnesses were turned hostile.

None of the circumstances proved by the prosecution to connect the crime with the accused. Therefore, the accused A1 and A2 are entitled for benefit of doubt and they are acquittal from the charges.

5 S.C.No.379/2018

10.On hearing both sides and on perusal of records the following points are arising for consideration.:

1) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 304-B, r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 DP Act?

2) To what result?

11.POINT No.1:- P.W.1 is the de facto complainant she deposed that the deceased is her fourth daughter, who died about 5 years back. Two years prior to her death, she performed her marriage with A1. She further stated that she did not give anything at the time of marriage. The date of incident some festival was performed in the house of accused, on that while the deceased cooking, her saree got fire. On that she was also set-fire in the flames, due to which she died on the spot. It is her further evidence that the brother-in-law of A1 came to her and informed.

Immediately she went to the house of deceased. She further stated that she did not lodge any complaint before the police and police did not examine her.

P.W.2 to P.W.5 are the daughters of the PW1 and elders sisters of the deceased, they were also stated same evidence as 6 S.C.No.379/2018

PW1. Since PWs2 to PW5 are not supported the prosecution version, the learned prosecutor declared them as hostile.

P.W.6 is the daughter in law of PW1. She deposed that PW2 called her and informed about the death of deceased.

Immediately, she went to the house of accused. When she verified the about the death of deceased, she came to know that the deceased saree got fire and she sustained burn injuries.

P.W.7 is a independent witness, he also stated the same as

PW1. PW8 is the photographer, who took the photographs of the dead body on 16.02.2017. Ex.P8 is the positive photographs and

Ex.P9 is the empty C.D.

P.W.9 examined as panch witness for the inquest panchanama and crime detailed form, but PW9 has not supported the prosecution version.

P.W.10 is the medical officer, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. He issued

Ex.P11 post mortem report.

7 S.C.No.379/2018

P.W.11 who worked as Tahsildar of Medipalli, he deposed that on 16.02.2017 he received a requisition from SI of Police, Medipalli under Ex.P12 to conduct inquest. On receipt of the said requisition, he proceeded to Pasunoor village to the house of deceased. There he secured two mediators PW9 and

LW11/Gangadhara Narsaiah. In their presence, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Koppula Latha. He further stated that during the inquest, he got removed leg chains, mattelu and silver rings from the dead body and same were handed over to the family members of the deceased. He further stated that entire body of the deceased was born and intestine of the deceased came out. The panchayathdars opined that the deceased committed suicide, as the accused A1 and A2 harassed her for want of additional dowry. Ex.P13 is the inquest panchanama prepared by him.

P.W.12 is the Medical officer worked in OMEGA Hospital. He deposed that on 17.02.2017 at 1.00pm a patient by name Koppula

Rajesham came to the hospital along with his parents with born injuries about 40 to 45 percent. He further stated that the patient attendants informed him that while the wife of Koppula Rajesham committed suicide, he tried to rescue her. In that process his wife hugged him, due to which he sustained born injuries.

8 S.C.No.379/2018

P.W.13 is the investigating officer worked as SI of Police,

Medipalli PS. He deposed that on 16.02.2017 PW1 lodged Ex.P17 complaint, basing on it, he registered a case in crime No. 25/2017

U/sec. 498-A,. 304-B, r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 DP Act. Ex.P18

FIR.

P.W.14 is the another investigation officer, who worked as

Sub Divisional Police Officer, Metpalli. On 16.02.2017 he received

CD file in Crime No.25/2017 then took up investigation. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against A1 and

A2 for the offences 498-A, 304-B, r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 DP

Act.

12.On the perusal of the evidence on record none of the witnesses more particularly PWs1 to 7 and 9 not not support prosecution version. The learned prosecutor with permission of the Court treated them as hostile witnesses. Even in the cross examination by the learned prosecutor nothing is elicited in supporting the prosecution case to connect the crime with the accused. Though there is no dispute regarding the death of the deceased, but there is no ayota of evidence, that A1 and A2 are responsible for the death of the deceased.

9 S.C.No.379/2018

13.P.W.11 stated that the panchayathdars opined that the deceased committed suicide, as the Accused a1 and A2 harassed for want of additional dowry. The prosecution examined PW9 who is one of panch witness on the inquest panchanama, Ex.P13. He has not supported the prosecution version, he has clearly stated that police has not conducted anything in his presence. PW14 investigating officer in his cross examination admitted that there are no complaints lodged before him previously against A1 and A2 for dowry harassment. Admittedly, the Investigating officer did not collected any material evidence, much less subjecting the deceased for dowry harassment by accused A1 and A2.

14.PW12 in his evidence stated that a patient by name

Kopula Rajesham / A1 treated in their Omega Hospital from 17.2.2017 to 14.03.2017. Further stated that the patient attendant reports that he sustained burn injuires, that he treid to resuce his wife. On seeing the evidence in the cross examination of PW12 , it goes to show that his entire evidence is vague and the

Investigating officer has not collected any material evidence to establish that A1 sustained injuries on the date of incident, while rescuing the deceased. The said relavent evidence in the cross examination is as follows:

10 S.C.No.379/2018 “ The patient directly came to Omega Hospital. We informed to the concerned to police about the admission of patient with burn injuries, I did not filed any proof or record regarding the intimation given to the police concern. It is true Ex.P16 is the

Xerox copy of the case-sheet. I did not got the original case- sheet. It is true in Ex.P15 I have not mentioned the Identification marks of the patient. It is true in Ex.P15 I have not mentioned the age of the injuries. It is true in Ex.P15 I have not mentioned the specific parts, where the patient sustained burn injuries. It is true in Ex.P15 it was not specifically mentioned whether the patient was treated as inpatient or outpatient.”. If at all A1 admitted in the hospital in Omega Hospital as stated by PW12 and he intimated to police concern, then either PW12 ought to have sent a requisition to the concern Magistrate to record the dying declaration of A1 or the Police ought to have taken the steps to get record the dying declaration of A1. But none of them do so.

Further the evidence in the cross examination of PW12 which is reproduce d supra, shows the vague evidence does not inspiring any confidence to believe his version.

15.On foregoing discussion and on scrutinizing the evidence on record absolutely there is no any ayota of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, much less about the harassment made 11 S.C.No.379/2018 against the accused and also fail to prove that the accused A1 and

A2 are responsible for the death of the deceased. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

16. POINT No2: On the foregoing discussion this court holds that the prosecution measurably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable

Under Section 498-A, 304-B r/w 34 I.P.C and Sec. 3 & 4 D.P Act.

Therefore the accused are entitled for benefit doubt and they are entitled to acquittal.

17.In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section Under Section 498-

A, 304-B r/w 34 I.P.C and Sec. 3 & 4 D.P Act and under Section 235(1), Cr.P.C. they are acquitted of the said offence. The accused

A1 and A2 shall be set at liberty and their bail bond shall stand cancelled after six months. M.O.1 to MO.4 shall be destroyed after appeal time or after disposal of appeal if any.

Typed to dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of April, 2022.

II-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR AT JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

12 S.C.No.379/2018

WITNESES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: P.W-1. B. DevammaNone P.W-2. T. Rajeswhwari P.W-3. B. Mounika P.W-4. P. Bhagyalaxmi P.W-5. B. Gangadhar P.W-6. P. Raju P.W-7. M. Devaiah P.W-8. G. Nagesh P.W-9. D. Rajeshwari P.W-10. Dr. M. Mallikarjun P.W-11 K. Krishnaveni P.W-12 Dr. Ch., Santhosh P.W-13 A. Kiran Kumar P.W-14 N. Malla Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P.2 Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P.3 Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 Ex.P.4Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 Ex.P.5Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 Ex.P.6Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6 Ex.P.7Section 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7 Ex.P.86 positive photographs by PW8 Ex.P.9Compact Disk (CD). Ex.P.10Copy of requisition filed by PW10. Ex.P.11 Postmortem examination by PW10. Ex.P.12Attested copy of requisition by PW11. Ex.P.13Inquest by PW11. Ex.P.14Requisition by PW12. Ex.P.15MLC certificate. Ex.P.16Charge sheet. Ex.P.17Complainant of PW13 Ex.P.18FIR by PW13 Ex.P.19Crime detailed form. Ex.P.20Letter of Advice Ex.P.21RFSL Report.

FOR THE DEFENCE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Lighter M.O.2 floor pieces M.O.3: controlled earth M.O.4: Kerosine can.

II-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR AT JAGTIAL.

OS/14/2021

GADALA ASHA MALLAIAH vs BASA RAJA GANGARAM

27 Apr 2022

1 OS.No.14 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR AT JAGTIAL.

PRESENT: SRI G.SUDARSHAN,

II-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR AT JAGTIAL.

WEDNESDAY, THE 27th DAY OF APRIL, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.14 OF 2021

Between: Gadala Asha Mallaiah, S/o.Lingam, Age: 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-4-223, Govindagirinagar, Korutla proper and mandal, Dist: Jagtial.

...Plaintiff.

And

1. Basa Raja Gangaram, S/o.Rajalingam, Age: 51 years, Occ; Business, R/o.H.No.8-6-11/3, Kothirampur, Karimnagar town and mandal and district.

2. Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Branth Kourtla, R/by authorized official of the Branch.

...Defendant.

Sub:- Suit for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale

This suit is coming on 22.02.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Anand, Advocate for plaintiff; and defendant having chosen to remain ex parte; upon perusing material papers on record, upon hearing argument of plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration this day the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed under Order VII, Rule 1 and 2 of

CPC read with Section 26 of CPC for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.8.2021.

2 OS.No.14 of 2021

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

The defendant is the exclusive owner of Residential House

No.1-4-223, site 210 square yards situated at Govindagirinagar,

Korutla town and mandal and he offered to sell the said house to the plaintiff in the year 2020, accordingly the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same and entered into a sale agreement dated 28.8.2021, negotiations have been taken place and price of the said house has fixed at Rs.65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Lakhs only) and the plaintiff have paid a sum of Rs.48,00,000/- to the defendant No.1, he stated that the said house is under equitable mortgage loan with the defendant No.2 to the tune of

Rs.15,00,000/-. By receiving the said amount the defendant

No.1 has executed a written agreement of sale dated 28.8.2021 in favour of plaintiff in the presence of witnesses B.Mohan and

Baira Laxmi Devi. One Volapu Gangadhar scribed the agreement of sale. The defendant No.1 has handed over the said house property to the plaintiff on the day of agreement and 3 OS.No.14 of 2021 introduced the defendant No.2 who also expressed his willingness for the sale agreement under the condition that the remaining loan amount to be paid earliest so that the defendant

No.1 would be discharged from the equitable mortgage loan.

Plaintiff also paid Rs.60,000/- to the defendant No.2 under three installments to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month.

It is further averred that as per the written agreement of sale dated 28.8.2021 the plaintiff is roaming around the defendant No.1 and several times approached him and requested him to execute the Registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff but the defendant No.1 by saying evasive reasons postponing the same till date.

It is further averred that, as per the agreement of sale the plaintiff is ready to perform his part of contract by depositing the remaining amount in the bank and the defendant

No.1 has to perform his part of contract by executing the 4 OS.No.14 of 2021 registered sale deed after discharging equitable mortgage with the defendant No.2. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 due to increase of property cost in the open market, seriously trying to alienate the same to third parties.

Aggrieved by the acts of the defendant No.1, the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 2.11.2021 calling him to come forward for the execution of Registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property and the said legal notice was received by the defendant No.1 and kept quiet. After receiving of legal notice the plaintiff came to know that with mala fide intention the defendant No.1 seriously trying to alienate the suit schedule property to the third parties. As such the plaintiff is left with no other alternative except to knock the doors of this Court. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant remained ex parte.

4.Now the points for determination is:

5 OS.No.14 of 2021

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement of sale as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs A1 to

A6.

6.Heard. Perused the record.

7.POINT No.1:- The plaintiff as P.W.1 reiterated the plaint averments, in support of his case, he got exhibited Exs.A.1 to A.6. Ex.A.1 is the agreement of sale dated 28.8.2021.

Ex.A.2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 2.11.2021. Ex.A.3 is the professional courier receipt. Ex.A.4 is the Me-seva copy of memorandum of deposit of title deeds Reg. Document bearing

No.3607/2017, dated 23.10.2017. Ex.A.5 is the Me-seva copy of statement of encumbrance. Ex.A.6 is the statement of account 6 OS.No.14 of 2021 of Union Bank of India of wife of plaintiff.

9.The evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted since the defendant remained set ex parte. As such, it is presumed that the defendant had admitted the claim of the plaintiff in toto. The unchallenged and unrebutted evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.6 proves the suit claim of the plaintiff. Hence, Defendant No.1 in terms of Ex.A.1 agreement

dated 28.08.2021 has to receive the balance sale consideration

of Rs.17,00,000/- and has to execute registered sale deed of the suit schedule property in plaintiff's favour after discharging equitable mortgage with the defendant No.2. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

10.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.17,00,000/- from the plaintiff within one month from today. In turn immediately after receipt of said 7 OS.No.14 of 2021 balance sale consideration Rs.17,00,000/- the defendant No.1 shall execute the registered sale deed of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff after discharging equitable mortgage with the defendant No.2.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II directly on Computer screen, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2022.

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

Karimnagar, at Jagtial.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For the Plaintiff: P.W.1 : Gadala Asha Mallaiah For the Defendant: None Exhibits marked For the Plaintiffs: Ex.A.128.8.2021Agreement of sale

Ex.A.202/11/21Office copy of legal notice

Ex.A.3--Professional courier receipt

Ex.A.423.10.2017Me-seva copy of memorandum of deposit of title deeds Reg. Document bearing No.3607/2017, dated 23.10.2017.

Ex.A.5--Me-seva copy of statement of Encumbrance

Ex.A.6--StatementofaccountofUnion Bank of India of wife of Plaintiff namely Gadela Lavanya. For the Defendant: None

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

Karimnagar, at Jagtial.

Order Record 695 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OP/8/2017	Nam@Chilla Jyoshsna vs Nam Santhosh	02 May 2022	ORDER	—
OS/14/2021	GADALA ASHA MALLAIAH vs BASA RAJA GANGARAM	27 Apr 2022	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/35/2017	Badineni Rajamani vs Rakesh Kumar Rajak	26 Apr 2022	ORDER	—
SC/109/2018	M.Ashok, SI of Police, Metpalli. vs Eleshwaram Venugopal	26 Apr 2022	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
EP/3/2021	Shriram city union finance ltd vs Chowdarapu Girish kumar	25 Apr 2022	OTHER	—
SC/379/2018	Sub Divisional Police Officer, Metpalli vs Koppula Rajesham	25 Apr 2022	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
OS/32/2016	Salla Pedda Mallaiah vs Vanathadupula Anjaiah	22 Apr 2022	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/1/2017	Paikari Veena vs Bingi Ramesh	21 Apr 2022	ORDER	—
MVOP/102/2017	Boddukuri Srimannarayana vs Bheemanathi Hemanth	20 Apr 2022	ORDER	—
OS/27/2014	Muthkela Buchi Raju vs Mittapally Gangavva	19 Apr 2022	JUDGMENT	—
EP/4/2022	Shriram City Union Finance Ltd vs Laxman Konda	18 Apr 2022	OTHER	—
MVOP/90/2017	Joga Gangadhar vs Boggarapu Venu	18 Apr 2022	ORDER	—
G.W.O.P/1/2022	NALMAS RAMYAKRISHNA vs NALMAS RAMESH KUMAR	18 Apr 2022	ORDER	—
SC/254/2017	The Station House Officer (P.S. Medipally) vs Bathula Raju	13 Apr 2022	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/18/2017	Parakonda Raju vs Takkuri Mallesh	12 Apr 2022	ORDER	—
MVOP/22/2017	Gundarapu Indira vs Navanandi Lokesh	12 Apr 2022	ORDER	—
MVOP/117/2017	Nandella@Nandhi Harish vs Badikela Venkata Rajam	06 Apr 2022	ORDER	—
MVOP/118/2017	Anugula Ilaiah vs Badikela Venkata Rajam	06 Apr 2022	ORDER	—
CRLA/84/2018	Nalimela Chandramouli vs Nalimela @ Embadi Mounika	01 Apr 2022	ORDER	—
CRLRP/33/2021	Jakkula Gangarajam vs Jakkula Raju	01 Apr 2022	ORDER	—
SC/76/2019	The State through Circle Inspector of Police, Korutla P.S. vs Medipalli Muthyam Reddy	31 Mar 2022	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/2/2017	Pogula Chinna Narsu@ Narsu vs E.Balaswamy	30 Mar 2022	ORDER	—
SC/439/2018	Circle Inspector of Police, Korutla vs Konka Rajashekar @ Shekar	29 Mar 2022	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/173/2014	Parumala Gangaiah vs Bandi Sathaiah	28 Mar 2022	ORDER	—
OS/28/2015	Alle Anand vs Arikanti Chinna Mallaiah @ Chinna Mallaiah	28 Mar 2022	JUDGMENT	—
CMA/5/2017	Gurrala Narsaiah vs Mummadi Chandramouly	25 Mar 2022	ORDER	—
EP/14/2020	Indiabulls conumer finance ltd vs Chirra laxmirajam	25 Mar 2022	OTHER	—
EP/6/2019	hriram City Union Finance.Manager.A.Mallikharjun vs Bonela Bhaskar	24 Mar 2022	OTHER	—
OS/1/2013	Burugu Rama Swamy vs Yatam Sagar	24 Mar 2022	JUDGMENT	—
EP/22/2019	Shriram city union finance ltd vs Kandukuri thirupathi	22 Mar 2022	OTHER	—
MVOP/98/2017	Acha Bhudavva vs Wajeed Alam	22 Mar 2022	ORDER	—
MVOP/54/2018	Mothukuri Laxmi vs Gandla Laxman	21 Mar 2022	ORDER	—
SC/132/2020	The State through CI of Police, Jagtial rural police station. vs Pottavatgubu Sathish	21 Mar 2022	JUDGMENT	—
EP/1/2021	Shriram city union finance ltd vs Dubbaka Shankaraiah	16 Mar 2022	OTHER	—
EP/12/2020	Indiabulls consumer finance ltd vs Bathula rajendhar	16 Mar 2022	OTHER	—
MVOP/37/2017	Thandra Gangavva vs Md.Manzoor Ali	16 Mar 2022	ORDER	—
EP/21/2019	Shriram city union finance ltd vs Konduri anil kumar	14 Mar 2022	OTHER	—
MVOP/2/2020	Bejjarapu laxmi vs Singireddy rajashekar reddy	12 Mar 2022	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/3/2020	Joshna devi vs Vijay singh	12 Mar 2022	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/23/2020	Kallem raji reddy vs Kayithi mahesh reddy	12 Mar 2022	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/23/2021	Kudugunta Gouthami vs Patnam Rajesh	12 Mar 2022	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/50/2019	Athram thirupathi vs Mukundu murali	12 Mar 2022	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/70/2021	Dosarapu Bhumarajam vs Mohammad Ameer	12 Mar 2022	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/73/2021	Janga Tirumala vs Kailash Paswan	12 Mar 2022	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/82/2021	KUSARI MAHESH vs KALLEPALLI LAXMAN	12 Mar 2022	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/172/2016	Ollepu Shivamma @ Vallepu Shivamma vs Naresh Yadav	12 Mar 2022	Lokadalat Award	—
SC/166/2021	The State through Circle Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri PS vs Deepak Agasthi	11 Mar 2022	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/64/2016	Vooradi Srinivas alias Uradi Srinivas vs Dnyaneshwar Dinkar Dukale	09 Mar 2022	OTHER	—
OS/1/2021	Vemula@Karnala Ramesh vs Karnala deva murthy	09 Mar 2022	OTHER	—
SC/8/2021	The state through CI of Police, P.S. Korutla vs Perla Mallesham @ Mallaiah	09 Mar 2022	OTHER	—
MVOP/179/2016	Aku Rajender vs Pandilla Babu	07 Mar 2022	ORDER	—
OS/9/2015	Aileni Laxman vs Bommakanti Jalandar	07 Mar 2022	JUDGMENT	—
SC/430/2017	The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police vs Nampalli Srinivas	22 Feb 2022	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/3/2017	Thogari Laxmi vs Kamtala Vaibhav	18 Feb 2022	ORDER	—
CRLA/6/2018	Gurram Swamy vs The State through Public prosecutor, Karimnagar P.S. Jagtial Town.	10 Feb 2022	ORDER	—
SC/264/2018	C.I. of Police, Mallial Circle vs Nampalli Srinu @ Srinivas	07 Feb 2022	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/18/2018	Jarupula@Daravath Devayani vs Yallasiri Sriramulu	01 Feb 2022	Lokadalat Award	—
AS/17/2018	Ganta Prameela vs Kammala Suvarna	31 Jan 2022	JUDGMENT	—
OS/22/2015	Rudra Ravi Kumar vs Sirumalla Surya Prakash	27 Jan 2022	JUDGMENT	—
SC/151/2017	Kalapala Nageshwar Rao vs Panchimatla Sadanandam	24 Jan 2022	JUDGMENT	—
G.W.O.P/114/2017	Endla Rajendar vs Edla Rajitha	24 Jan 2022	ORDER	—
AS/8/2017	Yelaveni Gangaram vs Yelaveni Narsaiah	21 Jan 2022	JUDGMENT	—
SC/401/2017	THE STATE THROUGH C.I. OF POLICE vs PALLAPU ANJANEYULU	20 Jan 2022	JUDGMENT	—
G.W.O.P/2/2020	Dr.Bheemanathini Shankar vs Nalla@Bheemanathini Pallavi	19 Jan 2022	ORDER	—
G.W.O.P/4/2021	Ponnala Rajamouli @ Ponaganti Brahmachari vs To whom so ever it may concerned	12 Jan 2022	ORDER	—
MVOP/18/2020	Purella laxmi vs Kokkula laxman	10 Jan 2022	ORDER	—
CRLRP/3/2020	Shaik Aleem vs Khalida begum	10 Jan 2022	ORDER	—
CRLRP/13/2020	Bunadri Sammaiah @ Kumar vs Bunadri Rajavva	07 Jan 2022	ORDER	—
CRLRP/27/2018	Mohd. Mutheruddin vs Fouziya Firdouse @ Firdouse	07 Jan 2022	ORDER	—
SC/300/2018	C.I. of Police, Ibrahimpatnam P.S. vs Garige Ashok	07 Jan 2022	JUDGMENT	—
OS/17/2013	Mittapally Venkata Rajam vs Rasuganti Raghu Ramulu	06 Jan 2022	JUDGMENT	—
CMA/6/2018	Koluguri Srinivas Rao vs Akoju Bheeshma Chary	04 Jan 2022	JUDGMENT	—
OS/10/2015	Lingala Venkateshwar Rao vs Pandari Narsaiah	04 Jan 2022	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/60/2016	Dothula Gangaiah vs Naseer Ahmed Syed	30 Dec 2021	ORDER	—
MVOP/109/2016	Syed Goremiya vs Venkade Kishan	30 Dec 2021	ORDER	—
CRLA/64/2018	Voggari Srikanth vs The State through Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar P.S. Pegadapalli	30 Dec 2021	JUDGMENT	—
MVOP/40/2018	Manupati Rajamma vs Pendam Upendar	29 Dec 2021	ORDER	—
MVOP/77/2018	Nootipalli Srilatha vs Satta Gangaram	29 Dec 2021	ORDER	—
CRLA/128/2018	Dasari Narsaiah vs The State Police through Sub Inspector of police	29 Dec 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/10/2020	bonthala soujanya vs Vskasuganti sudhakar rao	28 Dec 2021	ORDER	—
OS/19/2016	Vemulawada Chandrashekar vs Vemulawada Ramaswamy	28 Dec 2021	OTHER	—
EP/2/2019	Garipelly Ramuli vs Abdul Raheem	20 Dec 2021	OTHER	—
MVOP/58/2017	Kanaka Gangavva @ Gangamma vs Male Premsingh	17 Dec 2021	ORDER	—
OS/2/2016	Kasarla Tharabhai vs Naredla Lingamma	17 Dec 2021	ORDER	—
MVOP/57/2017	Bere Thirumala vs Male Premsingh	16 Dec 2021	ORDER	—
EP/5/2018	Thatikonda Venkata Swamy vs Durshetti Sathaiah	15 Dec 2021	OTHER	—
MVOP/7/2017	Thonti Gangavva vs Bachu Singh	15 Dec 2021	ORDER	—
MVOP/165/2016	Rathnapuram Gangau vs Smpangi Srinivas	15 Dec 2021	ORDER	—
MVOP/7/2021	Burra venkat ramana vs Gajji Rajesh	11 Dec 2021	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/8/2021	Burra lavnya vs Gajji Rajesh	11 Dec 2021	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/9/2021	Burra srinath vs Gajji rajesh	11 Dec 2021	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/10/2021	Agolapu Bhagyalaxmi vs Gajji rajesh	11 Dec 2021	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/12/2019	Balusani Kishan Goud vs Kothapalli Nageshwar Rao	11 Dec 2021	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/29/2017	Kushanapally @ Kuchanapally Vijaya vs Marsakola Ramesh	11 Dec 2021	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/34/2021	Palle Kavitha vs Renikunta Rajendra Prasad	11 Dec 2021	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/36/2019	ANSARI SAROJA vs RAVI BHAVSINGH	11 Dec 2021	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/37/2021	Bolishetti Gangaraju vs Gundla EShwar	11 Dec 2021	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/42/2018	Kante Laxmi vs S.K.Galib Saheb	11 Dec 2021	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/45/2018	Kante Raja Reddy vs S.K. Galib Saheb	11 Dec 2021	Lokadalat Award	—
MVOP/46/2018	Baddam Narsavva @ Narsamma vs Pilli Shanker	11 Dec 2021	Lokadalat Award	—

Showing 100 of 695 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2022		1
Apr 2022		19
Mar 2022		34
Feb 2022		5
Jan 2022		16
Dec 2021		44
Nov 2021		23
Oct 2021		1
Sep 2021		32
Aug 2021		11
Jul 2021		14
Jun 2021		15

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has GANNARAPU SUDARSHAN handled?

GANNARAPU SUDARSHAN has handled 717 court orders since 2019 at Jagitial, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 19 orders per month.

What types of cases does GANNARAPU SUDARSHAN hear?

Based on available records, GANNARAPU SUDARSHAN primarily handles Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Original Suits) and Criminal matters (Criminal Appeals, Sessions Cases) at Jagitial, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is GANNARAPU SUDARSHAN currently posted?

GANNARAPU SUDARSHAN is posted as Spl. Sessions Judge of FTC for POCSO Cases, Jagtial at Jagitial, PDJ Court Complex, Jagitial, Telangana.

Are judgments by GANNARAPU SUDARSHAN available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by GANNARAPU SUDARSHAN are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does GANNARAPU SUDARSHAN dispose cases?

GANNARAPU SUDARSHAN disposes approximately 19 cases per month, based on 717 orders handled over their tenure at Jagitial, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is GANNARAPU SUDARSHAN serving?

GANNARAPU SUDARSHAN has been serving at Jagitial, PDJ Court Complex since 2019.

Case Types

MVOP 44%

CRLA 15%

SC 12%

EP 11%

OS 10%

AS 3%

G 3%

CMA 2%

Posting History

Mar 2022 — May 2022

Spl. Sessions Judge of FTC for POCSO Cases, Jagtial
May 2019 — May 2022

District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial · 717 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 2

Other Judges at this Court

Sri D.Nageswara Rao

Senior Civil Judge

1 orders

R.Lavanya

Prl. Junior Civil Judge

822 orders

Smt. K.Nickysha

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

10 orders

Smt. C. Ratna Padmavathi

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial

238 orders

Smt.G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy

I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial

5 orders

← View all judges at Jagitial, PDJ Court Complex